Draco has been well trained enough (by his father and by General Chaos) to know that you don't say stuff to people you are murdering.

On /r/HPMOR, some have been speculating that Dumbledore coated the Philosopher's Stone with Bahl's Stupefaction, which you might remember from chapter 63:

"Bahl's Stupefaction," Moody said, naming an extremely addictive narcotic with interesting side effects on people with Slytherin tendencies; Moody had once seen an addicted Dark Wizard go to ridiculous lengths to get a victim to lay hands on a certain exact portkey, instead of just having someone toss the target a trapped Knut on their next visit to town; and after going to all that work, the addict had gone to the further effort to lay a second Portus, on the same portkey, which had, on a second touch, transported the victim back to safety. To this day, even taking the drug into account, Moody could not imagine what could have possibly been going through the man's mind at the time he had cast the second Portus.

This would explain why Voldemort let Harry keep his wand after swearing the Unbreakable Vow, and now also might explain Harry's recent actions.

I thought it was bleeding because of the magical resonance that was actually happening at that time when other Harry hit LV with the stuporfy.

"No, what you remembered was how you considered lining up all the blood purists and guillotining them. And now you are telling yourself you were not serious, but you were. If you could do it this very moment and no one would ever know, you would. "

The Sorting Hat sees the future! Tom lined up the blood purists and guillotined them, and no one will ever know.

I agree with your assessment of how powerful Perenelle/Flamel (side note: need a good portmanteau a la Quirrellmort) should be, having been able to outwit Baba Yaga in her sixth year and then having six hundred years of excellent leverage to accumulate lore and also maybe play with what the stone can do.

That objection notwithstanding, the most plausible non-Voldemort killer would be Bellatrix, using her superpower of very strict obedience to orders like "Just use AK and do not hesitate for any reason".

I would much rather make phone calls and schedule events than fight Orcs. The latter sounds scary.

...That being said, I do like the aspects of my current job where I get to defibrillate people once in a while. I'm going to miss that.

S1 relates to a topic on which many have strong normative feelings; S2 does not.

OK, so the issue is the social expectations about whether the issue is controversial and whether one is expected to have a normative attitude towards it? And in such a case, all statements will be interpreted as normative unless there are explicit disclaimers to the contrary?

I'd expect you to know that the assumption in my first paragraph exists

No, not really. I rarely speak normatively and in such cases I'm explicit about it. Typically I make descriptive observations, possibly with a variety of connotations and implications, but they are almost never of the "so you should believe/do X" kind. Normally they are of the "this is complicated, are you aware of this trade-off and that internal inconsistency?" kind.

I do set gotcha traps on occasion, but the sense of fair play usually makes me point them out beforehand. People still fall into them, anyway :-D

I think this should still happen.

I've actually tried this before, under the notion that I'd get a higher chance of landing the job relative to other applicants. I wouldn't do it again - I'm pretty sure the real outcome is that I lowered my perceived value. Signalling!

Now that I phrase it in light of game theory though - if it had worked, it would be a neat demonstration of how two super-rational players win out over game-theoretically rational players. What I describe is also how the free market is supposed to work - my benefit in "cooperating" derives from cutting the competition out of the trade by offering a better deal.

I think it basically comes to, if the rational agent recognizes that the rational thing to do is to NOT buckle under blackmail, regardless of what the rational agent simulating them threatens, then the blackmailer's simulation of the blackmailee will also not respond to that pressure, and so it's pointless to go to the effort of pressuring them in the first place. However, if the blackmailer is irrational, their simulation of the blackmailee will be irrational, and thus they will carry through with the threat. This means that the blackmailee's simulation of the blackmailer as rational is itself inaccurate, as the simulation does not correspond to reality. If the blackmailee is irrational, their simulation of the blackmailer will be irrational, and thus they will concede to their demands. Yet, each party acts as if their simulation of the other was correct, until actual, photon-transmitted information about the world can impress itself into their cognitive function. So, no-one gets what they want. The best choice for a rational agent here is just to ignore the good professor. On the other hand, you can't argue with results. And there's a simulation of Quirrel s-quirreled away in your brain, whispering.