1. The correct answer will vary depending on whose perspective, the law’s or mine? Since I am a person, a part of the “people”, and people’s one great purpose of living is to self-preserve, we, the people, should have the law protect us, that is, if we can pick only either one of the conditions that the question is asking. But since, technically, a disjunctive statement (or statement) means both conditions can be chosen, I would say both if that law fulfills its purpose of existence, which is to protect us!

2. Speed of dark is the speed of light, technically. Darkness means absence of light, therefore when a light comes at its full speed at a room full of darkness, the darkness will go away at the same time the light enters. Next, if a shadow ever moves faster than light, that could mean a non-transparent object is traveling towards a source of light at a time-forwarding speed.

3. The point of proving seems to be that only one condition can be true for each human being on this planet. Assuming the definition of relative is direct relatives, not distant all the way to the origin of human beings, then we should able to easily weed out all most all population of the earth, except myself. I am not sure if it is correct to consider myself as a relative or not. We would need a better dictionary for this

4. The most objectively worst trolling/mind game… I am not sure if there is even an objective answer for this but I will give it a try. But first, there needs some agreement on the meaning of the “worst”. Worst, as it means lamest or dumbest? Or as it means brilliant?
   I have a feeling the questioner is asking for the latter so I will just answer that. For a trolling/mind game to be objectively the best, I would think the game trolls/mind-fucks the victim the most extreme degree, in our case, Batman. What game would Batman say it was the biggest mind-fuck? Perhaps, if Joker makes Batman believes Joker has been the good guy all along and Batman himself was the villain!

1. 5 Keep it around just in case, do I need to explain?

2. 6 To determine whether something is a sin or virtue depends on what is objectively considered sin or virtue. If God says you could sin while dreaming, then I guess it is so. Can a person commit sin and virtue at the same time? I don’t think sin and virtue has to be opposite of one another, so I would say perhaps.

3. 7 The question doesn’t specify whether the prosperously lived person was truly an evil monster, but it seems to mean that there is some misunderstanding to his image. I would care less what others think, especially after I am dead. As long as I know I was decent, living a prosperous life and ignorant life seems so much more pleasant. What’s fun about being broken and smarter than everyone else? Sounds like miserable life to me.

4. 8 I don’t get the first question. A physical proof that movement exists is that I moved. Quantum teleportation? I think I heard of that before, like how some opposite particles can communicate instantaneously regardless of how far they are apart. Can we apply this to all particles? Is that more likely to be than the other? The nature tends to flow in the direction of the least resistance, I think this also applies to what are most likely to be true.
   Or quantum teleportation as it means the random movement of particles in a given space? If so, whether it is yes depends on whether transportation is not considered as a movement or not.

Thanks for interesting questions. I had fun :)