xray

When Mythbusters supposedly debunked the 'electrocution by urination' claim, in regards the railway tracks, I was wondering what kind of a ground the Mythbusters had created when they ran their test. I don't remember seeing data from them on this.

In any event, the electrocution of the man in this case did not involve a railway track and I haven't seen mention of the voltage involved in this case. It may have been in excess of that in the Mythbusters railway track test.

A drawing about two thirds of the way down the page linked below shows how electrocution can happen via a downed power line without the victim doing anything other than standing on the ground. In this example the power line is 2400v. There is allot of interesting info on this website:

http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/electricCircuits/DC/DC_3.html

Electrical Conductivity and Water

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/electrical-conductivity.html

Pure water is not a good conductor of electricity. But, most water we encounter in daily life is not pure and will conduct electricity to varying degrees. Water can make a dangerous electrical situation a deadly one.

I think what some folk confuse with is that it was the original early DC electrical supply was what was so dangerous and was changed to AC which is easier to generate too of course. With DC it seizes the human muscles meaning you cannot let go of the source of the shock, whereas with AC you are thrown off as the voltage falls and is reversed and the muscles react by immediately reflexing of course.

Both DC and AC are potentially dangerous. Residential AC (110v or 220v) can cause a person's muscles to 'not let go', which is why electricians recommend 'touches' be made using the back of ones hand, rather than with the palm of the hand. Touching a live point with the back of the hand, the arm muscles will cause the hand to pull away, whereas touching with the inside of the fingers or palm or grabbing a live point (such as a shower water knob that has become live, or a malfunctioning electric instant water heater in a shower) can cause a person to involuntarily grab the live point and be unable to let go. Both DC and AC have the ability to cause this to happen. The alternations and voltage falls associated with AC are measured in fractions of a second - not enough time to allow a person to 'let go'. Some links to online information for your consideration (excerpts below each link):

http://www.bassengineering.com/e_effect.htm

"The current is the controlling factor for Electrocution and Electrical Shock. The threshold for perception is about 100 microamps (0.0001 Amps). Also See Microshock Electrocution Hazards for currents less than 100 microamps. The National Electrical Code (NEC) considers 5 milliamps (0.005 Amps) to be a safe upper limit for children and adults hence the 5 milliamps GFI circuit breaker requirement for wet locations. The normal nervous system reaction to any perceptible electrical shock may cause a person to injure themselves or others, therefore the so called safe limit does not assure freedom from injury.

The more serious electrocution and shock hazards occur above the let go limits. 99% of the female population have an let go limit above 6 milliamps, with an average of 10.5 milliamps. 99% of the male population have an let go limit above 9 milliamps, with an average of 15.5 milliamps. Prolonged exposure to 60 Hz. currents greater than 18 milliamps, across the chest causes the diaphragm to contract which prevents breathing and causes the victim to suffocate...All of the current limits referred to in this article are based on power line frequencies of 50 or 60 hertz."

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/electrocution.htm

"With anything that you suspect, never touch it with your finger tips - if it's live, you may grab it and be unable to let go. If no test equipment is available, use the back of your hand. Because the skin is softer, you can feel quite low voltages this way, but if it's potentially lethal, your hand will pull away from the faulty appliance. You may find that you can detect as little as 1mA quite reliably by using the back of your hand - this is considered to be about the minimum we can feel, although some people will be more or less sensitive."

And who do you imagine I am propagandizing for?

More like what, just a wild guess here- ISLAM?

Yes, not who in this case, but what and how. In this case simply in support of a point of view. Propaganda is a technique, which connotes deception or distortion.

"You used a cheap trick trying to suggest I have said this was about ALL Muslim people."

I responded to your post as I read it.

That was all.

Disingenuous as well. OK, enough is enough, life is too short, welcome to my Ignore list. I already get your POV on these issues ... reading it again another 10,000 times won't be useful.

My sentiments exactly.

I never said all Muslims. I know that's your game though. Hard to take that seriously.

My game?

What are you on about?

I have no time for terrorist scum or the atrocities they are responsible for.

However I don't allow to judge all by their actions.

Please tell me what the game is I'm playing by taking this view.

You used a cheap trick trying to suggest I have said this was about ALL Muslim people. That's your game. Instead of dealing the reality I presented ... a real problem of needed reform of modern Islam to bring them out of the dark ages on issues like death for apostasy ... you're not interested in that because it's too real and exposes liberal pablum for what it is; instead only diverting this into personality games. Not impressive or convincing.

