Family 'Humiliated' After US Holiday Ban

[Atlantis]

Source: Sky News:

The group of 11, including nine children, was about to travel to Los Angeles on a dream holiday last Tuesday when they were approached by US Homeland Security officials in the departure lounge.

Officials told Mohammad Tariq Mahmood and his party, which included his brother and nine of their children aged between eight and 19, that their authorisation to travel on the flight had been cancelled without further explanation.

Mr Mahmood told Sky News an official said there was a problem with their entry visas (ESTAs) for the US and that they were not allowed to board the plane.


"As far as we're concerned we haven't done anything wrong. We've not had a problem with the police.

"We're normal, law-abiding citizens. We work here and pay our taxes and we're just like normal people.


"We actually felt humiliated, alienated, because the way we were dealt with was just out of the ordinary. Everyone's eyes were on us, it was embarrassing."

Labour's Stella Creasy, who is the family's local MP, has written to David Cameron to try to find out why the family were stopped.

She also said a growing number of British Muslims claim they have received similar treatment.

Ajmal Masroor, an imam in east London, told Sky News he was also banned from flying to the US last week, something he described as "crazy" and an "insult".

Mr Masroor had been invited to lead Friday prayers at a mosque in New York.

But when he arrived at the gate to board his flight, he was told by someone who said they were a US official that his visa had been revoked.

Mr Masroor said: "He would not give me any reason, he said he was only a messenger.

"But when I questioned him a bit more, he said 'maybe you've done something wrong, you need to speak to the embassy'.

"I was very furious he would make accusations against me without any proof or any substantial evidence that he could provide me and they would arbitrarily refuse or revoke a visa."

A week on from the cancellation of their flight, Mr Mahmood said they still had not been given a reason.

The family have also reportedly been told by their airline, Norwegian Air, that the £9,000 cost of their flights will not be refunded.

Ms Creasy believes a lack of information from US authorities about why they were prevented from travelling is fuelling resentment within British Muslim communities.

The claims come after Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump recently called for all Muslims to be stopped from entering the United States.

Ms Creasy said: "It is not just the family themselves who are livid.

"The vacuum created by a refusal to provide any context for these decisions is fuelling resentment and debate.

"Online and offline discussions reverberate with the growing fear UK Muslims are being 'trumped' - that widespread condemnation of Donald Trump’s call for no Muslim to be allowed into America contrasts with what is going on in practice."

She also said there has been no further contact from either the UK or US security services to follow up any potential threat the family were perceived to be.

The family, from her Walthamstow constituency in northeast London, had applied for and were granted travel authorisation online a number of weeks before their flight.

Mr Mahmood said the children had been excited about the trip for months, and were devastated not to be able to visit their cousins in California and go to Disneyland and Universal Studios, as planned.

Ms Creasy has hit a "brick wall" in her own inquiries and has asked Mr Cameron to press US officials for an explanation as to why the Mahmoods were prevented from flying.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "The Prime Minister would consider the issues raised and respond in due course."

Sky News has asked the Home Office to comment.

Norwegian Air said in a statement: "We can confirm that a group of passengers were denied the right to board a flight from London Gatwick to Los Angeles on Tuesday at the request of the US Department of Homeland Security.

"Norwegian fully complies with requests from the border controls of each country we serve."

[DriveAlive]

Sounds fair to me...

[Jinglebottom]

But they can still go to Euro Disney, no? Oh wait, that's in France...

[Atlantis]

Following from Donald Trump's "complete and utter shutdown of Muslims entering the US", it's a bit odd to happen at the same time.

[dxcxdzv]

But they can still go to Euro Disney, no? Oh wait, that's in France...
xD

Haha... a visa is useless for traveling from UK to France.

[northy]

They could still go to france if they are EU citizens. Freedom of movement and all that. Also, the French aren't as racist as the americans.

[thatcountrykid]

They could still go to france if they are EU citizens. Freedom of movement and all that. Also, the French aren't as racist as the americans.

So a families visas being revoked is racist?

[Jinglebottom]

So a families visas being revoked is racist?
Uh, I think they've considered this an "islamophobic" personal attack.

[northy]

Uh, I think they've considered this an "islamophobic" personal attack.
It is assumed to be 'islamophobic' because they have given no reason for stopping them going.

