pitsilos-
Well, to a logical reader it actually answered both of the questions, but apparently you’ve had quite a difficult time comprehending it. I have to assume that it is either from a lack of intelligence or a lack of desire to accept a build of analytical argument presented with a clear analogy, or perhaps a bit of both. You pathetically asked:
well if we were talking about slavery you example explains it very well, but we are not are we?
Of course we are not speaking specifically about slavery. The slavery was given as an example. An example to show you that if the whole world (and I have explained it to you previously that in Cyprus it is not the whole world anymore) recognizes something, that doesn’t mean that it is just, that doesn’t mean that it is right and that surely doesn’t mean it is acceptable. If a person in fact committed a murder and a courtroom full of jurors found him NOT guilty because of a lack of evidence, or misrepresentation of the offended party, or interests of the jurors or etc. would that man not be guilty of murder? What would it mean for the whole world recognized him as NOT guilty? The U.N. passes hundreds of resolutions about hundreds of communal conflicts around the world. Do you believe that every single one of them are CORRECT, that every single one of them are JUST, that every single one of them are NEUTRAL passed without the interests of superpowers? Are you so confident about each and every one them as to bet your life on it?
And please don’t bother me with another premature post, implying that you still haven’t understood the answer, because the answer to BOTH of your questions will not and can not get any clearer, direct and simplified than this.