Blind woman's 'Unclean' guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver

[Sparta]

A blind seeing eye dog though. Thats a far fetch.







Thank you.

Thank you.

 

[CptStern]

even so it's not discrimination ..cruel and shameful but not discriminatory ..at no point did he say she couldnt ride in the cab

I'd like to point out that I'm not defending his actions just pointing out the legality (denying access to people with handicaps ..specifically seeing eye dogs is usually a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine) ..I couldnt care less what the excuses are ..as far as I'm concerned all religions and their followers should be shipped to monster island to fight to the death ..the victors will then be allowed to sail back to the mainland (before reaching said mainland they'll be nuked from orbit)


edit: hehhe I just got your joke

 

[Sparta]

..as far as I'm concerned all religions and their followers should be shipped to monster island to fight to the death ..the victors will then be allowed to sail back to the mainland (before reaching said mainland they'll be nuked from orbit)


edit: hehhe I just got your joke

I hear Monster Island is actually a peninsula

 

[CptStern]

lol I looked for a screen of monster island but couldnt find one ..you have the entire clip!!! kudos for picking up my reference

 

[repiV]

even so it's not discrimination ..cruel and shameful but not discriminatory ..at no point did he say she couldnt ride in the cab

I'd like to point out that I'm not defending his actions just pointing out the legality (denying access to people with handicaps ..specifically seeing eye dogs is usually a misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine) ..I couldnt care less what the excuses are ..as far as I'm concerned all religions and their followers should be shipped to monster island to fight to the death ..the victors will then be allowed to sail back to the mainland (before reaching said mainland they'll be nuked from orbit)


edit: hehhe I just got your joke

According to the law, yes it is discriminatory. Cab drivers are required to take guide dogs.

 

[CptStern]

not discriminatory since a dog doesnt have rights to discriminate against ..it's illegal but that's about it ...at least in canada not 100% sure about anywhere else ..but again animals have zero rights

 

[repiV]

This didn't happen in Canada.
In any event, it's not about the dog's rights. It's about the woman's rights to be able to have a guide dog.

 

[CptStern]

yes I realise that but the dog was forbidden to ride in the cab not the blind person

 

[repiV]

That's not the point. The blind person requires the dog, and therefore it was an infringment of her rights.

 

[CptStern]

sure emotionally that's sound ..but emotion doesnt hold up too well in a court of law ..the burden will lie in whether the cab driver denied her rights ..which will be hard to prove because not once did he say she couldnt ride in the taxi

 

[repiV]

The driver already got fined for breaking the law. Did you miss that part?

 

[CptStern]

yes I've already stated that a few times ..or did you miss that part of my post?

again he was fined for breaking the law ..not for discriminating

The driver's refusal resulted in a court case because the law requires all licensed cab drivers to carry guide dogs. Magistrates at Marylebone fined Mr Majekodumni £200 and ordered him to pay £1,200 for failing to comply with regulations set out under the Disability Discrimination Act.

the law stated he had to carry seeing eye dogs ..he didnt comply and was fined ..for not carrying a seeing eye dog ..at no point was it mentioned that the blind person was being discrimated against just that the law had been broken when he refused to carry the dog

look we're splitting hairs here ....was it wrong, yes it was but does that mean that she was discrimated against because she was blind? no, that's not the case here ..he only had a problem with the dog, not the fact that she was blind

 

[repiV]

yes I've already stated that a few times ..or did you miss that part of my post?

again he was fined for breaking the law ..not for discriminating



the law stated he had to carry seeing eye dogs ..he didnt comply and was fined ..for not carrying a seeing eye dog ..at no point was it mentioned that the blind person was being discrimated against just that the law had been broken when he refused to carry the dog

look we're splitting hairs here ....was it wrong, yes it was but does that mean that she was discrimated against because she was blind? no, that's not the case here ..he only had a problem with the dog, not the fact that she was blind

Well, he broke the law by his actions of not carrying the dog. I don't see that anything else matters (except on a more macro level of the problem of Islam).

 

[CptStern]

yes because this one person accurately represents all muslims ...it could have been any number of religions/races etc ..I mean black people in new york find it notoriously hard to get a cab ..but we dont see that splashed all over the front page

 

[repiV]

yes because this one person accurately represents all muslims ...it could have been any number of religions/races etc ..I mean black people in new york find it notoriously hard to get a cab ..but we dont see that splashed all over the front page

He doesn't have to "accurately represent all Muslims" for it to be a problem. The problems stem directly from the religion.

