NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was "unclean".

Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion.

Wow. Here in the US, it's a violation of the law to refuse admittance to a Seeing Eye dog - regardless of your reason.

Turns out it's illegal in the UK as well:

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. After the case Mr Majekodunmi remained defiant and insisted that he would continue refusing passengers accompanied by guide dogs.

The cab company seems particularly stupid on this:

"The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn't really very important, and I should have more respect for other people's culture. They have shown very little respect for my rights as a disabled person and have never once offered me an apology."

Yeah, like it's not important for a blind person to have their seeing eye dog accompany them - it's not very important. :rolleyes:

There's a reason that we have laws to protect the handicapped. So this sort of religious nonsense won't happen. Someone's religious beliefs should never be allowed to take precedence over a handicapped person's basic right to transport, and that includes their seeing eye dog.

Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license. Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.

The cab company should stop hiring people whose religions prevent them from doing the duties of their job. Unless the cab company has a policy against transporting seeing-eye dogs, which they can't because that would be illegal, this guy was just not doing his job. Many parts of my job offend my Catholic sensibilities. If they bothered me enough, I'd quit. Not refuse to do my job.

If he doesn't like the requirement that service dogs must be allowed, he should find another line of work.

I hope dogs pee on him. :)

why am I thinking that the next blind person to ride with that driver, will have his dog put in the trunk...

I thought pigs were the animals Muslims don't like? (though IMHO this is more of a cultural thing than religious)

and how does this cab driver make money and be ethical!?!

*Sigh* You know, just once it'd be nice to get in on a thread like this before everyone else has stolen my responses. Basically, I'm going with the same as the others - that guy should either shut the hell up (since when was having a dog in the back of your taxi touching it? May as well go and destroy all dogs rather than be on the same planet as them) or get another job. Just... ugh, stupidity of this advanced level really does piss me off.


Hmm... I wonder how long it'll be before someone comes along accusing DK of making another pointless trolling thread? Should I go ahead and reiterate my point about stupidity right now and save myself the time and trouble when it actually happens?

Summarizing of topic in progress.

"Blah blah blah Muslims are evil blah blah blah"

He broke a law and was punished, go blow it out your ear.

Sounds like he was punished. The law prevailed. Go be indignant about Muslims somewhere else

Damn! them taxi drivers are stupid!

There's always some excuse! "Oh, You have dropped too much GHB in that girl's pint", "Well, It's a dog, my religion does not allow...". Tossers.

There's this little term every dog should know: "Sic balls!" :D
(Yes, I've watched Stand By Me)

Summarizing of topic in progress.

"Blah blah blah Muslims are evil blah blah blah"

He broke a law and was punished, go blow it out your ear.

Sounds like he was punished. The law prevailed. Go be indignant about Muslims somewhere else

Aaaaaand there it is. Anyone else wanna take these? Frankly I can't be arsed.

Sounds like he was punished. The law prevailed. Go be indignant about Muslims somewhere else

Summarizing of topic in progress.

"Blah blah blah Muslims are evil blah blah blah"

He broke a law and was punished, go blow it out your ear.

really... so you agree that the blind woman should've respected the Muslim drivers customs and religous preference by refusing to take the dog?

so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?

really... so you agree that the blind woman should've respected the Muslim drivers customs and religous preference by refusing to take the dog?

so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?
As long as he continues to be fined, yes.

really... so you agree that the blind woman should've respected the Muslim drivers customs and religous preference by refusing to take the dog?

so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?

I believe we can all agree that the man in qustion is a prick, and broke the law, whether he is muslim or not.

But I also believe that if the man was not a muslim, DK would not have started a thread about him.

really... so you agree that the blind woman should've respected the Muslim drivers customs and religous preference by refusing to take the dog?

so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?

Let's see, who is right. The Muslim flaunting the law, or the trolls saying the laws should be changed to be more aggressive because it is a Muslim?

Dogs rule!

Let's see, who is right. The Muslim flaunting the law, or the trolls saying the laws should be changed to be more aggressive because it is a Muslim?
Neither and you know it. Look, you've got a point about DK's obsessive muslim-bashing, but this is a genuine issue. The driver was in the wrong and claims he'll continue to flaunt it - surely that's a failure of the justice system?

