Short version
It’s not a “rule ” if I only listen to it when it makes sense to me

Ubiq
“T!hats a variant of slippery slope. It isnt logically compelling.”

No not at all a variant, and it’s totally compelling.
Here’s why
We seemingly both agree that there exists a ” rule” that the severity of punishment indicates severity of crime. And that there are exceptions.
If so, then,
I believe that exceptions can only be made by the one who made the rule. So it’s really all one package. The rule and it’s exceptions are really all a single expression of the rule makers will. (I’m talking logic. This applies to human rules too)

However, you state
“in this case, following the rule leaves one in a moral or logical untenable position. Therefore this must be an exception to the rule ”
That means that every time you follow the rule, it’s only because it did not land you in such a bind.
What means in essence that each time, you evaluated the two sins, and decided, yes , since the one with the greater punishment seems to be a greater sin (or the greater sin has the greater punishment, same thing) i can follow the rule stating that greater punishment equals greater sin.
But in reality you haven’t followed the rule at all, because you have already arrived at that conclusion yourself, before you are willing to accept that rule.

You know who says this sevarah ?
The Chafetz Chaim brings it, I don’t remember from who.
He quotes
One who says he will keep the entire Torah except one item, is a heretic. For if is no longer a slave of hashem. For everything else that he does listen to, is only because he chooses to do so.
R Chaim shmuelevitz discusses it at length too but I don’t remember the exact place.
(disclaimer I’m NOT calling you a heretic here for not agreeing with my take. I’m showcasing my logical deduction process from a better source than myself )
So it’s not “slippery slope ”
It is in itself a negation of the entire rule.
And to the veracity of the rule in a general sense, there are many proofs, some of which have been quoted in this very thread

ubiq
when society devolves to a point where murder is permissable would you then , using your critical thinking , say eating worms is worse than murder, and this is again a case of an exception to the rule?

ubiq
mods delete posts
if we allow our own “critical thinking ” to decide whice are exceptions, then in essence it is always our “critical thinking “deciding which is worse.
for its only because our c.t, doesnt call out the specific instance, that we allow the rule (which you agreed in principal to) to show us severity.
so you really completely negated the rule entirely, supplanting your c.t. as the final arbiter of which crime is worse.
thats a heavy responsibility which i would not want to take on

And your constant focus on the feeling of the victim and society,
Are you not aware that there are countless עולמות שנפגעים מחטא
What goes on in this world is but a small part of the picture of what truly takes place when a person sins.

Yes Judaism allows critical thinking. As a matter of fact it demands it.
But thinking to understand. Not to create your own version.

Your question from the gemarah is fundamentally flawed.
It’s trying to figure out which species the Torah wants us to use. So it can’t be a thorn bush
Had the torA outright said use a thorn bush though, you don’t see the gemarahs saying, nah, that can’t be. It hurts to much

The ח”ח is not a proofagainst me.
I agreed there are exceptions. Provided there is a good basis for it.
A פסוק במשלי is about as good of a basis that I can ask for in my book
I was just looking to show that לשה”ר is basically worse than a homely bunch of sins that logic and gut would instinctivly say “of course these are worse than לשה”ר how can you even think otherwise ”

And BTW I never called a gemarahs warped.
I quoted a gemarah
You stated that’s a prime example of warped thinking
To which I responded I sound to have the gemarahs warped, your call, logic

oh well
ps a woman married to a cohen must leave her husband, family etc.
thats a pretty much destroyed life
worse than a penuyah must face

pps if a worldview shaped by clear (to me) rayoos from multiple georahs plus an explicit rambam that another poster posted her, is warped, im proud to have such warped thinking.

basing moral outrage by personal gut reaction leads one in 2019 to say that if you are anti gay you are a horrible person. that is clearly not hashems attitude
we need not debate “slippery slope” “society has slipped and is already (hopefully)at the bottom.
thats where allowing “everyone instinctivle knows this is wrong/correct leads you
i’ll stick with trying to accept hashems opinion wether or not i understand it.
i guess in this our positions are polar opposites

What is pushing you to prefer the 2nd approach, especially when you concede that there are exceptions to the general rule ?
simply because i choose to have my morals dictated to me by hkb”h rather than trying to decide myself.

yes if the punishment for stealing is worse than the punishment re a penuya then in my worldview it means hashem thinks its worse.
im not allowed, nor planning to do either , so its not like it has practical ramification to get nervous about, but in terms of the sugya thats how i see it
i am aware there exist practical ramifications, i meant casual practical as in waking up 1 morning and saying well whats on todays agenda?

at the end i think our positions once again are closer than we thought originally

UBIQ
THE GEMARAH IN סוטה ( in the teens top of the page side a)
looking for a לימוד that you need dirt from the בית המקדש even though the passuk only says mishkan
says the gemarah, no need for a לימוד
ומה טומאה (טומאת הגוף) קלה
לא חלקת בין משכן למקדש
טומאה חמורה -אשת איש- לא כ”ש?

רשי-טומאה קלה – אין בו כי אם מיתה בידי שמים
טומאה חמורה -א”א- מיתת ב”ד

uf you have another way to understand that other than a gemarah outright basing the severity of the sin on its punishment, im all ears

Ubiq

thats my point. Strictly speaking based on punishment Nidah is worse. Yet “obviously” we dont treat it as such, otherwise there should be a movement promoting intermarriage amount the non-frum.

I believe that from a practical standpoint, you logic is flawed.
Intermarriage is by definition a flawed union. One of sin. So we can’t be an accomplice to such a thing.
Marrying non religious people to one another, is not by itself an איסור.
True we know they will do wrong, but that is their choice on each occasion. It’s not a forbidden relationship.
BTW I recall that there are those who say that one should not officiate to marry off people who will not keep purity laws, and certainly not marry off those who will not “remain faithful “

Philosoph
You are totally off
Shabbos is worse but when your life is threatened it’s not desecrating the shabbos, as you are allowed to do so. As a matter of fact you must.
Murder is not allowed in order to save your life, because a life will be lost anyway. His. And who says your is worth more than his. So sit and do nothing.
Not sure where you mixed punishment in here

Ubiq
This is why even Thoth we almost never agree, I enjoy engaging with you.
Substance.
You provided a legitimate position.
I believe I have a response for all
But I don’t have time to type it all probably till Thursday
See ya then