 

[CptStern]

no the problem is religion in it's entireity ..not just the one

again, I like my idea of shipping them off to monster island

 

[kirovman]

Monster Island

I love it.

 

[repiV]

no the problem is religion in it's entireity ..not just the one

again, I like my idea of shipping them off to monster island

No, the problem is Islam.
Whether other religions cause problems or not is irrelevant; the pressing and alarming problems are caused by Islam.

 

[CptStern]

no, that's not even remotely true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelwa_massacre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/cd/750x750_israel_m.gif
http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/riots.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/tom-cruise-david-miscavige.jpg

 

[repiV]

no, that's not even remotely true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelwa_massacre
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/travel/dg/maps/cd/750x750_israel_m.gif
http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/events/riots.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/tom-cruise-david-miscavige.jpg

I don't live in those countries, and neither do you. And at least one of your references dates back to over half a century ago.
Problems that affect someone else's society are not my problems. There are no Christian, Jewish or Sikh boogeymen threatening to destroy British society last time I checked.

 

[CptStern]

what does it matter whether we live in those countries or not? you said islam was the problem ..not islam in the UK


yes and muslims are out to completely destroy the UK :upstare: ..please point out where there's a Islamic edict calling for the destruction of the UK that every muslim must abide by

btw my secretary is muslim ..should I just stab her on the way out for a coffee because one day her religion may pose a threat to canadians?

 

[repiV]

what does it matter whether we live in those countries or not? you said islam was the problem ..not islam in the UK


yes and muslims are out to completely destroy the UK :upstare: ..please point out where there's a Islamic edict calling for the destruction of the UK that every muslim must abide by

btw my secretary is muslim ..should I just stab her on the way out for a coffee because one day her religion may pose a threat to canadians?

Islam is the problem - as far as Western civilisation is concerned. I really don't give a shit about other terrorist movements elsewhere in the world, unless we happen to be the cause of it. If I concerned myself with everyone's problems everywhere in the world, I'd live an extremely dull life.
What's with this "every Muslim must abide by" stuff? That not all Muslims are anti-Western is not evidence that Islam is not a threat to us. It's largely irrelevant.
The disregard for our way of life, our beliefs and our cultural integrity shown by many if not most Muslims, plus acts of cultural imperialism and terrorism perpetrated by Islamic groups, the lure of Islam as a dogmatic belief system that is unequalled by any other in existence today, combined with the appeasement and apathy and multicultural "wisdom" shown by our own leaders, will destroy the UK as we currently know it.

 

[CptStern]

Islam is the problem - as far as Western civilisation is concerned. I really don't give a shit about other terrorist movements elsewhere in the world, unless we happen to be the cause of it.

how many islamic extremist attacks were there against UK citizens before the invasion of iraq?

If I concerned myself with everyone's problems everywhere in the world, I'd live an extremely dull life.

what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

What's with this "every Muslim must abide by" stuff? That not all Muslims are anti-Western is not evidence that Islam is not a threat to us. It's largely irrelevant.

you're flipflopping:

Well, he broke the law by his actions of not carrying the dog. I don't see that anything else matters (except on a more macro level of the problem of Islam).

so what's it to be? is islam itself responsible for extremism or are the extremists themselves responsible for their acts?

The disregard for our way of life, our beliefs and our cultural integrity shown by many if not most Muslims, plus acts of cultural imperialism and terrorism perpetrated by Islamic groups, the lure of Islam as a dogmatic belief system that is unequalled by any other in existence today, combined with the appeasement and apathy and multicultural "wisdom" shown by our own leaders, will destroy the UK as we currently know it.

so you're saying the UK will become a muslim state? or that they'll nuke london? or that they'll continue to migrate to the UK bringing along their traditions/customs which will slowly permeate british culture to the point that the queen herself will start wearing a veil? (till they get someone younger/prettier, that's not such a bad idea)

I dont see what you're getting at ..how will they "destroy the UK as we currently know it"


please reply to my posts in full (especially the "should I stab my secretary" question) ..I do the same for your posts

 

[Solaris]

OMG THERE ARE MUSLIMS EVERYWHERE THEY WILL KILL US ALL WE MUST KICK THEM OUT AND BOMB IRAQISTAN!!!!!!!
/****ing prat.

