Stoneykins

Lmao what

I think they are arguing that using disney stuff as training data would be the infringement, and if the logo showed up in generated images, that would be proof they did that.

But I'm guessing because it is phrased weird if they meant that. Idk.

That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.

Except for the draw part. This wasn't a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I'll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. "Agree to disagree" is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!

You said this:

Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.

I rejected that. I didn't say "there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law" or anything like you seem to think. I don't think it would be "severely" reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.

As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I'm not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) ("Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it"), you can go first.

To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.

Alright I'm gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.

But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome

Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.

based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption

First of all, with the "death or injury" part of this, I don't see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births. But also, this assumes there aren't other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn't make sense when applied to real world experiences.

if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.

This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah

From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.

Good thing I wasn't claiming that then. I'm saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.

I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.

Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.

You know what I changed my mind. I'll do a little research paper for you, but only if you do it first, defending your claim that the most likely result of an abortion ban is (mostly) an increase in adoptions.

I prefer sources to be papers, but I'll accept anything that cites it's data well.

No, I don't see fetuses as babies, I feel no moral stress whatsoever in supporting abortion rights. But that is a different point. You were casually claiming adoption as a solution even though it requires thousands of times more effort from a society that currently refuses to provide that effort.

And this is an internet comment, not a research paper, google it. There is so much data on this shit, I'm not gunna spoon feed it to a stranger just because I point out something they said is BS.