Not really on-topic, but I am the only one who find video a very bad support for rational thinking ? You can't first give a quick glance to the content first, you can't read it carefully at your own pace, or re-read certain parts when needed, or make a pause to ponder or check a fact or an argument, or make a criticism by quoting parts and writing your opinion on the part, ...

All that in addition to technical issues : video require much more bandwidth, a working sound system (right now I'm during lunch break at work, I've no sound, but I can read text), is much harder to understand for non-native speakers, and is much less accessible to people with disabilities.

I don't get this fashion of doing everything through videos... am I the only one to feel that way ?

I'm lucky to be in France, a very secular country, in which atheists and agnostics together make a majority of the population, so all is fine for me on those issues. Transhumanism is a bit harder, but it's more a "huh you read too much scifi" than real hostility.

To me, the main reason behind deontology and similar non-consequentialists moral theories are to work around the human bias, our inability to implement fully consequentialism (because of overconfidence, hyperbolic discounting, stress, emotional weight, ...).

Having a way to encode a deontological moral theory into a utility function (and use consequentialism on it later on) is a nice thing, but not really useful when the point of deontology is that it (arguably) works better on faulty hardware and buggy software we run on than raw consequentialism. If we could perform consequentialism safely, we wouldn't need deontology.

So I stand to my current stance : I use consequentialism when cold-blooded and thinking abstractly, to devise and refine ethical rules ("deontology"), but when directly concerned by something or in the heat of events, I use the deonotological rules decided beforehand, unless I've a very, very strong consequentialist reason not to do so, because I don't trust myself to wield raw consequentialism, and the failure mode of poorly implemented consequentialism is usually worse than of poorly implemented deontology (when you can revise the deontological code afterwards, at least, I'm not speaking of a bible-like code that can't change even in the course of centuries).

The Killing Curse is unblockable, unstoppable, and works every single time on anything with a brain.

Not related to the current discussion, but I was always very unsettled by that kind of affirmation.

From both canon and MoR, the Killing Curse looks like missile spell. A bolt of green light flows from the wand to the target, and kills it. But the bolt can't get around material objects, it doesn't go through them, and it doesn't switch directions to avoid them like a seeker missile could do.

It can't be blocked by raw magic (Protego and similar) but what prevents Actio, Wingdarium Leviosa or Free Transfiguration to be used to create a physical barrier to block the spell ?

And going even further, couldn't armor be made to block the spell ? It kills through clothes, but can very thick clothes prevent the effect ? If you make an armor with two layers, physically separated, the outer layer kept from touching the inner layer through electromagnetic forces or magic, would the outer layer count as an obstacle ?

I think SkyDK was referring to the vow he made in chapter 85, that he'll try the superhero way (not killing his enemies) as long as no one dies (be it a friend or just a by -stander), but that the day someone days because of his enemies, he'll no longer restrain himself and kill them. Not to the "old" vow about avenging the death of Narcissa.

Additionally, it seems (at least in cannon) that making a Horcrux mutilates the person, damaging (or completely destroying) his ability to love, use empathy, ... so from an utilitarian point of view, it's not "a lot of life years" again "a few life years" but "a lot of years living a mutilated life" against "a few years living a complete life", which is not the same.

And if horcruxing really gets rid of empathy, love and related emotions, it's likely that if it were generalized, the whole society would collapse - leading to lots of negative utility.

the fact that somebody can break in means that somebody can break out too, with help from the outside

There is the issue of wands. Wandless magic is, at least for humans, much less powerful than wand magic. So it's perfectly conceivable to me to have obstacles that are virtually impossible to overpower if you're wandless, but possible to overpower if you're a wand and are a good wizard (which Voldemort surely is).

The "his followers could continue to communicate with him" is indeed a real problem. But it seems (both in canon and in MOR) Azkaban itself is not so hard to break from the outside, only (almost) impossible to escape from inside.

capital punishment, something Harry doesn't seem to mind.

Why do you say that ? He seems very opposed to capital punishment to me, that's why he takes the resolution to try to not kill Voldemort. That's also why he wants to destroy Azkaban.

Thanks, I think part of my surprise was from a different understanding of "he'll feel forced to kill Quirrel", to me that means "he'll take the decision of trying to kill Quirrel, using whatever indirect plan, surprise, henchmen, ... in the process", not just a one-to-one fight in which Harry kills Quirrel (like the way he kills Voldemort in the cannon). I agree the probability of such one-to-one fight is quite low.

Your probabilities seem way too low to me. Just one chance in 10 that because of the vow he'll be forced to kill the one we have many evidence to believe he's the arch-enemy ? Can you elaborate the reasons why you put such a low probability to that ?