 

[Kangy]

omg distribute wealth evenly the british workers can't even feed their families because of business fat cats taking their hard earned currency!!!

 

[DaMaN]

Islam is the problem - as far as Western civilisation is concerned. I really don't give a shit about other terrorist movements elsewhere in the world, unless we happen to be the cause of it. If I concerned myself with everyone's problems everywhere in the world, I'd live an extremely dull life.
What's with this "every Muslim must abide by" stuff? That not all Muslims are anti-Western is not evidence that Islam is not a threat to us. It's largely irrelevant.
The disregard for our way of life, our beliefs and our cultural integrity shown by many if not most Muslims, plus acts of cultural imperialism and terrorism perpetrated by Islamic groups, the lure of Islam as a dogmatic belief system that is unequalled by any other in existence today, combined with the appeasement and apathy and multicultural "wisdom" shown by our own leaders, will destroy the UK as we currently know it.

First of all, Islam is not the problem. Your ignorance is.

Please rectify your immense lack of knowledge by consulting the appropriate references. I suggest an encyclopedia or two, Wikipedia is a decent resource, and other resources may be found with the search engine Google.

I suggest you do some research before you give unfounded arguments.

---

Now, having thusly expanded your knowledge and intellect to a point where rational disscussion can take the place of unresearched and poorly-thought-out arguments (we hope), I would like to draw attention to a few of your aforementioned comments:

Islam is the problem

Whether other religions cause problems or not is irrelevant; the pressing and alarming problems are caused by Islam.

These comments could be construed as offensive to someone practicing Islam.

Upon dissection of your initial statements:
"Islam is the problem"
and
"Whether other religions cause problems or not is irrelevant; the pressing and alarming problems are caused by Islam."

We find that:
You are asserting that Islam is THE problem. Hence, all problems are caused by Islam. Islam is a religion. You go on to assert that other religions creation of problems is irrelevant. You are therefore claiming that only problems created by Islam are relevent.

I would like to now refer to the Logical Fallacy thread stickied in this forum:

7b: Existential fallacy:
When a claim is made based on a stated premise, but the claim do not establish this the premise as factual, the claim is not valid.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

You have provided zero factual basis while claiming that a specific religion is the root cause of all world's problems. Hence, your claim is not valid.

Does this ring a bell? It should. Think back to Germany, 1938-1945:

Religious persecution is the persecution of individuals within a group in the struggle to maintain their religious identity, or the abuse of power by an individual or organization that causes members of a religious group to suffer. Persecution in this case may refer to unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

This also comes under the classification of Scapegoating:

Scapegoating is an important tool of propaganda; for example, the Jews were singled out in Nazi propaganda as the source of Germany's economic woes and political collapse.

Scapegoating is often more devastating when applied to a minority group as they are inherently less able to defend themselves. A tactic often employed is to characterize an entire group of individuals according to the unethical or immoral conduct of a small number of individuals belonging to that group, also known as guilt by association.

"Scapegoated" groups throughout history have included almost every imaginable group of people: adherents of different religion, people of different race or nation or political belief, people differing in behaviour of majority. However, scapegoating may also be applied to organizations, such as governments, corporations, or various political groups.

In industrialised societies, scapegoating of traditional minority groups is increasingly frowned upon. In the extreme, this may result in socially-enforced rules regarding speech, as in political correctness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Political.2Fsociological_scapegoating

Your inherent assumption and unfounded claim that "Islam is the problem" is nothing less than scapegoating religious persecution.

In this, you are exactly like Nazi Germany claiming that Jews are "the problem". Fortunately for whatever decency you have, you have yet to provide a "solution" as the Nazi's did.

 

[repiV]

how many islamic extremist attacks were there against UK citizens before the invasion of iraq?

That idiotic foreign policy makes things worse does not absolve terrorists of their responsibility. Nor does it make them our friends and the government our enemy.

what does that have to do with what we're discussing?

Everything. What some obscure Sikh sect on the other side of the world does is of no concern to me.

you're flipflopping:



so what's it to be? is islam itself responsible for extremism or are the extremists themselves responsible for their acts?

