no

Now this is based on the assumption the user is 100% informed of them

which is a fallacy

When the user wil only have the info they are aware of at that point

if you raise one of your hands to scratch your nose, imo it's a choice even if you're not aware of it

thats like saying when you were born it was your choice

I dont see the tribalism in that alone. Choosing something does not make you tribal.

What makes it tribal is your reason for making a choice

Did you choose x because all your mates did the same

i dont get the similarity. someone else is birthing you.

Or did you come to your own conclusion that x is better

forcing ppl to make a choice or be part of the proccess of a choice making with out their knowledge is tribalistic

you are talkign now out of power

Choosing to not choose is a choice. To choose not to, one has to be aware of the choice.

with those unetical line of thoghts you are giving people guilt or resposability of actions and choices they had ntohing to do with

tribalistic

Now thays a rather pointed accusation you are making no?

no

thats ethics

We are not talking about laws or crime here.

ethics is not that

I am saying that holding a neutral position on something is a side on its own.

the base of all judgment on a person it starts on the line of choices the person has done in his, her life

Or in other words you choose to withhold judgement until something changes you mind

yes

There is no harm in choosing

Or choosing not to choose

of course theres no harm but is unethical

and if applied in real life with out proper explanation will lead to unethical behaivour

for example senators and such

on laws, theyh ave an abstain vote

but by abstaining they are pandering to the mayority

thers a whole dilema there

Wouldnt the whole choice thing bypass that?

no

So lets get this straight

they abstain knowingly

this si an example of people chosing to be neutral

You dont think not making a choice does not count as making a choice

hyh?

huh?