[Sailor Mars]

They could still go to france if they are EU citizens. Freedom of movement and all that. Also, the French aren't as racist as the americans.
but xenophobic as fuck... a lot of them anyway lol

but yea thats kinda fked up that they spent ‎€9000 almost $10,000 and didn't get it back i would be pissed too

[phuckphace]

life's a bitch and then you die

[northy]

life's a bitch and then you die
Right...

[sqishy]

So a families visas being revoked is racist?

No. Got some explaining to do about this though. The most likely blame is islamaphobia (I here am making no jumps to conclusions, but seems like an odd coincidence with Tonald Drump's ideas).


life's a bitch and then you die

Personally I don't take the Cersei Lannister way of living with others!

[Microcosm]

Sounds fair to me...

More like anything but fair.

They weren't refunded for the money they spent for the flight and weren't provided a reason as to why they weren't allowed to travel.

It sounds to me like a textbook case of islamophobia, and that is nothing more than a stereotype, which is definitively unfair.

The people did not vote on this, did they? Maybe if the people voted that Muslims should be kept out, then I would consider it slightly more fair(this is pertaining to the American case, of course). Just because some bureaucrat thinks Muslims shouldn't be permitted to enter the country doesn't mean the majority of the people believe that.

[phuckphace]

I've been seeing a lot of people all over the internet who think we have some kind of moral obligation to let the whole world into our country for any reason. we don't.

try going to Dubai (if you can even get in) and have a look-see at their Indian/black serf-class. it may come as a shock to Tumblrites, but people in that region of the world are unapologetically RACIST in ways that just might knock you over. blacks are straight up treated like a public nuisance even if they're Muslims, and it's to the point where shoulders are shrugged when an African gets run over by a speeding car.

kaffirs ruined my Disneyworld vacation, now I'm a suicide bomber :lol3:

[thatcountrykid]

Uh, I think they've considered this an "islamophobic" personal attack.

I wouldn't call it islamaphobia I'd call it national security. We have no obligation to let people enter and I'm sure there was a good reason not to let them enter.

[Microcosm]

I've been seeing a lot of people all over the internet who think we have some kind of moral obligation to let the whole world into our country for any reason. we don't.

try going to Dubai (if you can even get in) and have a look-see at their Indian/black serf-class. it may come as a shock to Tumblrites, but people in that region of the world are unapologetically RACIST in ways that just might knock you over. blacks are straight up treated like a public nuisance even if they're Muslims, and it's to the point where shoulders are shrugged when an African gets run over by a speeding car.

kaffirs ruined my Disneyworld vacation, now I'm a suicide bomber :lol3:

But America is supposed to be run by the people, yes? Why should we let some unknown figure in our government choose whether they should come in? There should be a vote.

[phuckphace]

But America is supposed to be run by the people, yes? Why should we let some unknown figure in our government choose whether they should come in? There should be a vote.

government policy is "supposed" to reflect the will of the people, the same people who will be flooding to the polls to elect Donald Trump in the hopes that he delivers on his promises to seal off the borders. we've got 325 million people already, we don't need any more, especially Muslims whose "vetting" basically consists of asking them "Are you a terrorist?" :lol3:

come to think of it, why should we let in a bunch of unknown "refugees" who come from war-torn regions without any verifiable background records? and why, even if we were able to reliably vet them, does a country with 325 million people "need" to let in any more immigrants anyway? also lolin at the idea of public referendums for every policy decision. it's unfeasible for one, hence why representative government was created in the first place.

(I'm aware the OP's story isn't related to refugees per se, but my points stand).

[Microcosm]

government policy is "supposed" to reflect the will of the people, the same people who will be flooding to the polls to elect Donald Trump in the hopes that he delivers on his promises to seal off the borders. we've got 325 million people already, we don't need any more, especially Muslims whose "vetting" basically consists of asking them "Are you a terrorist?" :lol3:

come to think of it, why should we let in a bunch of unknown "refugees" who come from war-torn regions without any verifiable background records? and why, even if we were able to reliably vet them, does a country with 325 million people "need" to let in any more immigrants anyway? also lolin at the idea of public referendums for every policy decision. it's unfeasible for one, hence why representative government was created in the first place.

(I'm aware the OP's story isn't related to refugees per se, but my points stand).