Neither and you know it. Look, you've got a point about DK's obsessive muslim-bashing, but this is a genuine issue. The driver was in the wrong and claims he'll continue to flaunt it - surely that's a failure of the justice system?

I agree it is a failure of the system. Except they could give a rat's ass less about the inherent problem with the system. They just want a Muslim strung up for any reason they can find and they want the system changed for that purpose, not because it is flawed.

As long as he continues to be fined, yes.so as long as he keeps paying the fine, he can keep his licence and continue to disobey the law...

I believe we can all agree that the man in qustion is a prick, and broke the law, whether he is muslim or not.I agree on this.

But I also believe that if the man was not a muslim, DK would not have started a thread about him.ahh... but it wasn't DK who pointed out the fact that the man was Muslim. that was the first statement in the article and it was Neo U and TPH that focused on the fact that the man was Muslim. the same can be said that if it was anyone else, they would be calling for that man to be fired.

Let's see, who is right. The Muslim flaunting the law, or the trolls saying the laws should be changed to be more aggressive because it is a Muslim?where did anyone say the law should be changed because he's Muslim. Revoking of Cab Licence is a Penalty for discrimination against Handicapped.

Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court. so if the fines are not convincing him to pick up passengers with guide dogs...

I agree it is a failure of the system. Except they could give a rat's ass less about the inherent problem with the system. They just want a Muslim strung up for any reason they can find and they want the system changed for that purpose, not because it is flawed.

who's "they"?

.
ahh... but it wasn't DK who pointed out the fact that the man was Muslim. that was the first statement in the article and it was Neo U and TPH that focused on the fact that the man was Muslim. the same can be said that if it was anyone else, they would be calling for that man to be fired.

If the statement was the first line on the article then its fair to assume that DK read it before posting the article, no?

If the statement was the first line on the article then its fair to assume that DK read it before posting the article, no?

except that it does look like DK did read the article.

ahh... but it wasn't DK who pointed out the fact that the man was Muslim. that was the first statement in the article and it was Neo U and TPH that focused on the fact that the man was Muslim. the same can be said that if it was anyone else, they would be calling for that man to be fired.
Un, no. The law is the law. If you want to change it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to call for this man to face punishment for which he had no knowledge he would have to face before hand.

Un, no. The law is the law. If you want to change it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to call for this man to face punishment for which he had no knowledge he would have to face before hand.

no knowledge? so cab drivers are not told of rules and regs?

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. After the case Mr Majekodunmi remained defiant and insisted that he would continue refusing passengers accompanied by guide dogs. dunno... looks like he's openly defying it...

Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court. looks like more offenders should be taken to court.

and note. LOSS OF LICENCE is one of the Penalties... so it's not CHANGING any LAW.

can you show me where the driver was NOT aware of the Laws and REGULATIONS that pertain to his job? and also where Ignorance is an acceptable exscuse for repeatedly breaking the law

Meh.. As long as he pays the fine, he's free to beleive whatever he wants, and do whatever he wants (assuming that there are no superiors to fire him). It's his business, not ours.

Yes, it's an asshole thing to do, no, it's not worth pitching a fit over.

Meh.. As long as he pays the fine, he's free to beleive whatever he wants, and do whatever he wants (assuming that there are no superiors to fire him). It's his business, not ours.

Yes, it's an asshole thing to do, no, it's not worth pitching a fit over.

so if all the cab drivers who don't want any dogs to be in their cabs defied the law... you don't mind if they continue to discriminate against the blind, break the law... as long as they pay their fines.

so if all the cab drivers who don't want any dogs to be in their cabs defied the law... you don't mind if they continue to discriminate against the blind, break the law... as long as they pay their fines.

Well... Yes... See, they are willing to pay the price for violating the law. They are only harming themselves, and making it harder for them to compete. It's not like there aren't other cabbies more that willing to take up their business.

Well... Yes... See, they are willing to pay the price for violating the law. They are only harming themselves, and making it harder for them to compete. It's not like there aren't other cabbies more that willing to take up their business.

if you're ok with that. seems like tho, it's just showing how impotent the law is if people can purposly break it and only pay a fine.

if you're ok with that. seems like tho, it's just showing how impotent the law is if people can purposly break it and only pay a fine.

