<i>&gt; I don&#x27;t understand why you insist on focusing on the latter but ignore the former.</i><p>I don&#x27;t think I have focused on either. I&#x27;m primarily just responding to the points others are bringing up. I made my main points in my OP&#x27;s.<p><i>&gt;So you only make decisions when you have a logical argument that justifies a particular choice? You must lead a very...interesting life.
&gt;Also, your use of the word &quot;justice&quot; is not, um, justified. Whether or not someone gets funded by YC is not a matter of justice. Nobody has a right to YC funding.</i><p>It&#x27;s not my use of justice. It is the word the other person in this thread brought in. If you read the thread, you will see that they were making an analogy of this situation to &quot;lady justice&quot;. I agree that it is a rather inept analogy.<p>&gt;People accurately threw spears long, long before anyone discovered Newtonian physics.<p>And sometimes they failed. The essay treats Jessica as fail-proof.<p>&gt;That you believe that you need logical arguments and theories in order to do anything at all is strange.<p>Complete strawman. Show me where I claimed, or even implied as such.<p>If you wish to convict someone a la the lady of justice, then yes, I do believe you need logical arguments and theories before you can do anything (in regards to punishment).