Islam can be responsible while at the same time not inspiring all Muslims to commit terrorist acts, you know. Also, as I've said before, terrorism is not the main cause for concern here.

so you're saying the UK will become a muslim state? or that they'll nuke london? or that they'll continue to migrate to the UK bringing along their traditions/customs which will slowly permeate british culture to the point that the queen herself will start wearing a veil? (till they get someone younger/prettier, that's not such a bad idea)

I dont see what you're getting at ..how will they "destroy the UK as we currently know it"

That it will become a Muslim state, yes. Certainly, it will lose everything that ever made it British.

please reply to my posts in full (especially the "should I stab my secretary" question) ..I do the same for your posts

It was a sarcastic comment that didn't really warrant a reply.

 

[repiV]

First of all, Islam is not the problem. Your ignorance is.

Please rectify your immense lack of knowledge by consulting the appropriate references. I suggest an encyclopedia or two, Wikipedia is a decent resource, and other resources may be found with the search engine Google.

I suggest you do some research before you give unfounded arguments.

---

Now, having thusly expanded your knowledge and intellect to a point where rational disscussion can take the place of unresearched and poorly-thought-out arguments (we hope), I would like to draw attention to a few of your aforementioned comments:



These comments could be construed as offensive to someone practicing Islam.

Upon dissection of your initial statements:
"Islam is the problem"
and
"Whether other religions cause problems or not is irrelevant; the pressing and alarming problems are caused by Islam."

We find that:
You are asserting that Islam is THE problem. Hence, all problems are caused by Islam. Islam is a religion. You go on to assert that other religions creation of problems is irrelevant. You are therefore claiming that only problems created by Islam are relevent.

I would like to now refer to the Logical Fallacy thread stickied in this forum:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

You have provided zero factual basis while claiming that a specific religion is the root cause of all world's problems. Hence, your claim is not valid.

Does this ring a bell? It should. Think back to Germany, 1938-1945:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

This also comes under the classification of Scapegoating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Political.2Fsociological_scapegoating

Your inherent assumption and unfounded claim that "Islam is the problem" is nothing less than scapegoating religious persecution.

In this, you are exactly like Nazi Germany claiming that Jews are "the problem". Fortunately for whatever decency you have, you have yet to provide a "solution" as the Nazi's did.

I never said Islam was the cause of all the world's problems. Get your facts straight before you drivel on about logical fallacies and all that other crap you should apply to your own posts. Jesus...

 

[DaMaN]

I never said Islam was the cause of all the world's problems. Get your facts straight before you drivel on about logical fallacies and all that other crap you should apply to your own posts. Jesus...

I beg your pardon? If you actually read my post (unlikely, as you seem to be addressing the only part of it you might have a micron of a chance at arguing against - having no foothold anywhere else), you would see that I said:

Upon dissection of your initial statements:
"Islam is the problem"
and
"Whether other religions cause problems or not is irrelevant; the pressing and alarming problems are caused by Islam."

We find that:
You are asserting that Islam is THE problem. Hence, all problems are caused by Islam. Islam is a religion. You go on to assert that other religions creation of problems is irrelevant. You are therefore claiming that only problems created by Islam are relevent.

Allow me to elaborate:

Your initial statement is:
"Islam is the problem"

Upon dissection, we find that you are asserting that Islam is THE problem. "The" implies singularity. Logically, if Islam is THE problem, then there are no problems not caused by Islam. Hence, if I were to smack you over the head (a distinct possibility), it would not be my problem or your problem, it would be Islam, since, as you so described, "Islam is the problem".


You have therefore not refuted any of my facts, nor presented any of your own. Hence, the remainder of your post:

Get your facts straight before you drivel on about logical fallacies and all that other crap you should apply to your own posts

is also invalid, as you have not directly refuted my facts, and as you have not proven how my own posts have not had "logical fallacies and all that other crap" applied to my own posts.

 

[repiV]

I beg your pardon? If you actually read my post (unlikely, as you seem to be addressing the only part of it you might have a micron of a chance at arguing against - having no foothold anywhere else), you would see that I said:

Allow me to elaborate:

Your initial statement is:
"Islam is the problem"

Upon dissection, we find that you are asserting that Islam is THE problem. "The" implies singularity. Logically, if Islam is THE problem, then there are no problems not caused by Islam. Hence, if I were to smack you over the head (a distinct possibility), it would not be my problem or your problem, it would be Islam, since, as you so described, "Islam is the problem".


