How to overturn Roe v. Wade

What data is that exactly?

Quite a lot...About 61 years worth....Too much to list.

How do you know it’s data and not misinformation?

We’ve exchanged over 100 posts combined, now; and despite accusing me of lies, hypocrisy, and dishonesty throughout; but you haven’t threatened to block me.

So what’s changed?

Through this entire exchange: you have repeatedly suggested, implied - and often outright stated - that you made arguments that you haven’t.

What I’m doing, is making it completely untenable for you to continue this dishonesty; by offering you something that, were you telling the truth, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you not to take me up on it. Worse, you have a tendency to parrot my accusations; but the beautiful thing about this one; is if you parrot my claims and offer $100 to show something you said I haven’t provided - I’ll quote it, as whenever you’ve claimed I hadn’t said something - I actually had. Worse, you know that you will no longer be able to claim you did something when you didn’t - a broad staple of your replies here - because I will just repeat the strategy to call you out on these lies.


Given that you’ve been backed into a corner here; and no longer have a credible option to lie about anything any more; you have to save face, and find some way to not answer, thus you’re threatening to block me in some nebulous reason as the premise of the worst “good day, sir” 191 I have yet to see.

I mean, You can’t possibly think that anyone will believe that you’d come this far: and after me calling you out in nearly 200 fallacies, lies, and instances of dishonest behaviour; that somehow offering you money is what crosses the line. It’s incoherent 192


My offer still stands: you have strongly implied you have provided a justification for something, that you haven’t. 

With my challenge, I am setting you up for a reply that, should you simply quote the justification I described above, you have demonstrated that I am dishonest; you end the conversation dead, you win this exchange on the facts, and you will earn money for you and charity. It is not possible for an argument to be more substantive than that 193

Indeed the only reason for you to capitulate so completely, is because you know you’re being dishonest and can’t meet the offer, but you also know that not answering proves you’re being dishonest; and so we arrive here, needing to find some way out.

Obviously. You’re not going to reply to any significant chunk of the post above; so I’m going to outline the argument you’ve largely avoided to focus on minutiae:

There are people around the world that like to dress up in fury costumes and f**k each other. For many of them, it’s an important aspect of their life, and a way, I’m sure, that they can derive personal self worth or satisfaction. It has meaning to them.

Fury orgies occur not because there is some higher power that imparts some objective meaning - no God that sits down and determines that Jimmy dressing up in a chipmunk costume with a pink dress has some greater purpose or meaning.  But because Jimmy has emotions, and emotional interactions that end up manifesting in the way he weights or reacts the importance of things that happen around him. And these emotions end up making him feel like dry humping someone dressed as a Chinchilla, has some greater meaning.

Our brains are the results of a billion years of evolution. They consist of a complex neural network that forms connections and reinforces behaviour and connections between nodes through reward/punishment mechanisms, including the involvement of emotions, which are largely feedback mechanisms to avoid danger and to allow individuals to work in groups (I can happily explain the evolutionary imperative of this, but you can see similar emotional response and learned behaviour in all social animals). Emotional responses help define neural connections, and vice versa in a continual learned feedback loop.

Or to summarize, we give things meaning because of a complex learned behaviour response mediated by emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.

Social animals that depend in part on their group for survival and success, behaviours and adaptations that improves group success can improve the individuals ability to reproduce successfully ; and thus creates an evolutionary imperative - a selective pressure in organisms that stems from some traits improving an organisms reproductive advantage - thus leading to certain variants having more copies than others due to that advantage; over time causing traits that produce more successful outcomes to become dominant over others over time. Emotions can be explained in an evolutionary narrative in these terms: traits and behaviours that would be selected for because they allow an organism to be more successful; through boosting the group the organism is part of: as a result of that success, that variant produces more copies in subsequent generations than other variants than - and thus becomes more prevalent over time.

Taking this further: there’s a clear imperative for some emotions: the fear response helps to prep individuals for fights, avoid dangerous situations; social emotions such as disgust, anger, etc, help to mediate social interactions - they maintaining group cohesion by helping to produce behaviours that impart negative consequences on those that break the rules. Game theory also explains selfishness; pure altruism maximizes groups success, but harms individuals. Purely Selfish behaviour is good for the individuals, but decimates the group. The optimal behaviour is altruistic with selfishness; allowing focus on the individual to as much of a degree that it doesn’t harm the social grouping. Morality, emotions, ethics, can all be explained under this evolutionary unberella, learned behaviour drive by emotional motivations that have their basis in evolutionary imperitives.

I am not saying that people you need love to survive; but that we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.” So in this respect, while we don’t need love to survive: the emotion simply helps to promote behaviour that is beneficial to group survival - which is true.  Feelings of love for your family, and children; helps promote behaviour that is beneficial to your survival, your genetic legacy and consequently the group you’re in.

Moral standards change over time, ancient Aztecs and modern Norwegians have different moral standards. The ancient Israelites would be war criminals today. Morals are adaptable to the group one find oneself in.

In fact. Given the variation in morality and ethics over time, between countries, deviations within groups; and the overall zeitgeist: our moral and emotional behaviour as humans only makes sense as a learned behaviour based on evolved emotions: a higher authority being responsible for meaning and emotion makes no sense given the wild variability in them all over time.

Morality appears subjective, it’s mutable, it changes, it differs, and everyone thinks theirs is correct. There is also no objective standard that can be shown valid to judge them. Because of this, the only justifiable explanation, is that morality is subjective.

