Secondly, the accusation that my promotion of MW is "arguing from emotion" is flat-out offensive. Please, quote a single post of mine where I've argued for MW and explain how I'm "arguing from emotion" rather than "arguing from the available evidence and a priori philosophy" and I'll PayPal you $100.
Thirdly, I don't LIKE MW. I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever; it means nothing to me. If tomorrow there was experimental data that definitively proved Copenhagen was correct I'd shrug and say "cool" and drop MW like a hot potato. I also don't think (and have never said) that MW is the "only possible solution." You're just pulling that one out of your backside.
Here's my non-emotional, philosophical argument for MW in a nutshell: the mathematical models of QM points to MW IF we assume they're modeling real things. The only only only ONLY reason to get around MW is to violate Occam's Razor, or assume the models are modeling something unreal. Now, considering we have not a single reason to do either EXCEPT our historically fallible intuitions, why don't you explain to me philosophically why we should trust our intuitions over our mathematical models. I'll also be waiting for you to explain why anything I've said is an argument from emotion.
2. I've nowhere spoken about any interpretation being "accepted," I always say "favored." One shouldn't be accepted until experiments can definitively distinguish one from another empirically. However, even with the state of evidence we currently have, we should still favor certain interpretations over other. All things being equal (as they are in the case), favor the simpler interpretation that is supported historically and by our current knowledge of physics; not the more complicated interpretation that flouts history and our current knowledge of physics merely to maintain our faulty intuitions.