&gt;<i>You&#x27;re completely missing the fact that I&#x27;m not talking about ethics here.</i><p>I can&#x27;t see how this can be, since the core of what we are discussing is a supposed &quot;Copenhagen interpretation of ETHICS&quot;.<p>&gt;<i>I&#x27;m talking about ethical positions, a meta-level up; and I&#x27;m saying that you subscribe to CIE while calling CIE a straw man.</i><p>Again, no logical contradiction there.<p>As I explained I subscribe to CIE+ (a superset).<p>This means that I can both subscribe to CIE (as it&#x27;s contained in the superset CIE+) AND find it when discussed alone (without the extra additions) lacking&#x2F;a strawman.<p>For a crude example of that, one can logically subscribe to S+ (&quot;men are rapists sometimes&quot;) and still view S (&quot;men are rapists&quot;) as a strawman.