prejudicial

I don't care what bad examples "cop logic" can use to justify their immoral and prejudicial thoughts.

Your complete statement is nothing but a prejudicial bashing on a product made by a company that you don't like.

I would hope that this kind of prejudicial framing would see the case looked at unfavourably by most juries/judges.

This reads like a prejudicial post, based on a biased interpretation of unclear events.

This is the type of low quality comment we should avoid on HN. Ignorant, prejudicial and irrelevant.

While not as prejudicial an aspect, there are definitely some geographical biases among some groups.

At the same time, that's a very prejudicial stance to take-- that anyone ever convicted of a crime is forever untrustworthy.

The politically-correct response is along the lines of "OMG That is highly prejudicial!

The question is whether its prejudicial, as in they've pre-judged these people because of a group they belong to before they've looked at them as an individual.

In the absence of quality evidence, randomness is better than prejudicial bias.

I imagine that, if necessary, the accused's lawyer could argue that showing such footage would be unduly prejudicial.

Some forms of evidence are "prejudicial"--that is, they are excluded from even being mentioned at trial because they trigger known human cognitive biases.

Because I'm pretty sure it's prejudicial interpretation of whatever data or anecdote you're making vague reference to.

There is prejudicial hatred, that tends to be obvious and blatant but is also people's stereotypical example of the sort of prejudice that we should all fight against.

Although I think the titles are prejudicial "Jobs goes in for the kill" in terms of telling someone the conclusion they should be drawing like the Elton John song Candle in the Wind "all the press had to say is that Marilyn was found in the nude".

Who really desires/wants/needs Linux and why can't they obtain it?This is all Open Source development politics where nerds project their prejudicial ideas of what "normal people" want in some sort of bizarre appeal to popularity.

> The other replies were mostly variations on the theme that Android users don’t pay for apps, they don’t have data plans, you can’t monetise them easily, and designers are all iPhone users and don’t really understand Android users … Socially, excluding Android users seems almost prejudicial.