The question is ambiguous. Is an "accusation" "this mage has illegally healed" or "this mage has done this specific illegal healing"?

practicing empathy

Nobody says "I'm going to spare some video game characters, because I like to think that someone would spare me". There has to be some relevant similarity between the worm and me which would distinguish it from cases like that. It needn't be causal, but it has to be something. What is it?

(And if you reply "video game characters don't have feelings", I would of course say that worms don't either.)

making the world the type of place you'd like it to be.

"Type of place" is a vague term. Do you mean "the type of place where nobody steps on worms" or "the type of place where nobody steps on worms or people"? In the former case, I don't care about making the world such a place. In the latter, I'd again ask what's so similar about worms and people that putting them together forms a natural category.

It seems like the whole thing is based around the unsaid premise "worms are like people, so empathy for one has some connection to empathy for the other". It's unsaid because if you said it, you'd have to defend it, and I don't think there is a good defense for it.

That doesn't make sense unless you rescuing the worm has some connection to someone rescuing you. What connection are you claiming?

Crimes that are harder to catch should be more harshly punished

Please, don't do this.

Your reasoning amounts to "we need to increase the punishment to compensate for all the false negatives".

If the only kind of error that existed was false negatives, you might have a point. But it isn't. False positives exist too. And crimes that are harder to catch are probably going to have more false positives. Harsher punishments also create bigger incentives for either false positives, or for standards that make everyone guilty of serious crimes all the time, thus letting anyone be punished at the whim of the moderators while pretending that they are not.

Why does "Amish society" not then count as a greater power?

You can gerrymander a result from that by changing whether you're a lumper or a splitter. Is Wal-Mart a single entity or is it a coalition of groups that have some similar goals but who also sometimes work against each other? Is a political party? Is "capitalists" a coalition and can we say that Elon Musk is in a coalition with other rich people?

Likewise, if we assume the agent’s behavior in Newcomb’s problem is also determined by a function—its *decision procedure—*then, if the predictor can model this function, it can accurately predict what the agent will do.

How does this not fail to the Halting Problem?

I agree that any discussion of god-related topics might take several times longer, since you’d have to go into cognitive biases.

Okay then, let's use homeopathy as an example. I can fairly and honestly say that my position--which is that homeopathy is crap--is basically 100% correct. Or Holocaust deniers. I can fairly and honestly say that my position--which is that the Holocaust was real--is basically 100% correct.

Saying "everyone's human, every side has smart people on it, so the sides are 50% correct" doesn't work. Holocaust deniers are certainly human, and they're not stupid. But they and I are not equally correct.

(I'd also ask, if you're going to exclude god-related topics because of cognitive biases, how is that not special pleading? In other contexts, you reject the idea of saying "my political opponents have cognitive biases". After all we're all human, all sides have smart people, etc.)

No, I couldn't. Because the object level is important. Both evolutionists and creationists can say that the other side is biased, refuses to look at evidence, etc. But when it comes to creation versus evolution, only one side actually is. The symmetry collapses into asymmetry. Creation versus evolution is a prime example of your thesis being wrong. There are two sides, they can't convince each other, they say the other side is reasoning poorly... and yet someone who understands evolution can fairly and honestly say that their position is about 100% correct.

If the truth is on your side, you will be able to convince others without using dirty tricks, won’t you?

I'm pretty sure that I couldn't convince a creationist that evolution is correct. And not because creation and evolution each have a 50% chance of being correct.