3 ms·

You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around. > Do you always agree with every dictate of the UN?

You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around. > Do you always agree with every dictate of the UN? This is irrelevant, unless you are trying to say that one either agrees with everything the UN says, or nothing. Clearly that is not the case; plenty of UN member nations consent on some issues, and dissent from others. The same can thus obviously be said of individual people. They don't have to agree with every dictate to agree with some of the conclusions of the body. Like it or not, the UN reflects opinions from a substantial number of member nations, and it's hard to applaud any explanation that ignores the UN on an issue where they are, and have been, a centrally relevant party. > Does objectivity always garner the most votes? No, but you probably have to say more to justify a lower-approval response as the right answer to a question specifically seeking the most neutral explanation, than to simply say "this is the most objective one".

shawndumas 9y ago
"You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around." You misjudge me. That was a sincere comment. "They don't have to agree with every dictate to agree with some of the conclusions of the body." Agreed; but then why bring the UN's decrees up at all? It'd be better to impartially argue why it is immoral instead of making an appeal to an authority that they themselves sometimes disagree with, no? "[Y]ou probably have to say more to justify a lower-approval response as the right answer". I picked it because it is verifiably neutral. My supposition is that the former attack on the account's partiality fails because the UN is neither always correct (as you agreed), and is most certainly not itself impartial (as I hope you would agree). Mentioning that a biased party calls something illegal and that the truth is unpopular is a tangential response at best. What specific facts are being disputed?

shawndumas 9y ago

"You don't gain any ground by pointing out how long or how short the other user's account has been around." You misjudge me. That was a sincere comment. "They don't have to agree with every dictate to agree with some of the conclusions of the body." Agreed; but then why bring the UN's decrees up at all? It'd be better to impartially argue why it is immoral instead of making an appeal to an authority that they themselves sometimes disagree with, no? "[Y]ou probably have to say more to justify a lower-approval response as the right answer". I picked it because it is verifiably neutral. My supposition is that the former attack on the account's partiality fails because the UN is neither always correct (as you agreed), and is most certainly not itself impartial (as I hope you would agree). Mentioning that a biased party calls something illegal and that the truth is unpopular is a tangential response at best. What specific facts are being disputed?