>You're completely missing the fact that I'm not talking about ethics here.
I can't see how this can be, since the core of what we are discussing is a supposed "Copenhagen interpretation of ETHICS".
>I'm talking about ethical positions, a meta-level up; and I'm saying that you subscribe to CIE while calling CIE a straw man.
Again, no logical contradiction there.
As I explained I subscribe to CIE+ (a superset).
This means that I can both subscribe to CIE (as it's contained in the superset CIE+) AND find it when discussed alone (without the extra additions) lacking/a strawman.
For a crude example of that, one can logically subscribe to S+ ("men are rapists sometimes") and still view S ("men are rapists") as a strawman.
Talking about ethics: this is good and this is bad
Talking about ethical positions: some people say this is good and this is bad; other people say...
I still think that what you call a strawman is just something you actually believe, and that you're interpreting it as a much stronger claim than it actually is. But I don't care enough to argue further.
I can't see how this can be, since the core of what we are discussing is a supposed "Copenhagen interpretation of ETHICS".
>I'm talking about ethical positions, a meta-level up; and I'm saying that you subscribe to CIE while calling CIE a straw man.
Again, no logical contradiction there.
As I explained I subscribe to CIE+ (a superset).
This means that I can both subscribe to CIE (as it's contained in the superset CIE+) AND find it when discussed alone (without the extra additions) lacking/a strawman.
For a crude example of that, one can logically subscribe to S+ ("men are rapists sometimes") and still view S ("men are rapists") as a strawman.