Technically, with the Internet and all, it is kind of feasible, but I agree that direct democracy wouldn't work very well.

why, even if we were able to reliably vet them, does a country with 325 million people "need" to let in any more immigrants anyway?

Also, by that logic, why do we even let anyone migrate over here? By that same logic, you could say that because we have so many people, it would make sense to just shut down migration entirely. We don't "need" to let immigrants in, but immigration is important in providing a work force for a country. Immigration is totally natural, and it has been happening for quite a while not only to the U.S., but almost everywhere in the world.

Perhaps a vote in congress would suffice, but I personally believe it should be up to the state governments as to whether these Muslims and other questionable immigrants should come in. After all, they are the ones who would be providing land and such for them to immigrate onto.

Doesn't it seem more reasonable to have the state governments each individually decide whether they want to let them in or not rather than just letting the federal government decree that it should be so no matter what the people think? Even if we were to cast a vote in congress about it, the votes would be heavily influenced by lobbyists. A safer way to do it would be to handle it on a local level. While there would still be lobbying in some of the richer states, I think state governments like the one in Alabama would be honest about it.

[phuckphace]

Also, by that logic, why do we even let anyone migrate over here?

I have no idea.

By that same logic, you could say that because we have so many people, it would make sense to just shut down migration entirely. We don't "need" to let immigrants in, but immigration is important in providing a work force for a country.

this is the old neoliberal canard we've been hearing for decades now. take Silicon Valley for example, which used to be a magnet for young white males looking for a well-paying career. now it's packed out by smelly cow-worshippers here on H1B visas who stink up the break room with goat curry. they're desired by upper-management for their cheapness despite being a deadly combination of inept and corrupt. even Microsoft is headed by a cow-worshipper CEO now. H1Bs serve one purpose and one purpose only - to inflate profit margins. it's "greed is good" wrapped in humanism, and it had the effect of needlessly rendering a large segment of our native population redundant.

Immigration is totally natural, and it has been happening for quite a while not only to the U.S., but almost everywhere in the world.

this is both an appeal to history and an appeal to everyone else is doing it therefore we should.

here's what I think is reasonable: cutting off immigration for a few decades and giving our native populace a chance at making something of themselves without having to compete with the entire world for a well-paying job. never forget that "muh immigration" is, at the end of the day, the spiritual successor to African slavery, motivated by greed and a lust for higher profit margins no matter the cost to the host society. the supposed "need" to import Indian programmers who can barely code, much less use a toilet properly, is an extremely cynical calculation by our arrogant elites who benefit hugely from progressive humanist excuse-making. never forget who you're in league when you're tempted to shill for mass-immigration.

[Vlerchan]

Why should we let some unknown figure in our government choose whether they should come in? There should be a vote.
I've seen nothing to contradict the idea that the bureaucrat that rejected them was working within U.S. law as elected representatives created it. I don't think it's feasible that we would create a system closer to the people than that. You have millions of people enter the U.S each day.

It's also highly dubious that we'd be seeing informed opinions.

Letting us swipe right for Mohammad Tariq Mahmood would probably actually make the system more awful.

Doesn't it seem more reasonable to have the state governments each individually decide whether they want to let them in or not rather than just letting the federal government decree that it should be so no matter what the people think?
No. If this news story highlights one thing it's that conduct in foreign affairs is a prime determinant of a nation's reputation. Leaving that up to the frequently hormonal state government would be crazy.

The Founding Fathers agree with me.

---

take Silicon Valley for example, which used to be a magnet for young white males looking for a well-paying career.
Please note that as more young white males looking for a career entered Silicon Valley the aggregate wage went up:

Why is that VT?

---

Spoiler: Wage Agglomeration (http://www.econ.wisc.edu/workshop/Shihe14.pdf).

H1Bs serve one purpose and one purpose only - to inflate profit margins. it's "greed is good" wrapped in humanism, and it had the effect of needlessly rendering a large segment of our native population redundant.
Literally supported by none of the evidence.

The study found that cities with bad luck in the 2007 and 2008 visa lotteries really did take a hit to their computer sectors — and the US-born workers in them. They generated slightly fewer jobs for native tech workers with college degrees than cities that had better luck, but many fewer jobs for tech workers without college degrees. For every 1 percent in "shock" from H-1B rejections, the number of jobs available for US-born tech workers without college degrees grew 7 percent slower during the recession. (For US-born workers with college degrees, it was 1.3 percent slower.)