Then either the law should be reinforced (and, given how silly the law is, I'm not of this opinion), or the law should be dropped. However, I think it's a case of the punishment fitting the crime. IT would be absurd to make it something the driver was jailed for.

The law is meant to discourage violation. From a pragmatic sense, you could raise the punishment, but you then risk being excessive.

I'd be more bothered if there weren't other Cabbies out there who will benefit from shmucks who won't give people rides for moral reasons. For once, the free market will take care of it.

An option that might work is offering a tax break or a gov't bonus to those that do take disabled customers. Rewarding positive behaviour is just more effective.

Then either the law should be reinforced (and, given how silly the law is, I'm not of this opinion), or the law should be dropped. However, I think it's a case of the punishment fitting the crime. IT would be absurd to make it something the driver was jailed for.

The law is meant to discourage violation. From a pragmatic sense, you could raise the punishment, but you then risk being excessive.

I'd be more bothered if there weren't other Cabbies out there who will benefit from shmucks who won't give people rides for moral reasons. For once, the free market will take care of it.

An option that might work is offering a tax break or a gov't bonus to those that do take disabled customers. Rewarding positive behaviour is just more effective.
I agree, Jail is harsh for the crime, but the other option is revoking of business licence, or amending the law to fine the company, would that work for you?

I agree, Jail is harsh for the crime, but the other option is revoking of business licence, or amending the law to fine the company, would that work for you?

I guess.

I'm not a big fan of legislating morals, but I really can't find a way around this argument that doesn't invoke the specter of Jim Crow, so I'll just back away from the issue.

I guess.

I'm not a big fan of legislating morals, but I really can't find a way around this argument that doesn't invoke the specter of Jim Crow, so I'll just back away from the issue.

one can either legislate morals or let discrimination of all (non physcially harmful) types run rampant. that means, no Equal Opportunity Employment, no Political correctness, allowing slang terms to be used...

it's a catch 22, where should the line be drawn?

Should Cab Dispatchers ask if the person being picked up is Blind, handicapped or "different" in any way?

That might be a reasonable compromise.

Let's be reasonable now (those of us that are ABLE to).

In Saudi Arabia, an ultra-conservative theocracy I hate, there are cabs and there are blind people. And I'm pretty sure there are blind people WITH DOGS, that are allowed in cabs on a daily basis.

2 billion people in the world are muslims. Yet there was not one single case in any of the many muslim countries about this up to now. In New York there are MANY middle-eastern cabbies. None of which has ever done anything of the sort (and that is something Fox News would be glad to let us know about).

Would DK make a thread about a cynophobic cabbie that barred a passenger in this situation? I highly doubt it.

Would, furthermore, DK make a thread about a jerk that barred a passenger in this situation, UNLESS SAID JERK HAPPENED TO BE A MUSLIM, AS WAS THE CASE? I highly doubt it.

Further, I know muslims that have dogs. So, unless your point is "that cabbie was a jerk" and not "that MUSLIM cabbie was a jerk BECAUSE HE WAS A MUSLIM", DK, your point is null and void.

That said, yeah, that cabbie was a jerk, he paid a fine, and, should he reincide as he claimed he will, his next fines will be either steeper or he'll be simply laid off, for he causes the company a bad reputation. The problem solves itself, and, again, yes, the guy is a jerk. But because he's a jerk and can't read the Quran right (The Prophet loved animals, he once ripped the sleeve of his ceremonial robe not to wake up a kitten that was sleeping on it), not because he's a muslim.

Bloody foriegners, they moan about working on Christmas too and not getting paid Double-Time or time and a half.

and how does this cab driver make money and be ethical!?!

In the Qu'ran somewhere, Muhammed states that the honest merchant will be judged with the martyrs in Heaven (meaning that they are uber good).

Of course, what is "honest"? That answer determines your question's answer.

ahh... but it wasn't DK who pointed out the fact that the man was Muslim. that was the first statement in the article and it was Neo U and TPH that focused on the fact that the man was Muslim. the same can be said that if it was anyone else, they would be calling for that man to be fired.

How is it there? In your fantasy world I mean.

