[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Ruthless logic, a solution derived by the necessity of compromise is not absolute. A solution of that sort does not equate to a black and white view on the subject, but rather chooses to remain dismissive in regards to the grey area by necessity and is thus subject to change upon review. 'Abortion shall be constrained' is a possible compromise between two groups each with an opposite, black and white view pertaining of either 'no abortion' or unrestrained 'abortion'. Once more, to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more relfective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact. I shall issue this single coveat to those who believe in an absolute morality/solution, you shall find that no matter the solution proposed there will be at least one consequnece which you had not anticipated, which may or may not be acceptable upon review.

Ruthless logic, your indulgence in sophistry and self validation, as well as your generally presumptious, dismissive attitude disgusts me.
Although your use of logic may be to ruthless ends, its propositions still remain grossly inconsistent. I think we both know what that equates to:emotional validation of assumed truths. I defy you to correct me.

Okay, If you must insist. You said “to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more reflective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact” A classic nonsensical claim reflective of your poor reasoning skills, because you try to separate the solution of consensus and the subjective measurement of success that you conveniently create by your own self-serving statement.

On the topic of the consideration process (grey shading), it is cognitively consistent that any process that involves the evolutionary procedure of further refinement of any Public Policy Mandate (i.e. Abortion laws) cannot circumvent the CURRENT legal constraints which can only be viewed (black or white) with the detail of described LAW, until the new legal parameters are adopted. The term black or white is clearly reflective of the inherent rigidity of enforced LAW, while the term of grey shading is clearly reflective of the non-legal binding consideration process. Any attempt to provide an alternate process that is based in reality would be patently INSANE.

Lastly, you said “I think we both know what that equates to: emotional validation of assumed truths”. Please provide one SINGLE measurable example that reflects the process of validation WITHOUT the ensuing empirically measurable component of emotion, regardless if it encompasses the detailing of personal morality, or describing the constraints of mathematical axioms. It would be exponentially more productive if you could consider the implications of your statements and claims, before the subsequent vetting process discredits them. I must say, based on the quality of the other posts that I responded to, your composition is clearly the least articulate.