***
Me: Singapore has free elections, but not fair elections.
A: What's defined as fair,or rather who defines it.What's free elections supposed to mean?I'm happy with the current state that Singapore is in,its clearly its not perfect.But the important matter is the reason for its imperfection,has it reached a stage where to alter one aspect of the nation will lead to a trade off,a reduction in quality in other areas or is it the government not doing enough or they don't have the know how to do it.
Me: http://www.commonborders.org/free_and_fair.htm
*quotes from the URL*
to alter one aspect of the nation will lead to a trade off
You have to show that there is indeed a tradeoff, rather than accept self-serving governmental rhetoric
A: I see. so your free and fair elections definition is for that website which states for election in latin america.
I thought you be quoting from some UN definition or something.But any definition is arbitrary in the sense that 'ought' can't be inferred from 'is' as suggests.
Me: ???
For one, the words of the UN are not gospel. For another there is no arbitrariness as this arises from certain principles that elections should follow to best embody both the letter and spirit of democracy. Lastly I have no idea where the naturalistic fallacy comes in as you say.
