The fact that you had to choose so ridiculous an example suggests that Paul Graham is basically correct.
No it doesn't. It suggests that when selecting examples for the purpose of countering generalizations wedrifid chooses examples that are clear and unambiguous to anyone who correctly parses the claim rather than choosing the most likely counter example. This is particularly the case when rejecting the extent of a general claim while accepting the gist - as I went out of the way to make explicit.
I also reject the idea that the second example I gave is at all unrealistic:
Punish all observed incidents of stupidity with physical beating.
Corporal punishment for stupidity is an actual (hopefully mostly historical) thing.
Corporal punishment for stupidity is an actual (hopefully mostly historical) thing.
I can't help this quote:
"Stupidity is always a capital crime."
--N-Space, Larry Niven
Take off every 'quote'! You know what you doing. For great insight. Move 'quote'.
And if you don't: