I don't need to show that emotions can do anything because you are the one claiming that they can prevent a person from doing something. Refusing to accept someone's claims about themselves is entirely valid. I refuse to accept a woman's claim that she could not have an abortion because her emotions were against it, though I will accept a woman's claim that she chose not to have an abortion because it was not something that she believed was acceptable, and even that she predicted that she might have emotional turmoil or buyers remorse after the abortion. Likewise, I refuse to accept a student's claim that he or she cannot do his or her homework because he or she is too sad, but I will accept that it chooses not to do its homework because it is in a complicated emotional state which makes it more difficult to focus on work. I refuse to accept a vegetarian's claim that it's philosophy prevents it from eating meat (exception is the semantics argument about what defines a vegetarian that LetThereBe brought up) but I will accept that a vegetarian chooses not to eat meat because it ascribes to a certain anti-meat philosophy.And you have failed to show they can. You have refused to accept peoples claims in this regard.
I said I can not more explain mechanically how emotions or morals motivate us than you can.
I have been quite clear and honest throughout the entire debate of women, men, pregnancy, and child support payments. Except for the last unbolded statement, which is quite obviously a dramatization based on my interpretation of your arguments, the above dialogue is an accurate and honest representation of this entire debate. It covers all of your obfuscation about women's emotions.The above dialogue never occurred. They way you have presented the above series of sentences is intellectually dishonest as it suggests I said things that I did not. if you wish to bring forth an argument I made, please be clear and honest about it. Quote the significant parts to capture the whole meaning and provide a link.