absolutism, treating their conclusions and the righteousness of their cause as obvious, and assuming it should override ordinary business considerations.
It doesn't take certainty in any position to criticize driving at half-speed.
Seen in the light of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act asymmetrically binding Republicans, what you're calling an "unprovoked bout of gerrymandering" might be better understood as an attempt to reduce the unfair advantage Democrats have had nationally for decades.
Peer review, for all its flaws, is the best tool to ensure the integrity and rigor of scientific discourse about any important issue
Is this a belief that evidence could disabuse you of, or an affirmation of faith? What other systems you have considered that didn't have the flaws of the currently entrenched system, and assessed their flaws to be worse?
1entries from a dictionary that will never exist, even though it should.
Reminds me of the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.
If you say "all persons" you have to define what a person is.
Part c) of your thought experiment makes this trivial: a "person" is anyone you could be swapped with.
1A person with "depression, chronic pain, ennui or some other cognitive flaw" taking up some new religious ritual seems to me like a symptom of psychotic break, not the cause.
1Two things I was not able to find a good replacement for in Linux when I was last using it a few years ago: Everything and AutoHotKey. Those are so good, and WSL perfectly adequate, that I'm now loath to switch away from Windows.
AHK_X11 is a fairly recent port of AHK for Linux that might be worth checking out; I haven't used it, but if it's half as good as the Windows version, it'll be great. If nothing else, you might like vimium-everywhere, which that'll let you run.
For Chrome, while Tridactyl might be more powerful, I've found Vimium sufficient.
1
1I can't tell you with certainty how the weights will move during the training process, but I can tell you where it's going at a higher level.
Relevant xkcd: link.
If I came up with a game in which always saying "[wrong answer], ≈0%" was a winning strategy, I'd conclude not valuing correctness at all was a fatally flawed idea, and the change the rules so that wasn't true any more, not insist the game was fine, and it's the people who actually thought about the rules who were playing it wrong.