Votes are not made in a vacuum. You have to consider the options. I think Trump is a better choice than Biden. Here's why:Delilah6120 said:@just_sayin
I´ve done my reading on trump´s past and frankly Iḿ finding it´s a waste of time to even talk about him. But I do find your statement (assuming that you will vote for him again) quite interesting and a bit puzzling.
Why would you vote for an amoral person to be a leader of the free world?
I don't want to give the impression that Trump is a moral person. Some of your points are not valid though.Delilah6120 said:@anarchist100
Trump is the most amoral human being I´ve ever encountered. He gives the meaning of human being a bad name.
1. He discriminated against blacks (with Daddy). They had employees label an African American´s applications with a circled C (for colored) when applying for an apt. in their buildings. A violation of the Fair Housing Act
2. While his properties were being built, his workers were systematically ripped off. Trump would agree on contract price. When the work was done he automatically said the job was not done well and paid them less than the agreed upon. He knows - and abuses the court system well. When his employees sued him for their $, trump kept appealing to get out of what he owed knowing that they would eventually need their money so they always had to settle for less.
3. He cheated on ALL 3 wives at least once if not more. Melania had just given birth and he was playing with a porn star.
4. He was friends with Epstein and actually admired him.
5. He took out a full page ad in NYC when the Central Park 5 (4 black, 1 latino) were accused of attacking and raping a girl. THEY WERE ALL INNOCENT. Racist.
6. He perpetuated the Obama birth certificate problem. racist.
7. He openly sexualized his own daughter.
8. He had his first wife (who died falling down the stairs?????) buried at his golf course knowing that if it was used as a cemetery he wouldn´t have to pay taxes.
9. He had his fixer pay off a porn star and playboy bunny right before the election.
And that is not even his presidency as your question was ¨aside from politics¨. It gets worse if politics was to be included.
MayCaesar said:This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
This seems pretty much on par with a chapter I recently came back to from the book called "Reason: Book I & II: A Critical Thinking- Reason-and Science-based Approach to Issues That Matter (Dr Bos Critical Thinking Series).However, the question arises: are people with two different biological imprints, yet subjected to the same environmental factors, going to develop their sexuality independently? How strong is the overlap? It is possible that it is 0%, but it is also possible that it is 100%. Our biological imprints may differ significantly, yet the differences might be quite irrelevant when it comes to development of this particular trait. This possibility is what I was suggesting.
This is a good question. Technically speaking, everything is biologically influenced to some extent. We interact with our environment, our organism reacts to that interaction in the way determined by biology, and the biology shifts as a consequence. For this process to be launched in the first place, some biological imprint has to be there.ZeusAres42 said:@MayCaesar
One thing I am confused by what you said is that orientation may very well be purely environmental. Surely you can't be suggesting that biology plays no part in physical attraction? I'm not saying you are saying this. I am just asking for clarification.
I mean there might be some outlier cases where sexual orientation seems to be very much environmentally influenced but that doesn't negate any biological influence here and wouldn't make any sense to suggest that since you need biological underpinnings in the first place for biological organisms to be influenced by their environmental factors.
Best I can tell Just_sayin complained about Zeus and Jules using ai to lay out some facts behind the big bang theory. You and Zeus made light of the situation. Just_sayin then used ai to make the same points he always does, science doesn't know everything, can't explain everything, as a point itself suggesting ai doesn't support the theory.... and somehow by Just's thinking making fun of his original complaints has become a strawman. I think. But I'm not all together sure on this one either.MayCaesar said:I am lost here. What are you guys debating? I see constant references to me, but I do not see much connection between my original comment and what is happening here...