In total, the study finds, had everyone who applied for an H-1B visa in time gotten one in 2007 and 2008, the tech industry could have added at least 60,000 more jobs by 2010 than it did for US-born tech workers — and as many as 231,000. So a single tweak in immigration policy could have caused tech sector growth to triple in the teeth of the recession.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/4/5779472/study-high-skilled-immigrants-jobs-Americans-h1b-visa-lottery

[phuckphace]

you know the world has been turned upside down when I find Mother Jones echoing my own sentiments. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers)

money quote:

"You can be an exact match and never even get a phone call because you are too expensive," says Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California-Davis. "The minute that they see you've got 10 or 15 years of experience, they don't want you."

"too expensive" - read: muh profit margins. obviously, paying good wages is to these tech companies (which basically print money anyway) readily possible with what can be found under the CEO's couch cushions, but why would you do that when you can hire Pajeet for a couple rupees a day instead? the only folks who won't admit to plain old greed being the primary motivator, besides the tech companies themselves, are the napkin-soothsayers who love churning out tl;dr papers on why this is critically necessary in a life-or-death sort of way. and this is to say nothing of the other, secondary effects of importing foreigners who have zero incentive to integrate.

Microsoft's prolific use of perma-temp workers is another part of this angle - workers with no rights or benefits, and in practice are kept indefinitely at the company's whim. all it takes is a couple seconds of thinking to unravel - every position filled by an H1B or perma-temp is one less position available for a qualified native who wants a job, which that native would have were it not for the economic treason and greed of disloyal corporations.

"importing cheap labor creates jobs" - who writes this shit, seriously? :lol3: elite arrogance once again - they really and truly believe we're stupid.

[Jinglebottom]

I've been seeing a lot of people all over the internet who think we have some kind of moral obligation to let the whole world into our country for any reason. we don't.

try going to Dubai (if you can even get in) and have a look-see at their Indian/black serf-class. it may come as a shock to Tumblrites, but people in that region of the world are unapologetically RACIST in ways that just might knock you over. blacks are straight up treated like a public nuisance even if they're Muslims, and it's to the point where shoulders are shrugged when an African gets run over by a speeding car.

kaffirs ruined my Disneyworld vacation, now I'm a suicide bomber :lol3:
People of South Asian ancestry are nothing but slaves to them, used for the purpose of constructing some of the biggest structures in the world, on a shitty salary, on your typical hot, arid desert day (where temperatures can rise up to 50 degrees Celsius).

And that's while all the Gulf Arabs (you'll recognize them using their dress code: women are completely veiled in black, with only their eyes exposed, and men wear something that looks like a white, long-sleeved dress with a weird hat) shop in Gucci and Louis Vuitton stores.

[Vlerchan]

[Quoting Mother Jones:] "You can be an exact match and never even get a phone call because you are too expensive," says Norman Matloff, a computer science professor at the University of California-Davis. "The minute that they see you've got 10 or 15 years of experience, they don't want you."
I have no idea why that newsblog thought it was reasonable to quote a non-economists to describe an economic phenomenon. There's no reason that a firm wouldn't want experience unless the candidate over-values their own experience.

I've also been told by my dad - who works as a programmer: that means his opinion must be correct - that younger candidates are favoured because these bring new skills and this is important in a field in constant evolution. In economics terms it's what produces agglomeration economies whereas a wider range of capacities are brought together and thus through interaction productivity as a whole is raised.

[..] napkin-soothsayers who love churning out tl;dr papers [..]
I wasn't citing a theoretical model like the laffer curve. I was citing an empirical analysis.

Microsoft's prolific use of perma-temp workers is another part of this angle - workers with no rights or benefits, and in practice are kept indefinitely at the company's whim.
I also disagree with the abuses. In particular the use of the programme by firms operating offshores.

"importing cheap labor creates jobs" - who writes this shit, seriously? elite arrogance once again - they really and truly believe we're stupid.
I knew I should have included that trigger warning.

[Judean Zealot]

Vlerchan I liked your whole post just for this:

I knew I should have included that trigger warning.