How is it there? In your fantasy world I mean.

it's fine. In my world, people go by the merits of what is presented, and not assume things baised on the presenter. :D

I hope dogs pee on him. :)

LOL

Let's be reasonable now (those of us that are ABLE to).

In Saudi Arabia, an ultra-conservative theocracy I hate, there are cabs and there are blind people. And I'm pretty sure there are blind people WITH DOGS, that are allowed in cabs on a daily basis.is this baised on an assumption, or facts. Of course realize that the extent of following such things differ between factions. so thses cab drivers may have been the equivalent of a Non-violent Muslim Fundies for all we know.

to tell the truth, I've never heard anything about Dogs being unclean. is this really in the Quoran?

2 billion people in the world are muslims. Yet there was not one single case in any of the many muslim countries about this up to now. In New York there are MANY middle-eastern cabbies. None of which has ever done anything of the sort (and that is something Fox News would be glad to let us know about).except there were Two cases. and many more that may not have been reported.

Would DK make a thread about a cynophobic cabbie that barred a passenger in this situation? I highly doubt it.

Would, furthermore, DK make a thread about a jerk that barred a passenger in this situation, UNLESS SAID JERK HAPPENED TO BE A MUSLIM, AS WAS THE CASE? I highly doubt it.but we really don't know... we only Assume that he would or wouldn't. but even if this was presented by... say the Cat-Tribe, or The Nazz or anyone else, would it change the facts of the story?
or would your perception of the story change because of who presented it.

Further, I know muslims that have dogs. So, unless your point is "that cabbie was a jerk" and not "that MUSLIM cabbie was a jerk BECAUSE HE WAS A MUSLIM", DK, your point is null and void.and what point was DK making? I saw two viewpoints here. one was that the cabbie broke the law, another was that the woman didn't respect the custom and religion of the cab driver. who was in the right? the law supported the woman, but wouldn't the spirit of Tolerance support the cabbie?

That said, yeah, that cabbie was a jerk, he paid a fine, and, should he reincide as he claimed he will, his next fines will be either steeper or he'll be simply laid off, for he causes the company a bad reputation. The problem solves itself, and, again, yes, the guy is a jerk. But because he's a jerk and can't read the Quran right (The Prophet loved animals, he once ripped the sleeve of his ceremonial robe not to wake up a kitten that was sleeping on it), not because he's a muslim.and for that we have to wait and see.

the Point I'm trying to make is not wether the cabbie was right or wrong, nor wether who's rights were trampled... the point I'm making is that people here are judging the thread by who the poster is and not what the poster is presenting. Because DK has a History of posting anti-muslim news, people automatically assume that anything DK posts is automatically supposed to be Anti-Muslim.

Would all your responses be the same if it was a Gay Cab driver refusing to give a Christian a ride because of the Christian's stance on Gay marriage? or if it was a white man refusing to give a black man a ride because of his beliefs? or a Democrat refusing to give a Republican a ride because of Political parties?

2 billion people in the world are muslims.

ONE billion. They're not the biggest religion, they're second biggest.

it's fine. In my world, people go by the merits of what is presented, and not assume things baised on the presenter. :D
This is just another DK Muslim bashing thread, based on DK's posting history. Trying to defend him on this pathetic article seems kinda pointless.

This is just another DK Muslim bashing thread, based on DK's posting history. Trying to defend him on this pathetic article seems kinda pointless.

then please show me the Muslim bashing in DK's post in this thread?

I know DK has a Habit of posting Anti-Muslim threads, but in this one, I see more of that being assumed by the posters and not DK.

He has religious freedom, the company should fire him sure, but I still think he was in the right. Maybe he can become a trucker, long as he ain't hauling pigs, he's golden.

The saliva of any animal is najis (unclean) for muslims (can't say for all, but I know for sure about sub-continental muslims, particularly shias). Since the dog salivates a lot, many muslims I know have become alergic to dogs. They try to put some distance between the dog and them when they see one. Once we kafir boys knew this, we played many a prank on the muslim kids in our stree....lol..:p

If a muslim becomes najis, then he has to perform ablutions (wudu, IIRC) to become clean again so that he can pray.