"You used a cheap trick trying to suggest I have said this was about ALL Muslim people."

He did the same thing to me. It's one of the tools of his denial.

You can't have a serious discussion with a propagandist.

Religions are abstract constructs.

How people act out on their interpretation of their religion is when you get problems.

The truth is that a very large percentage of modern followers of Islam (a very major world religion based on numbers of followers) are stuck in long ago, backward centuries.

It cannot be denied some basic horrible truths that are totally incompatible with modern civilization.

In many Islamic nations, the vast majority of the people believe in DEATH for apostasy (leaving Islam).

Surveys even show in Buddhist majority Thailand, that a large percentage of Thai Muslims also support such backwards barbaric punishments.

Where is the rising up of global Muslims against such insanity? It doesn't exist.

Understandably, many are afraid ... but this is still a problem and acting like it isn't with liberal pablum doesn't make it go away.

You know a minority of modern Christians believe the bible tells them that gay people should be put to death.

But you don't have Christian states actually enforcing that.

Because Christians have moved on into this modern era.

Some Islamic states on the other hand ... are literally putting gay people to death based on their Islamic beliefs.

Please stop with the unbelievable BS that there isn't a problem with modern Islam. Maybe some good progress can be made in tolerance and future REFORM of global Islam, but you've got to start with HONESTY.

"Please stop with the unbelievable BS that there isn't a problem with modern Islam. Maybe some good progress can be made in tolerance and future REFORM of global Islam, but you've got to start with HONESTY."

The problem can't be addressed if it is not seen to exist. The president of Egypt has seen that there is a problem and has called on Muslim clerics to make changes for positive reform. Those in a state of denial, unable to see that Islamic terrorism is in fact carried out by members of the faith, will be a hindrance to peace, rather than the proponents of peace that they claim to be.

This is turning into pantomime season.

"They have also made it clear that they do not represent Islam."

But they do. They represent a violent form of Islam. That is the truth.

The rest of your post is rote repetition. However, I do hope you are not implying that I have labeled all Muslims by the actions of those violent members of the faith. I have done nothing of the sort; if someone claims otherwise, they are lying.

I only repeat because you keep coming up with the same old same old.

So here I go again.

Terrorists do not represent Islam.

That is the truth.

All Islamic terrorists, and there are a lot of them, are Muslims who firmly believe they represent true Islam. Who are you, a non believer, to tell them otherwise?

Like all who claim that Islamic terrorists are not of the Islamic faith, he is in a state of denial. Rather than admit there are violent Islamic groups and that a change is needed in the way the religion is taught by clerics, such as the president of Egypt has recently done, he cites others who share his denial and then accuses all who contradict him as being haters who see all Muslims as being same.

My points are as they have been from the start and are not repetitions of yours no matter what you claim. There is nothing new in them and I am puzzled as to why you would claim this.

Terrorists and Islamic state are not Islam nor do they represent the majority view of Muslims.

Where did I say they weren't Muslims? They are an intolerant sect based on hatred and intolerance. They do not represent the thinking or beliefs vast majority of their faith.

At best, to claim they represent Islam is just nonsense. Some might see it as deliberate distortion of the truth about most Muslims.

In effect, creating islamaphobia.

It is you, not I that distorts the truth, when you try to deny the fact that Islam is represented by all those who follow the faith, both good and evil. In fact, there are many different and varied groups within the world of Islam, and many of them are violent. I only used one as an example, the Islamic State. You acknowledge that they are Muslims, but you deny they are one of the groups that represent Islam. That is nonsense. They represent their ideal of Islam, just as the Jordanians represent their ideal of Islam, just as all Muslims represent Islam. You try and sell the notion that all the violent, evil, groups within the world of Islam are somehow not Islamic, and only the good peaceful groups belong to the faith. Again, nonsense.

In the face of the thousands of deaths brought about by Islamic terrorism, Islamaphobia is nothing. It is not hate, but only an irrational fear. In regards to the danger posed by Islamic terrorists, most fear is rational, not phobia.

It is irrational to condemn, hate and fear all Muslims because of the acts of a few.

It is irrational to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

It is wrong and irrational to claim that the terrorism of a few represents all Muslims and Islam.