:D

[phuckphace]

triggered so hard I had to retreat to my safe space with shrine to God-Emperor Trump

nice going you dicks, I still can't even

[Porpoise101]

try going to Dubai (if you can even get in) and have a look-see at their Indian/black serf-class. it may come as a shock to Tumblrites, but people in that region of the world are unapologetically RACIST in ways that just might knock you over.
In India it's the same; outsiders are filth and must be condemned. Even Indians hate each other. Between all the regions and ethnic groups, it's a marvel the nation exists. Even my cousin, a Hindu, has to hide that he's dating a Sikh girl. Our generation is much better though so I'm very optimistic.

About the Gulf States, my cousin (another one) works in Oman. It's pretty bad and he is only allowed home for a few days. In fact one of the few days I've seen him since he got his job was the birth of my niece.

[northy]

I wouldn't call it islamaphobia I'd call it national security. We have no obligation to let people enter and I'm sure there was a good reason not to let them enter.

Yeah, fair enough. Show us the evidence then. It seems to be a case where the poor family got confused by the security people with ISIS. If they were really believed to be terrorists, they would have been arrested; which they weren't.

[Jinglebottom]

In India it's the same; outsiders are filth and must be condemned. Even Indians hate each other. Between all the regions and ethnic groups, it's a marvel the nation exists. Even my cousin, a Hindu, has to hide that he's dating a Sikh girl. Our generation is much better though so I'm very optimistic.
Same here, except it's mostly the Muslims (Sunni and Shi'ite alike) who have a knack for starting trouble in literally every corner of the country. And the worst part of it is that the younger generation has even more hatred than the older generation! Disgusting.

[thatcountrykid]

Yeah, fair enough. Show us the evidence then. It seems to be a case where the poor family got confused by the security people with ISIS. If they were really believed to be terrorists, they would have been arrested; which they weren't.

I know as much as you do and they can be on a watch list which means there are concerns but no cause for arrest. People forget that we are under no obligation to let anyone into the country. It is totally the right of a nation to refuse entry.

[northy]

I know as much as you do and they can be on a watch list which means there are concerns but no cause for arrest. People forget that we are under no obligation to let anyone into the country. It is totally the right of a nation to refuse entry.
Again, true. But I think that you should give a reason so that people don't call it discrimination. It would prevent media hype like this. Also remember that we are under no obligations to let Americans in and I bet that an American Muslim would react the same if we have no reason for not letting them in.

[Uniquemind]

What concerns me more about this story is that it seems or this implies the intelligence community is lazy, and non-specific on who gets treated like this or not.

Better intelligence should be more specific, use better algorithms, and actually have a good amount of trained secret agents who stalk suspected people, but walk that dividing line between allowing them to go on their business versus stopping them outright and causing a public relations nightmare.

[thatcountrykid]

Again, true. But I think that you should give a reason so that people don't call it discrimination. It would prevent media hype like this. Also remember that we are under no obligations to let Americans in and I bet that an American Muslim would react the same if we have no reason for not letting them in.

Well as I'm not the federal government I can't give the reason they have. And honestly I don't give a damn if it's an American Muslim or an English Muslim Or a Muslim at all. It's weather or not the person is a possible threat.

[northy]

Well as I'm not the federal government I can't give the reason they have. And honestly I don't give a damn if it's an American Muslim or an English Muslim Or a Muslim at all. It's weather or not the person is a possible threat.

Yes, but you can't assume someone is a threat because of their beliefs. Am I a threat because I'm an atheist? It's possibly the way that the media has portrayed it in America that is confusing you (Your media always exaggerates)

[thatcountrykid]

Yes, but you can't assume someone is a threat because of their beliefs. Am I a threat because I'm an atheist? It's possibly the way that the media has portrayed it in America that is confusing you (Your media always exaggerates)

Haha you assume I'm confused. Do you have any evidence that they were rejected based on their religion?

[phuckphace]

I say we let them in - we'll all benefit if Disneyland gets blown up

[Stronk Serb]

Well, when you are trying to get a US visa, they always say that you can get denied/revoked and that you won't get any refund. About plane tickets, it's common douchery everywhere that they won't refund it.

[northy]

Haha you assume I'm confused. Do you have any evidence that they were rejected based on their religion?

Have you any evidence they weren't?

[Porpoise101]

Have you any evidence they weren't?
Well I'm pretty sure in the US it's innocent until proven guilty. So we don't really know if they were victimized. However I do think it's really annoying and rude considering they didn't give any reason.

