I don't know what that means, but yes, I named three things about which I have what I consider a rational bias against. You can add Brussels sprouts to that. I also have a rational bias for many things such as puppies, charitability, Biden, and prosecuting Trump. All of these are based in knowledge, which is what makes them rational.Do you really just make some lumping together of pedophilia, drunk driving and Donald Trump?
The level of your bias against Trump is beyond the pale and shows you are not serious.
Regarding beyond the pale, maybe you haven't noticed that tens of millions of Americans agree with me as does most of the free world. The majority of the people who agree with you are low information voters, and I suspect that most are bitter about life and their failure to rise out of subsistence living. When we see them interviewed, there's not much there.
And no, I'm deadly serious.
I notice that you didn't address my argument - just waived it away. The claim still stands: all opinions are biased, but only rational biases are informed by facts, and we can call that knowledge. Likewise, biases like racism are not informed by facts and are therefore irrational.
Can we assume that you have no rebuttal?
You called it. Of course your opinion is biased. You defend Trump in these threads just as others criticize him. Same thing, but only one position is compatible with the facts and rational ethics. You have access to all the same facts I do but look where they take you - to defending a monster. I can only guess what went wrong here - either confirmation bias filtering the facts you don't like out (irrational bias) or an issue of morals and basic human decency. So which is it? You can't see what a monster Trump is, or you like him like that?No, I am not biased for Trump. You will insist that isn't so, but it truly is.