The actions of isis and other terrorist groups have been condemned by Islamic scholars and leaders. They have also made it clear that they do not represent Islam.

That is the truth.

"They have also made it clear that they do not represent Islam."

But they do. They represent a violent form of Islam. That is the truth.

The rest of your post is rote repetition. However, I do hope you are not implying that I have labeled all Muslims by the actions of those violent members of the faith. I have done nothing of the sort; if someone claims otherwise, they are lying.

@xray

You said

Here you are just reiterating, using different words, what I have stated in the quoted post:

"Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war)."

Me

I'm not reiterating anything you said.

I'm making clear that terrorists do not represent Islam or mainstream Muslims.

It is wrong to hate a person or a community because of their faith.

"I'm making clear that terrorists do not represent Islam or mainstream Muslims."

It looked to me like a reiteration of what I had previously posted. You have introduced something different here and are only partly correct. Terrorists do not represent mainstream Muslims, but they certainly are representatives of Islam. Their brand of Islam. There is no way for them not to be, because contrary to previous posts claiming that they are not even Muslims, they are in fact Muslims of Islamic faith. If you do a small amount of research online, you will find this is true. There is no excommunication in Islam like there is in Christianity. If a person claims to be Muslim and follow Islam, then they are and do, regardless of anyone claiming otherwise. The Islamic State is just what it claims to be, Muslims following the Islamic faith. They are representatives of a violent interpretation of Islam.

"It is wrong to hate a person or a community because of their faith."

It depends on what they have done to you. I am sure there are those who would be justified in hating the Islamic State. I would not fault the family of the Jordanian pilot who was burned alive for any hate they might harbor for the Islamic State.

My points are as they have been from the start and are not repetitions of yours no matter what you claim. There is nothing new in them and I am puzzled as to why you would claim this.

Terrorists and Islamic state are not Islam nor do they represent the majority view of Muslims.

Where did I say they weren't Muslims? They are an intolerant sect based on hatred and intolerance. They do not represent the thinking or beliefs vast majority of their faith.

At best, to claim they represent Islam is just nonsense. Some might see it as deliberate distortion of the truth about most Muslims.

In effect, creating islamaphobia.

It is you, not I that distorts the truth, when you try to deny the fact that Islam is represented by all those who follow the faith, both good and evil. In fact, there are many different and varied groups within the world of Islam, and many of them are violent. I only used one as an example, the Islamic State. You acknowledge that they are Muslims, but you deny they are one of the groups that represent Islam. That is nonsense. They represent their ideal of Islam, just as the Jordanians represent their ideal of Islam, just as all Muslims represent Islam. You try and sell the notion that all the violent, evil, groups within the world of Islam are somehow not Islamic, and only the good peaceful groups belong to the faith. Again, nonsense.

In the face of the thousands of deaths brought about by Islamic terrorism, Islamaphobia is nothing. It is not hate, but only an irrational fear. In regards to the danger posed by Islamic terrorists, most fear is rational, not phobia.

@xray

You said

Here you are just reiterating, using different words, what I have stated in the quoted post:

"Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war)."

Me

I'm not reiterating anything you said.

I'm making clear that terrorists do not represent Islam or mainstream Muslims.

It is wrong to hate a person or a community because of their faith.

"I'm making clear that terrorists do not represent Islam or mainstream Muslims."

It looked to me like a reiteration of what I had previously posted. You have introduced something different here and are only partly correct. Terrorists do not represent mainstream Muslims, but they certainly are representatives of Islam. Their brand of Islam. There is no way for them not to be, because contrary to previous posts claiming that they are not even Muslims, they are in fact Muslims of Islamic faith. If you do a small amount of research online, you will find this is true. There is no excommunication in Islam like there is in Christianity. If a person claims to be Muslim and follow Islam, then they are and do, regardless of anyone claiming otherwise. The Islamic State is just what it claims to be, Muslims following the Islamic faith. They are representatives of a violent interpretation of Islam.

"It is wrong to hate a person or a community because of their faith."

It depends on what they have done to you. I am sure there are those who would be justified in hating the Islamic State. I would not fault the family of the Jordanian pilot who was burned alive for any hate they might harbor for the Islamic State.

No the terrorists do not represent islam. Most muslims and muslim countries condemn them and have publicly stated they dont represent islam.