[thatcountrykid]

Have you any evidence they weren't?

So you don't? Ok so since I'm sure dozens of other families were allowed into the US, I'm gonna have faith that this was a legitimate denial.

You're basically saying it's wrong because there's a small chance they were rejected because of "islamaphobia".

[sweettayla]

Yes, but you can't assume someone is a threat because of their beliefs. Am I a threat because I'm an atheist? It's possibly the way that the media has portrayed it in America that is confusing you (Your media always exaggerates)

There you have it, what followers of Islam don't seem to understand. The vast majority of attacks are carried out by followers of Islam, as westerners or non believers we have every reason to be wary of them.

[Jinglebottom]

There you have it, what followers of Islam don't seem to understand. The vast majority of attacks are carried out by followers of Islam, as westerners or non believers we have every reason to be wary of them.
Remember, according to their book, we're ALL "infidels" who are worthy of the most painful and humiliating death. Yes, I know the majority of Muslims don't think this way, but a significant (and controversial) minority still has that mindset.

[northy]

So you don't? Ok so since I'm sure dozens of other families were allowed into the US, I'm gonna have faith that this was a legitimate denial.

You're basically saying it's wrong because there's a small chance they were rejected because of "islamaphobia".
So you are just assuming that your government is correct. Having seen what they've done in the past, I doubt that.
Typical cocky American.

[northy]

There you have it, what followers of Islam don't seem to understand. The vast majority of attacks are carried out by followers of Islam, as westerners or non believers we have every reason to be wary of them.
You should be wary of all people then, a small percentage of them are psychopaths.

[Porpoise101]

There you have it, what followers of Islam don't seem to understand. The vast majority of attacks are carried out by followers of Islam, as westerners or non believers we have every reason to be wary of them.
False.

Europe:http://www.vocativ.com/news/251821/muslims-terrorist-attacks/
Turns out nationalists are still at it.
US:http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/05/muslims-only-carried-out-2-5-percent-of-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil-between-1970-and-2012.html
Note that this data ends at 2005, but still. Not even close. While Islamic terrorism is bad, it is bad that the government hasn't either taken them into custody or given a reason for something like that. At least to many i t appears discriminatory.

[Jinglebottom]

From my experience, it's Muslims who are the main perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Which is why my tone when discussing Islam isn't very friendly. I'm sure most of you have noticed that.

[thatcountrykid]

So you are just assuming that your government is correct. Having seen what they've done in the past, I doubt that.
Typical cocky American.

If this was truly a case of "islamaphobia" no other Muslim families would have been allowed in.

[northy]

If this was truly a case of "islamaphobia" no other Muslim families would have been allowed in.
Islamophobia.

They should give a reason to stop the press taking it this way. I see it as potential discrimination against them, as they had no problems until they were due to depart. It is still not fair that their holiday was cancelled / ruined and if it was an American I bet they would try to sue for discrimination.

[thatcountrykid]

Islamophobia.

They should give a reason to stop the press taking it this way. I see it as potential discrimination against them, as they had no problems until they were due to depart. It is still not fair that their holiday was cancelled / ruined and if it was an American I bet they would try to sue for discrimination.

Well it's not Americans who are setting off bombs and killing thousands of their own is it?

[phuckphace]

Typical cocky American.

*suicide bomb*
typical Muslim!

[Jinglebottom]

*suicide bomb*
typical Muslim!
http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah286/bobyo01/Lebnen/77CF051C-84CD-4D9B-A55F-F2607A109F26_zpsnzxsqrbv.jpg (http://s1383.photobucket.com/user/bobyo01/media/Lebnen/77CF051C-84CD-4D9B-A55F-F2607A109F26_zpsnzxsqrbv.jpg.html)

[northy]

Well it's not Americans who are setting off bombs and killing thousands of their own is it?

No, they just shoot their own children in their own schools. And drop bombs and start wars. Completely different.

[phuckphace]

No, they just shoot their own children in their own schools. And drop bombs and start wars. Completely different.

since your IQ is 146 you're surely aware that this is a false equivalence

school shootings kill roughly a dozen per year if that. the culprits are mentally disturbed individuals, not religious fanatics.

why do so many Brits shill for Islam? serious question.

[thatcountrykid]

No, they just shoot their own children in their own schools. And drop bombs and start wars. Completely different.