You have therefore not refuted any of my facts, nor presented any of your own. Hence, the remainder of your post:

is also invalid, as you have not directly refuted my facts, and as you have not proven how my own posts have not had "logical fallacies and all that other crap" applied to my own posts.

You're right, I haven't refuted anything you've posted because you talk complete and utter bollocks. Clearly you also have delusions of self-importance.
Islam is the problem in question. Maybe you should actually learn the English language, as opposed to pretending to be a master of it.

 

[DaMaN]

You're right, I haven't refuted anything you've posted because you talk complete and utter bollocks.

1: Anecdotal Evidence:
Informal personal accounts taken as conclusive are not valid when they are unverified by other, valid information.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

Clearly you also have delusions of self-importance.

Quite possible. However, this has absolutely zero bearing to the argument at hand, and is a sleazy way of attempting to sidestep the issue.

Maybe you should actually learn the English language, as opposed to pretending to be a master of it.

My knowledge of the English language is not at question here. Please confine yourself to the topic at hand. Flinging your mud around the room in the vain attempt that it will validate your claim will not, in fact, validate your claim.

Islam is the problem in question.

Aha! An on-topic sentance! Good improvement![/flippant]

I disagree, and return to my original statement:

You are asserting that Islam is THE problem in question. You are therefore claiming that only problems created by Islam are relevent to the problem in question.

I would like to now refer to the Logical Fallacy thread stickied in this forum:

7b: Existential fallacy:
When a claim is made based on a stated premise, but the claim do not establish this the premise as factual, the claim is not valid.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

You have provided zero factual basis while claiming that a specific religion is the root cause of this problem. Hence, your claim is not valid.

Does this ring a bell? It should. Think back to Germany, 1938-1945:

Religious persecution is the persecution of individuals within a group in the struggle to maintain their religious identity, or the abuse of power by an individual or organization that causes members of a religious group to suffer. Persecution in this case may refer to unwarranted arrest, false imprisonment, beatings, torture, unjustified execution, denial of benefits, and denial of civil rights and liberties. It also may refer to the confiscation or destruction of property, or incitement to hate among other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

This also comes under the classification of Scapegoating:

Scapegoating is an important tool of propaganda; for example, the Jews were singled out in Nazi propaganda as the source of Germany's economic woes and political collapse.

Scapegoating is often more devastating when applied to a minority group as they are inherently less able to defend themselves. A tactic often employed is to characterize an entire group of individuals according to the unethical or immoral conduct of a small number of individuals belonging to that group, also known as guilt by association.

"Scapegoated" groups throughout history have included almost every imaginable group of people: adherents of different religion, people of different race or nation or political belief, people differing in behaviour of majority. However, scapegoating may also be applied to organizations, such as governments, corporations, or various political groups.

In industrialised societies, scapegoating of traditional minority groups is increasingly frowned upon. In the extreme, this may result in socially-enforced rules regarding speech, as in political correctness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Political.2Fsociological_scapegoating

Your inherent assumption and unfounded claim that "Islam is the problem in this situation" is nothing less than scapegoating religious persecution.

In this, you are exactly like Nazi Germany claiming that Jews are "the problem" to their situation. Without any sort of factual basis, this is religious discrimination.

 

[repiV]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348


Quite possible. However, this has absolutely zero bearing to the argument at hand, and is a sleazy way of attempting to sidestep the issue.


My knowledge of the English language is not at question here. Please confine yourself to the topic at hand. Flinging your mud around the room in the vain attempt that it will validate your claim will not, in fact, validate your claim.


Aha! An on-topic sentance! Good improvement![/flippant]

I disagree, and return to my original statement:

You are asserting that Islam is THE problem in question. You are therefore claiming that only problems created by Islam are relevent to the problem in question.

I would like to now refer to the Logical Fallacy thread stickied in this forum:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

You have provided zero factual basis while claiming that a specific religion is the root cause of this problem. Hence, your claim is not valid.

