Should people be punished socially for being rude and inconsiderate, etc?

How can we ever talk about what would be? If a statement A is assumed, that's not actually true, then anything would follow since a conditional with a false hypothesis is always true. But anything (such as "P and not-P") can't be true. This seems to show that a statement that is not true would never be true to begin with. Thus, we can't talk about what would be, only what is. For example, I'm not driving to the store. But if I were, I'd also be swimming. Of course, though, I can't drive to the store and swim at the same time. This comes to show that so long as I'm not driving to the store, we can't ever discuss the situation where I am driving to the store, since that situation implies a contradiction.

When I write on social forums on the net people want to correct my speeling or my grammar. Is there any good reason for that other than aesthetics?

if you have an unethical position or emotion towards a person or issue, but never act on it, is it still unethical?

Is it unethical to not tell your date that you are not interested in a long term relationship with them until they start developing feelings for you?

Are intentions of equal importance to actions? For example, if I were to be deliberately harmed by another who claimed they had no good reason for their action, or was equally harmed by someone who claimed to hate me because I am a woman why could the latter be more harshly punished, if deemed a hate crime, than the former?

How justified is a doctor's decision to practise cosmetics when he had sworn upon the Hippocratic Oath?

If I am very interested in philosophy to the point where I would one day like to write a philosophical treatise or take part in the global exchange of philosophical ideas, but have little or no interest in teaching, would seeking a Ph.D in philosophy be unneccesary? This is putting aside the need for the discipline of setting one's mind to undertaking a thesis as I would likely obtain graduate education in a different, yet supplementary field?

People drink beer to have fun and nobody calls that selfish. People play games and sports with one another to have fun and nobody calls that selfish. But when two persons have sex with one another just to have fun many people call that selfish. Does that make any sense?

For a long time I have been very concerned with clarifying mathematics, primarily for myself but also because I plan to teach. After decades of reading and questioning and thinking, it seems to me that the philosophical views of mathematics are nonsensical. What does it MEAN to question whether mathematical objects exist outside of our minds? It sounds absurd. It seems clear to me that mathematics is a science like all the others except that verification (confirmation) is different. It is the science of QUANTITY and its amazing developments and offshoots (like set theory). And all sciences are products of our minds. They are our constructions, as are most of the physical objects in our immediate worlds. Shoes, sinks, forks, radios, computers, computer programs, eyeglasses, cars, planes, airports, buildings, roads, and on ad nauseam, are ALL our constructions. Nature didn't produce any of them. We did. What does it MEAN to speak of a "PHYSICAL" circle? A circle is OUR IDEA of a plane locus...