I think phuckphace just said it all

[northy]

since your IQ is 146 you're surely aware that this is a false equivalence

school shootings kill roughly a dozen per year if that. the culprits are mentally disturbed individuals, not religious fanatics.

why do so many Brits shill for Islam? serious question.

I was going for humour on that last one.

I don't side with anything, just dislike prejudice and endorse logic.

[Porpoise101]

From my experience, it's Muslims who are the main perpetrators of terrorist attacks. Which is why my tone when discussing Islam isn't very friendly. I'm sure most of you have noticed that.
Of course you experience that Muslims do most of the terrorist attacks... It's because they are the majority of the population in the region you live in and they seem pretty angry and poor in said region.

[Jinglebottom]

Of course you experience that Muslims do most of the terrorist attacks... It's because they are the majority of the population in the region you live in and they seem pretty angry and poor in said region.
They make up the very slight majority (~55%) of the population. Why don't the Christians (40%) or the Druze (5%; aka me) ever pull shit like this? I have never ever heard of a suicide bombing in the areas where Muslims are the minority. It's always either Tripoli or Southern Beirut, both of which are exclusively Muslim. See the link?

[Judean Zealot]

They make up the very slight majority (~55%) of the population. Why don't the Christians (40%) or the Druze (5%; aka me) ever pull shit like this? I have never ever heard of a suicide bombing in the areas where Muslims are the minority. It's always either Tripoli or Southern Beirut, both of which are exclusively Muslim. See the link?

I just read that the Hezbollah operative Israel blew to smithereens the other week was Druze. I found that interesting - I didn't know any Druze were allied with Hezbollah.

[Judean Zealot]

I was going for humour on that last one.

I don't side with anything, just dislike prejudice and endorse logic.

Question: Does this mean you are prejudiced against the illogical?

[Jinglebottom]

I just read that the Hezbollah operative Israel blew to smithereens the other week was Druze. I found that interesting - I didn't know any Druze were allied with Hezbollah.
All you have to do to join Hezbollah is yell "Death to Israel and Israelis!". They'll let you in without having to know anything else about your origins and whereabouts.

[northy]

Question: Does this mean you are prejudiced against the illogical?

That statement does not make sense to me.

Logic is always correct.

[Vlerchan]

That statement does not make sense to me.

Logic is always correct.
That doesn't mean that it's not a point prejudice because prejudice doesn't refer to things that are incorrect.

You - and I for that matter - are certainly prejudiced against prejudice, also.

---

Judean Zealot:

This also reminded me of this thinker. You might be interested in giving him a read at some stage.

As a result of Martin Heidegger’s temporal analysis of human existence, [Hans-Georg] Gadamer argued that people have a "historically-effected" consciousness (wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewußtsein), and that they are embedded in the particular history and culture that shaped them. However the historical consciousness is not an object over and against our existence, but “a stream in which we move and participate, in every act of understanding.” Therefore, people do not come to any given thing without some form of preunderstanding established by this historical stream. The tradition in which an interpreter stands establishes "prejudices" that affect how he or she will make interpretations. For Gadamer, these prejudices are not something that hinders our ability to make interpretations, but are both integral to the reality of being, and “are the basis of our being able to understand history at all.” Gadamer criticized Enlightenment thinkers for harboring a "prejudice against prejudices".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Georg_Gadamer#Philosophical_Hermeneutics_and_Truth_and_Method

[phuckphace]

I've found that "prejudice" is usually Internet shorthand for "opinions I disagree with"

this poster's post is prejudiced ipso facto it cannot be logical ergo it's fallacious (refugees welcome)

[northy]

I've found that "prejudice" is usually Internet shorthand for "opinions I disagree with"

this poster's post is prejudiced ipso facto it cannot be logical ergo it's fallacious (refugees welcome)
Right, So if I am prejudiced against a certain group of people and choose an employee not of that group because of this, is that an opinion I disagree with?

[phuckphace]

Right, So if I am prejudiced against a certain group of people and choose an employee not of that group because of this, is that an opinion I disagree with?

everyone has their "prejudices" (i.e. preconceived opinions) but that word is usually used selectively by SJWs to describe opinions held by anyone to the right of Marx and Engels

[outback4]

well, atleast their messenger wasn't Donald trump. the hair would be blinding