Oh, and Shias (again, I don't know about other areas, but sub-continental Shias) consider that they become najis if they touch the water touched by a kafir. My Shia friend used to jokingly tell me that "during monsoon, the whole goddamn country is najis".

I suspect that our cabbie is from the sub-continent and must have carried his dogphobia from there...I might be wrong though..

The saliva of any animal is najis (unclean) for muslims (can't say for all, but I know for sure about sub-continental muslims, particularly shias). Since the dog salivates a lot, many muslims I know have become alergic to dogs. They try to put some distance between the dog and them when they see one. Once we kafir boys knew this, we played many a prank on the muslim kids in our stree....lol..:p

If a muslim becomes najis, then he has to perform ablutions (wudu, IIRC) to become clean again so that he can pray.

Oh, and Shias (again, I don't know about other areas, but sub-continental Shias) consider that they become najis if they touch the water touched by a kafir. My Shia friend used to jokingly tell me that "during monsoon, the whole goddamn country is najis".

I suspect that our cabbie is from the sub-continent and must have carried his dogphobia from there...I might be wrong though..
Now this makes alot of sense...

to tell the truth, I've never heard anything about Dogs being unclean. is this really in the Quoran?

Not that I know of. Note that this dogphobia is from the concept of najasat which is mainly Shia. If it had been in the Qur'an, then this must be uniform across all muslims. But that is not the case, so it is a case of sectarian dogma (sorry for the pun:p ).

Not that I know of. Note that this dogphobia is from the concept of najasat which is mainly Shia. If it had been in the Qur'an, then this must be uniform across all muslims. But that is not the case, so it is a case of sectarian dogma (sorry for the pun:p ).

woof! :D

Now this makes alot of sense...

Buddy you ain't seen nothing yet. I present

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showforum=10
Islamic Laws & Jurisprudence

The topics discussed are

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234914120
Najis bathroom floor, water splashing onto feet
I know that my bathroom floor is usually najis. Keeping this in mind, if I wash my face using the sink, and notice that a few drops of water have splashed onto my feet, should I assume the water has fallen directly from my hands or the sink (in which case my feet would be pak [tahir]) or should it be assumed that the water must have first fallen on the floor, then bounced up from it and then splashed onto the feet (in which case the feet would become najis)?

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10620
> why is najasa transferred from leather
Salam.

we all know the rulings about how leather from non-halal animals is najis.

But how can najasa truly be transferred in this case via wetness??

I'm not too familiar with the manufacturing process, but surely after all the colourings and the water-proof coatings and treatments (e.g like on shoes) the leather has a layer on it.

Now would these chemicals and layers provide a barrier from the najasa?

I base this reasoning on the fact that leather shoes or a leather wallet, is not made fresh from the skin of the animal, but you have to give it treatments or layers.

e.g, a black leather coat, or beige leather shoes do not come from a black animal or a beige animal (or a pink one for some ladies shoes)

take this analogy

if you had a piece of pork in a plasic bag, and the outside of the bag was wet, touching the outside of the bag surely cannot make u najis, as it's separating you from the pork.

I've never seen this question asked, so I'd appreciate any answer regarding it. Please give informed answers if possible, not just any old theory you can think of. Thank you.:D

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92925
Eating food made by hindus(haram 0r not)
is it haram to eat food made by hindu people:confused:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92296
Sweets and Dairy products sold by Hindus
Can anyone please tell me if its fine to eat Sweets made and sold by Hindus and sikhs? Are these products considered halal in Islam or the fact that they are touched by infidels make them haram for us muslims??

thanks

And the best of the lot
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=72359
Hindu's, shaking hands
Salams
My cousin always washes his hands after he shakes hand with hindu's. When i asked him he said that' shaking hands makes ur hands najis (if shaken by a kaffir)':D

Buddy you ain't seen nothing yet. I present
[snip]
:D
well, I meant it made more sense that the saliva was unclean and not the Dog.

*wonders which company will market 'Doggie Bibs' for those cab drivers...*

Yeah, like it's not important for a blind person to have their seeing eye dog accompany them - it's not very important. :rolleyes:
For some reason 'seeing eye dog' strikes me as an amusingly unpolitically correct term. :p

I hope dogs pee on him. :)

LOL!
I was thinking dogs should hump his leg.