The terrorists simply state they are doing it in the name of islam, much like hard line christians justify the murder of abortion clinic doctors. Much like scientologists ruining the lives of people that dare leave the faith or speak against them.

None of it is in the name of religion, it is merely the excuse of nutters in an attempt to justfy warped minds.

They don't represent your idea of what Islam is, or the ideal of Islam held by decent peaceful members of the faith. But, they are Muslims and of the Islamic faith. Their holy book is the Koran and they worship in mosques. If you were to tell them they do not represent Islam, they will say you are mistaken.

Of course they would say Im mistaken. But they would be wrong, as the majority of muslims and muslim countries have stated.

The same as a christian killing an abortion doctor in the name of christianity. He believes it is right but we all know he is wrong.

In your example, the Christian who commits murder is still a Christian. There are many Christians in prison for murder. There are also many Muslims in prison for murder. I don't like these people any more than you do, but I still consider them to be Christians and Muslims.

No the terrorists do not represent islam. Most muslims and muslim countries condemn them and have publicly stated they dont represent islam.

The terrorists simply state they are doing it in the name of islam, much like hard line christians justify the murder of abortion clinic doctors. Much like scientologists ruining the lives of people that dare leave the faith or speak against them.

None of it is in the name of religion, it is merely the excuse of nutters in an attempt to justfy warped minds.

They don't represent your idea of what Islam is, or the ideal of Islam held by decent peaceful members of the faith. But, they are Muslims and of the Islamic faith. Their holy book is the Koran and they worship in mosques. If you were to tell them they do not represent Islam, they will say you are mistaken.

If there were not continuing Islamic terrorist attacks, over and over again, we would not have the Islamaphobia. Do you agree with this statement?

No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith.

Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it.

"No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith"

Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war). Other religions are no different. Christianity has been represented by good and also by evil. The Nazis of 1930s and 1940s Germany were Christians. You can't disassociate the Islamic terrorists from the faith of Islam any more than you can disassociate Christian terrorists from the faith of Christianity. Islamaphobia will continue as long as Muslims of the Islamic faith carry out terror attacks.

"Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it."

Something we can agree on.

I can separate them.

Not all Germans were Nazis or took part in the Holocaust.

Not all Christians are responsible for the relatively recent atrocities carried out in Bosnia or Uganda.

Not all Buddhists are responsible for the bigotry and violence ongoing in Burma and until recently Sri Lanka.

Not all Muslims are responsible or sympathise with the actions of terrorists.

Well said, reiterating what I have stated in the quoted post:

"Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war). Other religions are no different. Christianity has been represented by good and also by evil."

If there were not continuing Islamic terrorist attacks, over and over again, we would not have the Islamaphobia. Do you agree with this statement?

No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith.

Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it.

"No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith"

Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war). Other religions are no different. Christianity has been represented by good and also by evil. The Nazis of 1930s and 1940s Germany were Christians. You can't disassociate the Islamic terrorists from the faith of Islam any more than you can disassociate Christian terrorists from the faith of Christianity. Islamaphobia will continue as long as Muslims of the Islamic faith carry out terror attacks.

"Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it."

Something we can agree on.

I can separate them.

Not all Germans were Nazis or took part in the Holocaust.

Not all Christians are responsible for the relatively recent atrocities carried out in Bosnia or Uganda.

Not all Buddhists are responsible for the bigotry and violence ongoing in Burma and until recently Sri Lanka.

Not all Muslims are responsible or sympathise with the actions of terrorists.

Here you are just reiterating, using different words, what I have stated in the quoted post:

"Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war)."

If there were not continuing Islamic terrorist attacks, over and over again, we would not have the Islamaphobia. Do you agree with this statement?

No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith.

Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it.

"No islamaphobia is caused by those who will not accept terrorists do not represent a faith"

Many peoples in many locations around the world represent the Islamic faith. This also includes Islamic terrorists, such as those in the 'Islamic State' (with whom the Muslims of Jordan are currently at war). Other religions are no different. Christianity has been represented by good and also by evil. The Nazis of 1930s and 1940s Germany were Christians. You can't disassociate the Islamic terrorists from the faith of Islam any more than you can disassociate Christian terrorists from the faith of Christianity. Islamaphobia will continue as long as Muslims of the Islamic faith carry out terror attacks.

"Hate, mistrust, prejudice, bigotry and intolerance {islamaphobia} will not stop it."

