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.

So it’s actually a lot closer to this. His failure to stop the random burglar at the store led to Uncle Ben dying.

Yes, but as you yourself note:

A police officer is like “hey mister, all you had to do was trip them for me”

Spider-Man could have stopped him with negligible cost to himself.

“We shouldn’t help others out” is a very niche view in the US to the point of basically being a weakman argument,

But it's not "we shouldn't help others out". It's "we are not obligated to help others out". That's very different.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say but Spider-Man goes out saving people because he has the power to save people.

The incident that supposedly taught Spider-Man that with great power comes great responsibility was him refusing to stop a criminal and the criminal killing Uncle Ben. But in that story, he could have stopped the criminal easily, with negligible loss to himself.

What did not happen in that story is that someone asked Spider-Man to give up his social life for six months being a hero, he refused, and Uncle Ben would have lived if only he had stopped some particular criminal 20 miles away at 1 AM during the fourth month. The lesson that Spider-Man took out of it--that he has to help people at great expense to himself--doesn't match the actual event--where he should have helped someone at no expense to himself.

the most believed in religious text of our country has plenty to say about helping those in need for the sake of it

Are you a religious person? Do you believe we should run society according to the Bible? I am not, and I do not.

And the main problem with USAID, as others have pointed out, is that helping people was entangled up with promotion of left-wing politics. Saying that we are forced to keep promoting the left-wing politics because otherwise we wouldn't be saving people is a hostage puppy.