[bleeding heart liberal]
But we must respect peoples religions and faiths. It is a violation of his faith for force him to be required to carry a dog, you can ask but if he refuses it is his right and you have no right to force your beliefs on others
[/bleeding heart liberal]

Should Cab Dispatchers ask if the person being picked up is Blind, handicapped or "different" in any way?
Or maybe allergic, and quite possibly willing to pay for a cab that they can travel in without getting sick.

[bleeding heart liberal]
But we must respect peoples religions and faiths. It is a violation of his faith for force him to be required to carry a dog, you can ask but if he refuses it is his right and you have no right to force your beliefs on others
[/bleeding heart liberal]

Wouldnt a bleeding heart liberal also have issues with disregarding the rights of the disabled?

Wouldnt a bleeding heart liberal also have issues with disregarding the rights of the disabled?
I don't know about this bleeding heart denomination, but any sensible liberal will realise both that disabled people have the right to be accomodated so that they can travel, and that religious people have the right to observe their little irrationalities. And if they are a right wing liberal (though bleeding heart doesn't really sound like that) they also know that there is a good way of solving that without making a million ridiculous laws.

Because DK has a History of posting anti-muslim news, people automatically assume that anything DK posts is automatically supposed to be Anti-Muslim.
No fucking shit.

then please show me the Muslim bashing in DK's post in this thread?

I know DK has a Habit of posting Anti-Muslim threads, but in this one, I see more of that being assumed by the posters and not DK.
So you assume this topic would have been posted by Deep Kimchi if there was no Muslim involved? I call bullshit.

The cab company should stop hiring people whose religions prevent them from doing the duties of their job. Unless the cab company has a policy against transporting seeing-eye dogs, which they can't because that would be illegal, this guy was just not doing his job. Many parts of my job offend my Catholic sensibilities. If they bothered me enough, I'd quit. Not refuse to do my job.

Good point. I've quit before because of issues with a job. A muslim isn't likely to start work in a pork factory (touching pork is considered 'Haram'
-forbidden- in islam), so why start work in, or stay in, a job that is going to conflict with your religion?

Good point. I've quit before because of issues with a job. A muslim isn't likely to start work in a pork factory (touching pork is considered 'Haram'
-forbidden- in islam), so why start work in, or stay in, a job that is going to conflict with your religion?

To keep getting money and be able to continue to live maybe?

then please show me the Muslim bashing in DK's post in this thread?

I know DK has a Habit of posting Anti-Muslim threads, but in this one, I see more of that being assumed by the posters and not DK.
There is no assumption.....it is extremely obvious. He attacks the Muslim cab driver's religious beliefs and suggests that he should be fired for them.

Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license. Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.

This coming from a poster who advocates genocide against Muslims (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11118610&postcount=148), and also has suggested sterilization of Muslims to eliminate them from the face of the earth.

While the Cold War is over, because it was between nation states, the War on Terror will go on until the West gets the balls to commit genocide.

He obviously goes out of his way to find news that tends to reflect badly on Muslims and starts threads to bash them. This thread is clearly an example of another in a series of Muslim hating/bashing by DK. I am sure he appreciates your support.

To keep getting money and be able to continue to live maybe?

Getting such a job implies a willness to take part in, or an acceptance that you may have to take part in, practices that conflict with your religion. If that is not the case, then the only option is another job or starving really, isn't it?

It seems to me that more and more muslims are continue to cry over their beliefs and culture rather than adjusting to today's society.

Seems as if the muslims (not all) expect the world to bow down to them and allow them to continue what they do, first and everybody else is second.

I'm personally tired of the world tippy toeing around these muslims' feelings. If his religion restricts him on certain things then he definately needs to get a new job and not work with or in the public field.

Fining him 1,200 pound is hardly tip toeing around his feelings is it?

Cab-driver is an arsehole shocker.

Wouldnt a bleeding heart liberal also have issues with disregarding the rights of the disabled?

[bleeding heart liberal 'thought' mode]
A cab driver can no more be expected to change his religion than a blind person can be expected to see. We must respect a religoius persons right to practice their religion and those offended by morals that might go against western values only have their own ignorance and prejudice to blame.

But then... it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on their disability, this person is wrong for not permitting the dog int his cab.