Does this ring a bell? It should. Think back to Germany, 1938-1945:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution

This also comes under the classification of Scapegoating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating#Political.2Fsociological_scapegoating

Your inherent assumption and unfounded claim that "Islam is the problem in this situation" is nothing less than scapegoating religious persecution.

In this, you are exactly like Nazi Germany claiming that Jews are "the problem" to their situation. Without any sort of factual basis, this is religious discrimination.

Don't tell me what it is that I'm asserting, you arrogant tool. You don't even grasp the words that I speak so don't even try to lecture me.
Also, comparing anti-Islamic sentiments to the Nazi movement is laughable at best. Go and live in the Middle East for a while, then get back to me.
But for now - don't bother speaking to me. You just like to use loads of fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent...but you say nothing in the process. Just another misguided, politically correct surrender-monkey with delusions of adequacy.

 

[DaMaN]

Don't tell me what it is that I'm asserting, you arrogant tool. You don't even grasp the words that I speak so don't even try to lecture me.

Telling you your own words is not my intention. My intent is to use your words in my post to provide a clearer understanding of the discussion at hand, and to examine them logically. Were I to not use your words, the disputed topic would be unclear.

If I am misinterpreting these words, please provide me with the proper interpretation (in a civil manner).

Also, comparing anti-Islamic sentiments to the Nazi movement is laughable at best. Go and live in the Middle East for a while, then get back to me.

If anti-Islamic sentiments are laughable when compared to anti-semetic sentiments, then I question the validity of your sense of humor. They are both religions, they are both discriminated against, both members are being persecuted for being members of the religions, thus, they are comparable.

As per your suggestion to a visit to the Middle East, you seem to be implying that I do not have firsthand knowledge of Islam. This seems invalid also, as you have once again provided no proof to this claim. Also, there are many Islamic people living all over the world, making a journy to the Middle East seem unneccecary. It also seems that you require myself to go out and seek factual proof of your claims. Please see "Burden of Proof".

But for now - don't bother speaking to me.

I appologise, but do you really expect to speak to me like that and not expect a response?

You just like to use loads of fancy words to make yourself sound intelligent...

Again, my command of the English language is not at question.

...but you say nothing in the process.

On the contrary, I say that: "Islam is not the problem in question. Please provide factual information if you are to continue this discussion in a rational manner." Unfortunately, you do not seem to be listening. (Or rather, reading).

Just another misguided, politically correct surrender-monkey with delusions of adequacy.

Insults are not going to solve anything or validate your claims in any way, shape, or form.

 

[repiV]

Telling you your own words is not my intention. My intent is to use your words in my post to provide a clearer understanding of the discussion at hand, and to examine them logically. Were I to not use your words, the disputed topic would be unclear.

You misinterpret my words and correct me when I explain them to you. That is both telling me my own words (incorrectly) and being an arrogant tool.

If anti-Islamic sentiments are laughable when compared to anti-semetic sentiments, then I question the validity of your sense of humor. They are both religions, they are both discriminated against, both members are being persecuted for being members of the religions, thus, they are comparable.

Muslims are persecuted? Yeah, by other, more powerful Muslims. The Jews are an intelligent, enlightened, brilliant people who have contributed a vast amount to global civilisation despite their small numbers. Islam as an entity bears considerable resemblances to Nazism itself. It is an oppressive, evil ideology that brings nothing but barbary, tyranny and economic depression wherever it spreads.
Muslims over here have it way ****ing better than they do in any Muslim country, so don't pull that persecuted bullshit on me. Try again.

As per your suggestion to a visit to the Middle East, you seem to be implying that I do not have firsthand knowledge of Islam. This seems invalid also, as you have once again provided no proof to this claim. Also, there are many Islamic people living all over the world, making a journy to the Middle East seem unneccecary. It also seems that you require myself to go out and seek factual proof of your claims. Please see "Burden of Proof".

The fact that you compare Nazi Germany to anti-Islamic sentiments prove that you don't know shit about Islam, which is one of the most oppressive, racist, xenophobic and intolerant ideologies alive today - and by far the most powerful one.

Again, my command of the English language is not at question.

Yes, it really is.

On the contrary, I say that: "Islam is not the problem in question. Please provide factual information if you are to continue this discussion in a rational manner." Unfortunately, you do not seem to be listening. (Or rather, reading).