Something we can agree on.

The Sharia-type abuse of women is certainly a crime against humanity, but you will find that this is actually the minority in the Muslim macro group. Also many people living within extremist cultures such as Sharia, have no choice but to go along with it, that is the essence of violent extremism, many people join it out of fear of reprisals. This is true of many other failed social effects such as football hooligan scenarios, where many young men felt pressured into joining bloody fights just because they lived in a certain neighbourhood and supported that team. So what you are looking at in Sharia is not Muslims or even religion per se, it is a violent and tyrannical social mode, exploited for power and wealth, and clothed in some very pick-and-mix religious elements.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that.

You will find that the majority of Muslims are normal loving people, with nice families.

I have been the victim of many violent crimes in my life, every single crime was committed by an atheist.

"You will find that the majority of Muslims are normal loving people, with nice families."

That is exactly what I have found in my worldwide travels.

"I have been the victim of many violent crimes in my life, every single crime was committed by an atheist."

It echoes what a Muslim man told me in Tunisia in 2003 - "Most of the problems in the world today are being caused by atheists." Really? Osama bin Laden and George Bush...atheists sure do get around.

It is wrong to blame a faith for the actions of extremists...

It is this human capacity for bigotry that we should be concerned about, not any one faith.

Being aware of hatred and bigotry is well and fine; it has existed since the dawn of the human race. What we should be more concerned about at this time is preventing terrorists from murdering us.

There is only one faith current in the world today spawning the type of extremists that target innocent civilians on a worldwide scale, and that faith is Islam. I believe there is an association between the faith and the extremists; as do some leaders in the Islamic world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egypts-president-calls-for-religious-revolution-in-islam/

“Egypt's president called for a "religious revolution" over the New Year, saying that top Muslim clerics bear responsibility for helping to reign in extremist views.”

That does not justify the hatred of all Muslims.

That does not justify the lie that all Muslims support terror.

That does not justify islamaphobia.

No one I know is against stopping terrorism, including the man at the centre of this story who said he had no complaints and understood that the security people were doing their job. {Not that I know him}.

So tell me, who is saying we should not be concerned at preventing terrorism?

Can you see that Islamaphobia has been caused my Islamic terrorism? If there were not continuing Islamic terrorist attacks, over and over again, we would not have the Islamaphobia. Do you agree with this statement? Cause and effect. The cause is not "lies" as you claim. The cause is deadly Islamic terrorist attacks, over and over again. As long as this continues there will be Islamaphobia. That is why you should be "more concerned" about stopping Islamic terror attacks than preaching about Islamaphobia to the people targeted by terrorists.

It is wrong to blame a faith for the actions of extremists...

It is this human capacity for bigotry that we should be concerned about, not any one faith.

Being aware of hatred and bigotry is well and fine; it has existed since the dawn of the human race. What we should be more concerned about at this time is preventing terrorists from murdering us.

There is only one faith current in the world today spawning the type of extremists that target innocent civilians on a worldwide scale, and that faith is Islam. I believe there is an association between the faith and the extremists; as do some leaders in the Islamic world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/egypts-president-calls-for-religious-revolution-in-islam/

“Egypt's president called for a "religious revolution" over the New Year, saying that top Muslim clerics bear responsibility for helping to reign in extremist views.”

I don't know why you would be so surprised to find islamaphobia in today's world. I was surprised by the lack of it on this thread.

‘Islamaphobia’ and ‘hate’ is not the same thing and should not be misconstrued as such.

Phobia is an irrational fear. Islamaphobia is an irrational fear of Islam, but it does not necessarily go hand in hand with hate. A person can have a rational fear, or an irrational fear of being murdered by Muslims, but at the same time have no hate towards Muslims.

Promoting the type of lies that lead to Islamaphobia/antisemitism/or any form of religious intolerance is creating hate and bigotry.

On all sides.

Never said I was surprised to find it.

Just I despise the bigots who spread it.

It is not lies which are leading to Islamaphobia; what leads to Islamaphobia are terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims which have caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people worldwide, and the factual news reports of these terrorist attacks.