But then... it is wrong to demand the right to soil a persons property/ with an unclean animal if that goes against their religion.

But then... *bleeding heart liberal head explodes* (note : this does not hinder bleeding heart libera' thought') with the contridiction of demanding one minority must be discriminated against to accomodate the other minority, rather than the more comfortable notion of discriminating against the majority to please the minority
[/bleeding heart liberal 'thought' mode]

Seems as if the muslims (not all) expect the world to bow down to them and allow them to continue what they do, first and everybody else is second.

I'm personally tired of the world tippy toeing around these muslims' feelings. If his religion restricts him on certain things then he definately needs to get a new job and not work with or in the public field.
According to these posts of yours, you are kinda contradicting the above statements?

If you are an American and you don't like the way we're going...I say "Leave!"

NOTE: To all those who feed off of the constant bickering and whining over America and our policies......I say this to you..... :upyours:

Mock my words, the silent majority is getting closer and closer to awakening and when we do, you the bad, damn well better watch out.

Also, for the ones who are getting tired of seeing the American Flag flying high........You damn well better get used to it....For WE aren't going anywheres but Everywheres for the betterment of this world.
Would you like us to bow down to you oh mighty King?

As long as he continues to be fined, yes.

And as long as, as after a certain number of times he's reported for breaking the law, his license is pulled (which is a current penalty that can be imposed for this behavior).

After all, if you speed too many times, in addition to having to pay fines, your license is finally taken from you.

OR -- as long as his company is prepared to send, IMMEDIATELY, another driver to pick up the fare. Otherwise, if they permit their driver to break the law and will not themselves comply, the company should also face fines and possibly the suspension of privilege to do business.

Let's see, who is right. The Muslim flaunting the law, or the trolls saying the laws should be changed to be more aggressive because it is a Muslim?

No one has said that the laws should be changed to be more aggressive. And if you are calling Junii and I among others trolls, then you are sadly mistaken as well as flamebaiting -- by saying that EVERYONE who disagrees with you is a troll. The point most of us recognise is that if you break the law, you pay the consequences. If you continue to break the law, the consequences get more severe -- Muslim, Catholic, Atheist, or Jedi.

Un, no. The law is the law. If you want to change it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to call for this man to face punishment for which he had no knowledge he would have to face before hand.

Ridiculous. If as a teacher I slapped a kid and said I had no knowledge it was illegal, I'd still be arrested -- and should be. Ignorance of the law is no excuse -- nor is ignoring the law because it is inconvenient or inconsistent with your beliefs. If you take a job that requires you to do such-and-so and then refuse to do it, then sorry, you can and should lose that job. If I were to say, "But in the Bible it says that if I spare the Rod, I spoil the Child...." I would STILL be removed from my job for assault. Surely the laws apply to everyone equally regardless of their beliefs?

Yes, it's an asshole thing to do, no, it's not worth pitching a fit over.

I wonder if you would have second thoughts about this were you or someone you care about left standing on a streetcorner with no way to get where you needed to be.

This is just another DK Muslim bashing thread, based on DK's posting history. Trying to defend him on this pathetic article seems kinda pointless.

Ad Hominem attacks against the poster rather than to the source material shows laziness. I'll admit yes, DK posts a lot of these sorts of things, but though he has a particular axe to grind does not make the subject immediate grounds for dismissal. Nor does it make it time to dismiss others' arguments simply because you do not agree with them. It's more foolish to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the speaker than it is to trot out the same one-trick pony endlessly.

Does it not seem odd to you that knee-jerk OMG MUSLIM BASHING! is the thrust of some arguments here -- without examining the merits of the situation presented? And that such reflexive arguments are being supported by, oh, the same folks who tend to make such arguments? P,K,B!

To keep getting money and be able to continue to live maybe?

Pack groceries. Deliver newspapers. Work in a factory. Work in a call center. There are millions of jobs that he could take that would not require him to violate his beliefs or others' rights.

And as long as, as after a certain number of times he's reported for breaking the law, his license is pulled (which is a current penalty that can be imposed for this behavior).