Subjective morality simply means the moral standard you have is learned, changes from generation to generation; with no objective standard by which we can determine which of the moral standards is “best”.

Why we emote and morality is best explained through this context of learned behaviour driven by evolved emotional feedback mechanisms if makes utterly no sense as the result of some manifestation of a higher authority’s command or will

You may not like that response - in fact I am sure you won’t; however it is certainly more complete, better supported, and can be better justified than “Magik man dunnit” 

Note: this is a comprehensive proof. And systematic - substantive - arguing that shows that what you’re arguing for is false, and what I am arguing is underpinned by reasoned argument. All of which were provided above - and to which I am still waiting for an argument against; as opposed 

How about the fact that I know your lying about the offer, how do I know your lying? Because throughout this discussion that’s all you’ve done, no matter what justification I provide you always write it off because you don’t like it so stop yanking my chain.

I’ve warned you before and I’m a man of honesty/good faith so I’m keeping my promise.

You’ve been blocked.

The "how" is easy:

You get a minimum of five Supreme Court justices to go along with it. We can safely assume Roberts would swing left on this issue, so it really boils down to Kavanaugh. During his confirmation hearings certain swing vote Senators had apparently been assured that he was a candidate who wouldn't repeal Roe v. Wade.

Some observers fear that Griswold's right to privacy might be overturned in the process. In practice, however, the Courts have independently sculpted a corpus of privacy law based off the 4th Amendment which is no longer grafted to property rights as it used to be.

That right is not unlimited; a "reasonable expectation of privacy" exists in some times, places, and contexts but not others. But this means is that it's not an all-or-nothing deal. The extension of "privacy" to mean legal abortion on demand could be gutted while leaving privacy intact in 99.99% of other contexts.

Well; it seems we got somewhere - refusing an offer of $300 to show he had actually made an argument he made!

It truly boggles my mind what goes through the heads of people like this.

Information is information is data.

Irrespective of correctness.

The proof is in the data,

So prove it.

Prove what?

That correctness is irrelevant in regards to info,

I beg to differ hence why I there’s information and misinformation, big difference.

Well I don't think that I have ever made such a generalization as that.

In fact the basis of this discussion was the understanding of right and wrong, rather than the implications of correctness and incorrectness.

Two different things altogether. Though grammatically we do sometimes use the former to represent the latter.

Within the context of this discussion, I assumed that your reference to right and wrong, was with regard to your understanding of morality and ethicality, rather than the practical application of data.

Obviously incorrect data is largely (but not always) impractical......(Incorrectness is sometimes the necessary precursor to correctness).

Whereas I have clearly stated that right and wrong can be considered within both a social and universal (philosophical) context.

Socially we make collective judgements, which we do or don't abide by, and universally there is no actual  judgement to be made.

So in both instances in terms of relevance or irrelevance, conclusions are therefore always eventually personal and subjective. 

Or as personal and subjective as it is possible to be, within the constraints of social and inherent conditioning.....Free will and all that stuff.

Things are never so cut and dried Tarik, to be able to make sweeping generalizations.

Understanding would be damn near impossible if we didn’t though.

True.

Generalizing gives us a basic understanding of things.

But we cannot be sure of the details, based solely upon generalizations.

But YOUR THE ONE that mentioned correctness and incorrectness first so if anyone’s losing track of this discussion it’s you not me.

So right and wrong as moral concepts, may or may not be correct assumptions.

But one would not refer to correct and incorrect as moral concepts.

Do you appreciate the difference?

Then why did you refer to correctness when the focus was morals?

Correctness was a reference concerning  the accuracy data, rather than the morality of ideas.

Morals as in right and wrong, are the issues without a specified origin that I assume you vaguely allude to.

Why are you referring to data when the discussion is about morality?

Well the discussion might or might not be about morality....One can never tell with Tarik's semantics packed discussions.

One sometimes thinks that Tarik just likes to argue the toss for the sake of it. (Perhaps we all do).

Nonetheless, morality is data assessment and output, and therefore variable relative to data input.

Maybe if your delivery made more sense we wouldn’t have to resort to semantics.

The former quote you distinguish data from morality and the latter you conflate the two terms, yet you wonder why I resort to semantics? It’s your own fault buddy.

Nope, no conflation.

Just your misinterpretation buddy.

Assumed morality is data Tarik.

And semantics has always been your thing.

From above, "Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in time." hence it is data.

Well maybe if it were your thing you wouldn’t say things like this and I quote

You said this buddy, I didn’t make it up out of thin air.

He says… having manufactured it out of thin air.

Good God; this unbelievable quotemine is something else.

At this point I don’t know how it’s possible to engage with someone who clearly is not arguing from a position of good faith, or reality.

This appears to be an issue you're having with several people, which, given the similarity of your "I don't know..." conditions, appears to be an issue closer to home than to any of us. Just sayin'...

Not really - it’s really symptomatic if you and Tarik following very similar denials of reality: and specifically dishonest approaches to arguments.

Hey....I always think that Tarik might actually have another agenda, besides his semantics games.

But he seems reluctant to share.

Yep...Morality is data Tarik.

All comes from inside our heads.....Nowhere else.

But you called that an assumption in post #232

Kinda like how you seem reluctant to give a clear and consistent argument, once we’ve crossed that bridge maybe then we can discuss me but your confused enough as it is so maybe you should think about your thoughts and beliefs before you ask about mine.