On the nature of fact versus opinion

[Boyo_Jim]

Inspired by Wesley Clark’s What happens if the supreme court overturns roe vs wade thread in the GQ forum.

I posted that this was not a question that could be answered on a factual basis. To answer the question one must presuppose the rationale and language of the decision that reverses Roe v Wade, and you cannot do so without venturing an opinion. Simply put, the precedent could be overturned for any number of reasons, any of which might have different immediate consequences from another. There seems to be a universal assumption in that thread that the states will immediately gain control of abortion laws, without the understanding that it is an assumption. There night be decisions under which state control over abortion laws would NOT be a consequence.

I want to apologize because reading myself after the fact I come off like the Forum Pokice. But I was really surprised the thread had gotten so far without that point being made, and doubly surprised that it was dismissed by several of the posters. And I brought it here to the Pit because I wanted to question the biases of individuals Members.

Am I missing something here, or are Random, Walloon. and Sample_the_Dog, among others revealing more about their personal biases by by treating this as a factual question?

I would be just extatic we we could avoid turning this into a debate over abortion. My issue is completely unrelated to anyone’s opinion on whether Roe v Wade was decided correctly or not.

[Zoe]

From one of the posters at your linked thread:

It’s a factual question because it was asking for the immediate legal effects of the overturn of Roe v. Wade, not the long term judicial or political effects.

The brief and factual answer, already given, is that existing state statutes on abortion would immediately apply, and that there is no federal law that prevents a woman from traveling from a state where an abortion would not be available to one where an abortion would be available.

I saw no bias in any of the explanations provided to you by the people you mentioned, including the very clearly and precisely worded response above. What bias does it show? A love of language? A preference for exactness? A gift for research? A knowledge of the law? The ability to distinguish between short term and * long term*? legal and political?

[Boyo_Jim]

Zoe,

The bias is toward accepring a logical statement, one that you agrree with, as a faxt rather than an opinion.

Because the statement you quoted is an opinion, not a fact.

[moriah]

If you’re going to Pit someone or something, then Pit them. Make it obvious, please, as to what you are actually pitting.

Because whether it be abortion v. anti-abortion; the technical merits of Constitutional Law; or the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of fact v. opinion… this all smacks of Great Debate and not the Pit.

So again, what the hell are you pitting you obfuscating dolt?

[Boyo_Jim]

@moriah

If you’re going to Pit someone or something, then Pit them. Make it obvious, please, as to what you are actually pitting.

Because whether it be abortion v. anti-abortion; the technical merits of Constitutional Law; or the philosophical and epistemological underpinnings of fact v. opinion… this all smacks of Great Debate and not the Pit.

So again, what the hell are you pitting you obfuscating dolt?

I am pitting those who cant’t distinguish between fact and opinion, dumb shit.

[kittenblue]

I think you just stated a fact!

Am I right? Do I win something?