Branyy

To me, the most shocking bit is that Primark actually pulled the shirts from the store. Can't they even argue or defend themselves against such irrational remarks? Btw, the offensive version of the rhyme is probably the oldest one, it was published in 1888 (as I've just learned).

Hi, I'm not familiar with this toy at all. But it seems that it's possible to update his software via usb cable or sd card. So perhaps that's worth trying. My second guess would be that the battery actually died completely, can't be recharged and needs a replacement.

I have no idea what he was referring to but I didn't hear him mentioning "a terror attack". Now you're refering to this as "ANOTHER non existant terror attack." What was the other non-existent terror attack?

Of course not. On the same basis, arguments as "the Palestinians had been living there for hundreds of year" and "the ancient homeland of Eastern Europeans in Eastern Europe" are equally stupid.

Well, if Hamas recruit children as terrorist suicide attackers or use them as human shields then no wonder they die.

How can we give the sovereignty back when they've never had any?

Now you combine ad hominem with authority fallacy, brilliant! I definitely do have limited intelligence. But at least I'm familiar with basic principles of logic that allows me to have a discussion... with some people...

Well, I clearly cited UN and EU documents, that one wikipedia quote directs to social sciences textbook. So, Joker, do you have any relevant arguments or just useless ad hominem replies?

Rather than looking at some blog, let's look at facts and definitions: From wikipedia: "Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition". Let's have a look further at description of racism by UN convention: "The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin..." EU Articles formulate and distinguish racial and other forms of discriminations (including religious). Also, EU defines Islamophobia as the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them. I think we should stick to these established definitions.

Well that makes you a hypocrite. You complain about the principles only when the results of them disagree with your opinion.

What should also be considered, is the idea behind those bans. In Trump case the ban is based on the list of "countries of concern" (proposed by previous administration, btw). Is it reasonable? Is it effective? Should the list be longer/shorter? Those can be topic of discussions and arguments. On the other hand, ban of women without head covers in muslim countries is based purely on religious discrimination, therefore instantly despicable.

I agree, they shouldn't. But when the UN human rights chief says that it's "mean-spirited" and "discrimination on nationality alone is forbidden under human rights law" and at the same time UN are endorsing Saudi Arabia for the human rights council... that just sound like a plain hypocrisy to me... Having said that, it shouldn't be an excuse for Trump. I just really think that all the Trump-protesters should think about it and answer themselves why they keep quiet on other similarly serious matters. ---------- Post added 30-01-2017 at 20:20 ---------- You are being discriminating against nation (of democratic republic), I find it very despicable.

Also, let's not forget related important facts: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport#Countries_that_do_not_accept_Israeli_passports

Interesting reading, really. I find this statement quite surprising: "Similar to 2014, the UK reported most attacks (103) representing half of the total of terrorist attacks in the EU for 2015." That seems really a lot. What are those "not specified" UK attacks? ---------- Post added 30-01-2017 at 16:15 ---------- Alright, I got it, I'll answer my question Data provided by the UK don't recognise types of terrorism. Considering that it represents half of the EU attacks, the whole conclusion seems pointless...

Well, it seems that it might reduce almost 60% of illegal Mexican immigrants

It doesn't surprise me that you have this weird attraction to watching public murders.

I don't see any evidence of that.

You clearly fail to understand how borders are supposed to work.

Maybe he just should have switched his phone to flight mode.

While I agree that alcohol is a relevant factor, it probably doesn't introduce sudden image of inferior women in one's mind. In contrast to some cultures/religions

Wasn't Lockerbie assigned to muslim terrorism? (Just asking)

It would be also interesting to see if there is any kind of specific cultural/religious background which is more accepting towards abusive behavior of men towards women But I guess such a statistic would not be politically correct...

Can you provide some of that evidence, please?

To be honest, I don't really care where they are originally from. They're coming to UK from Calais, France. This makes them migrants, not refugees, by definition.

Well, it's not surprising that such a violence is present in the countries which are struggling to estabilish basic human rights (because most of citizens don't want to). It's not surprising that fights are arising inbetween muslim since their ideology is prone to various contradicting interpretations. But to me, it's shocking when we have to deal with this in grown-up, democratic Europe.