I don't believe baby's are born raciest...


it is the environment they are raised in ...
that can make them raciest...



and it is different when all men... try and decide the rights of women's choice ... as their faith has something to do with this ...
country's have customs understandable ... but the United States was based on freedom ...so I thought of choice ...
but politics is making it very hard for women ... when they really do not have to bring in their own religions to make the dissensions for them ... should be a matter of choice ... and even choice in religions... but not forced on them ... or anyone ... if we are united as one ...then that is the right here... to have your own choice ...

If you took two babies , new born . One from a well educated and wealthy family and one from a poor bad a$$ couple and swapped them how would they turn out?

Me Either!

Is this film about that tom?

Not babies but it expores the concept of haves and have nots being switched.

ps plus its pretty funny

Here is an online stream (you will need adblocker)
http://openload.co/f/HbMRTFzaNpU/Trading.Places.1983.720p.BluRay.x264.YIFY.mp4

Thanks, I'll give it a look.
You know what I'm getting at in my post. It's surely your up brining that has the most impact!

Environment is only part of the equation.
It also has a lot to do with perception and education.
Most education is not formal.

If you take the baby as a blank canvas?
Would the poor one turn out as the wealthy one would have and vice versa?

If you take two babies, one from a wealthy family and one from a poor family and lay them side by side just after birth, there will already be a difference.

That is because the mothers that grew the children were subjected to differing nutrition quality and environments.

The child from the wealthy mother may have stronger bones or any number of advantages the other may not. Their immune system may be stronger. Higher development stages and growth rate.

Subject both babies to the same stimuli and one may flourish while the other one fails.
Starve them both and one will die before the other.

Over time, with duplicated stimuli one will develop strengths the other cannot have. As time progresses, the one will compensate to match the other.

Where the stronger child require no help to lift something the weaker child may devise a tool to perform the task.

Where one child can persude by reason the other may use force to get its way.

Dam. my theory doesn't work then
I thought they would turn out as the other would!

If you take two children in a closed environment that have never been taught morals, when faced with moral decisions each will adopt the morals as to how they understand the issue at hand.
To each child, their moral reasoning is sound and the other is wrong unless they both adopt the same morals.

Societies are based on common morals and ideals.
Remember that a society is a group of two or more people in agreement.

If a society of two establish a moral judgement and the society of 5 million establish a differing moral judgement who is wrong? Are morals established by consent or are they inherent to life?

Conscientious Objectors are a society of people that feel war is immoral because they feel killing is wrong for any reason. 65,000 conscientious objectors verses 268 million others that feel war is justified.
Are the Conscientious Objectors wrong, morally bankrupt? What about the others of the population that voted to go to war? Are they Wrong?
Given who you talk to, the morals vary. Morals are not set in stone.
The same morals that dictate some behavior may not apply to all behavior in all circumstances.

The objector says the reason so many people died is because their morals were wrong.
The pro-war people say the reason why so many died is because your morals did not support the war effort.
Not many of either system is going to personally take a life.

Since we live in a world of chaos and events are not predetermined your theory may be just as valid in some cases. It could happen. I don't see it as likely but I also don't see it as impossible.

assuming they are of equal health , they will

nurturing and opportunities that people are 'born' into make quite a bit of difference towards the outcome of their values, beliefs, and character, and in fact, their life

The above-quoted opinion piece is full of falsehoods.

Trump didn't call all Mexicans "rapists". He specifically referred to the lawless ones who were sneaking across the USA's southern border.

Trump didn't try to institute a Muslim travel ban. Instead, he tried to temporarily suspend immigration from a handful of the many Muslim nations in the world so that the vetting process could be improved.

Trump hasn't been cuddling up to white supremacists.

Seriously, quote the actual study that is mentioned instead of quoting the anti-Trump rant.

the piece doesn't say trump call 'all mexicans' rapists

he called mexicans rapists, specifically

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," Trump said in his announcement speech. June 2015."

he doesn't specify a specific sub section of mexicans here, just mexicans,,,



Muslim ban is accurate in that the ban applied to muslims, again, it did not have to apply to 'all muslims', but it targeted muslim nations


the white supremacist statement may be a falsehood or simply an opinion, based upon how one views the actions and words of some of his associates, like Steve Bannon

I quoted the article of the link that I quoted,,,