Muslim terrorists highjacking commercial jets and flying them into buildings causes Islamaphobia. Islamaphobia is caused when Muslim terrorists attack tourist busses in Egypt with machine guns and blow up buildings in East Africa. Islamaphobia is caused when Muslims attack a shopping mall, killing as many innocent shoppers as they can. These are not lies; they are events, which have taken place. If you want to quash Islamaphobia, you should be addressing the Muslims who condone and call for such attacks, rather than the potential targets of the attacks.

The hate posts made absolutely no differentiation but rather spewed their hate of Islam and all those who follow it.

That is Islamaphobia.

I still haven't seen a hate post on this thread; I guess the moderators have been doing a good job of removing them as they appear. The posts that remain look for the most part rational to me.

No idea if they are still there or not.

There were plenty that reflected the prejudice and intolerance some feel towards Muslims.

As I say, islamaphobic, fuelled by the lies that bigots want everyone to believe not rationality.

Knee jerk "they're all the same" comments is as far from rational as it gets.

Irrational in effect.

I don't know why you would be so surprised to find islamaphobia in today's world. I was surprised by the lack of it on this thread.

‘Islamaphobia’ and ‘hate’ is not the same thing and should not be misconstrued as such.

Phobia is an irrational fear. Islamaphobia is an irrational fear of Islam, but it does not necessarily go hand in hand with hate. A person can have a rational fear, or an irrational fear of being murdered by Muslims, but at the same time have no hate towards Muslims.

The hate posts made absolutely no differentiation but rather spewed their hate of Islam and all those who follow it.

That is Islamaphobia.

I still haven't seen a hate post on this thread; I guess the moderators have been doing a good job of removing them as they appear. The posts that remain look for the most part rational to me.

None the less that does not justify the hate posts that were made and then removed on this thread.

Hate isn't going to end violence and bigotry.

I'm not sure about that; having a loved one murdered by a terrorist might in fact justify a 'hate post' (possibly considerable leniency in a court of law). Better to 'vent' that way than doing physical harm to an innocent person. In any event, I agree that all hate posts should be removed from a public forum. In addition to poisoning the discussion, they are most likely to hurt those that don't deserve it.

Phobia, always defined as being an irrational fear, is not the same thing as prejudice, which can be favorable or unfavorable. Rational unfavorable prejudice can be a healthy thing to have ("prudent caution"), and on a thread like this would speak to self-preservation.

The hate posts were based on islamaphobia and prejudice. No one mentioned loss, just hate. To judge all muslims by the actions of a few is indeed irrational.

There is no way to know what experience has caused someone to make a 'hate post', unless they state the reason. Because someone doesn't mention their specific loss in such a post doesn't mean they haven't suffered one.

It is not all Muslims that are being judged, it is understood that most Muslims will never commit a terrorist act. Deadly and recurring violence from more than a few Muslims, has given rise to unfavorable prejudice against Muslims that are in a position to do harm, such as those we share our airplane flights with. This is not an irrational response; Muslim terrorists have murdered thousands of innocent people worldwide. To not have some type of unfavorable pre-judgment (prejudice) would be irrational.

As an analogy, Women know that most men are decent, but they also know that some are dangerous and will do them harm. If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable situation, where a man could do her harm, a healthy unfavorable prejudice (prudent caution) would be rational.

Never said their shouldn't be searches or scanning. All in favour my self.

The man at the centre of this story never complained about it either.

The post of mine you are responding to was about prejudicial thinking not security.

I see that the Moderators have removed some posts on this thread. I missed those, but have read all that remain. My take is that people are indignant because of the apology, not because of anything said by the cleric at the center of this story. Airport security passing a hand held metal detector wand over any part of a person or their attire, in my opinion, does not call for an apology, regardless of who the person being screened is. I believe the cleric has said much the same. I imagine that someone who has lost a loved one in a terrorist attack could find the apology made in this case insulting.

None the less that does not justify the hate posts that were made and then removed on this thread.

Hate isn't going to end violence and bigotry.

I'm not sure about that; having a loved one murdered by a terrorist might in fact justify a 'hate post' (possibly considerable leniency in a court of law). Better to 'vent' that way than doing physical harm to an innocent person. In any event, I agree that all hate posts should be removed from a public forum. In addition to poisoning the discussion, they are most likely to hurt those that don't deserve it.

Phobia, always defined as being an irrational fear, is not the same thing as prejudice, which can be favorable or unfavorable. Rational unfavorable prejudice can be a healthy thing to have ("prudent caution"), and on a thread like this would speak to self-preservation.