Insults are not going to solve anything or validate your claims in any way, shape, or form.

Ever considered that I don't want to listen to you or validate myself to you? You hide behind fancy terms that you love to quote and point to, but lack any real knowledge of the topic at hand. You want me to make my point in a way that pleases you? Not a chance. You can't even make a point at all.

 

[Aenama]

Islams is a problem,like any other religion.
They just seem more backwords then other religions

 

[repiV]

Islams is a problem,like any other religion.
They just seem more backwords then other religions

Unfortunately the politically correct faux-liberal minions are too afraid of offending anybody to stand up and single any one group out. Unless that group happens to be Americans, then it's free fire.

 

[Ennui]

You're both being douchebags. repiV, your anti-Islamic sentiments are as welcome as racist or anti-semetic statements - that is to say, not at all. Cut it out. I don't care what you think about it, but this thread is not about Islam as an evil religion, because it straight up isn't. Islam may have some questionable issues with intolerance and xenophobia, as you say, but it is not inherently 'evil'.

DaMaN, I can see by the way you're wording things that you're deliberately attempting to rile repiV up. This is a good tactic, but it's also fairly transparent and makes you look like an arrogant asshole as well. It's fair to defend Islam, but really, both of you are making a big stink that doesn't need to be here.

If the conversation was focused on merely the pros and cons of Islam, particularly in relation to world events and this particular situation, that'd be less of a problem, but it seems that we cannot discuss this without resorting to constant, heinous personal attacks. That is not tolerated. Grow up and take it to PM if you have a problem with one another.

This thread is a millimeter away from being closed, but I'll see where it goes.

 

[pomegranate]

repiV, if you ever want to convince anyone of sound mind to consider your distressing convictions, there's one thing you need to learn: Using 'politically correct' in the pejorative, is a red flag clearly indicating a stupid, tabloid-fed, unreconstructed racist/mysoginist/gaybashing/generally hateful moron who gets all his opinions from the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejon and Jeremy Clarkson...
If you're genuinely not that, you'd do well to drop the phrase.


ditto 'liberal', 'do-gooder', 'Guardian reader' and 'bleeding hearts', for the same reason.

 

[repiV]

You're both being douchebags. repiV, your anti-Islamic sentiments are as welcome as racist or anti-semetic statements - that is to say, not at all. Cut it out. I don't care what you think about it, but this thread is not about Islam as an evil religion, because it straight up isn't. Islam may have some questionable issues with intolerance and xenophobia, as you say, but it is not inherently 'evil'.

DaMaN, I can see by the way you're wording things that you're deliberately attempting to rile repiV up. This is a good tactic, but it's also fairly transparent and makes you look like an arrogant asshole as well. It's fair to defend Islam, but really, both of you are making a big stink that doesn't need to be here.

If the conversation was focused on merely the pros and cons of Islam, particularly in relation to world events and this particular situation, that'd be less of a problem, but it seems that we cannot discuss this without resorting to constant, heinous personal attacks. That is not tolerated. Grow up and take it to PM if you have a problem with one another.

This thread is a millimeter away from being closed, but I'll see where it goes.

Oh, I'm fine with discussing things without personal insults. That is, until someone comes in with their arrogant lectures based around how they think I should make my point, without actually knowing a goddamn thing about the subject. The only thing people like DaMan know in such cases is that if you're going to discredit a group, you have to draw equivalence with another group in order to be "fair and balanced".
I would like you to explain to me why exactly I shouldn't express anti-Islamic sentiments. Since when was it forbidden to be against an ideology? Just because it happens to be a religion, and religions are sacred? Gimme a break.
Are you going to warn people for being anti-Nazi aswell? Or anti-neocon?

 

[repiV]

repiV, if you ever want to convince anyone of sound mind to consider your distressing convictions, there's one thing you need to learn: Using 'politically correct' in the pejorative, is a red flag clearly indicating a stupid, tabloid-fed, unreconstructed racist/mysoginist/gaybashing/generally hateful moron who gets all his opinions from the Daily Mail, Richard Littlejon and Jeremy Clarkson...
If you're genuinely not that, you'd do well to drop the phrase.


ditto 'liberal', 'do-gooder', 'Guardian reader' and 'bleeding hearts', for the same reason.

Would you prefer a long descriptive paragraph instead?