OR -- as long as his company is prepared to send, IMMEDIATELY, another driver to pick up the fare. Otherwise, if they permit their driver to break the law and will not themselves comply, the company should also face fines and possibly the suspension of privilege to do business.

Yeah!

One can hardly expect someone to simply look up the next name in the phone book and take their business elsewhere.

No one has said that the laws should be changed to be more aggressive.

Equivalency.

Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license.
Blatant.

so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?
Insinuatory.

Of course no one has stated it, but they have implied it. But oh wait, they can already lose their license under these circumstances.
Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

And this is still obviously an attack on Muslims, not a special report of discrimination in the UK.

Ad Hominem attacks against the poster rather than to the source material shows laziness. I'll admit yes, DK posts a lot of these sorts of things, but though he has a particular axe to grind does not make the subject immediate grounds for dismissal. Nor does it make it time to dismiss others' arguments simply because you do not agree with them. It's more foolish to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like the speaker than it is to trot out the same one-trick pony endlessly.

Does it not seem odd to you that knee-jerk OMG MUSLIM BASHING! is the thrust of some arguments here -- without examining the merits of the situation presented? And that such reflexive arguments are being supported by, oh, the same folks who tend to make such arguments? P,K,B!
You have used many words to defend one of NS's favourite trolls. We are talking about DK, the same DK who has advocated genocide to Muslims and/or sterilization of Muslims. People get sick of reading his particular rant and this OP is no different in that he attacked the cab driver's religious beliefs.

You suggest that my post is an "Ad Hominem attack", yet you have no problem suggesting that I am "lazy" and "foolish". Also suggesting that I don't "examine the merits of the situation presented", demonstrates that you don't really know me too well. I do in fact read most articles (not like many other posters) that are posted to support an "argument", and I respond accordingly.

If a poster is going to continue to spew garbage, I will call them on it, and I have been doing exactly that for two and 1/2 years here.

In that same period of time, I have never, ever resorted to using Moderation to resolve any perceived problem with other posters. You learn to grow a skin here on these boards.

BTW, just out of curiosity, what does P,K,B mean at the end of your post?

No fucking shit.


So you assume this topic would have been posted by Deep Kimchi if there was no Muslim involved? I call bullshit.so... again, you are judging the thread by the poster and not by the information given though the article. where does DK call for Muslim Genocide in this thread?

No one has said that the laws should be changed to be more aggressive. Equivalency.
Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license.Blatant.may I present to you... a quote from the Article... now unless you have proof that DK writes for the Daily Mail and is the Author of this article...
Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court. the ARTICLE, not DK, but the ARTICLE states that Fines and/or Removal of Licence is ALREADY part of the law, so DK is not calling for some SPECIAL RULING or LAW CHANGE, but for the law to act upon the drivers declaration that he will continue to REFUSE to pick up Guide Dogs which is in violation of a LAW already set.



so this driver pays a small fine and contiues to discriminate against Blind People and you two are fine with it?
Insinuatory.
nope, that is a question. since you are saying this is a Muslim Bashing thread, I ask you if such actions by this cab driver is acceptable to you? since your posts make it seem that a call for the stiffer penalty of licence removal is somehow muslim bashing to you.

Of course no one has stated it, but they have implied it. But oh wait, they can already lose their license under these circumstances.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

And this is still obviously an attack on Muslims, not a special report of discrimination in the UK.
so you agree then with Mr. Sinclair when he told Mrs Vernon...
Mrs Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, added: "The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn't really very important, and I should have more respect for other people's culture. They have shown very little respect for my rights as a disabled person and have never once offered me an apology."
so it's ok for people to discriminate against others because of Religion and Culture? remember that when you go bashing Christians for their stance on Abortion, Same Sex Marrages, Creationism and other issues.

There is no assumption.....it is extremely obvious. He attacks the Muslim cab driver's religious beliefs and suggests that he should be fired for them. Obvious... please point out in this thread where he attacks the Muslim cab driver's Religous beliefs?

As for firing them? he did not say fire, but remove their licence. that is stated as a punnishment for breaking that law. so you also believe that DK wrote that article for the Daily Mail? after all, it's not DK calling for the removal of his licence, but it's part of the LAW.
Drivers who refuse to take a guide dog can lose their licence or get a fine of up to £1,000 but Mr Alker said cases rarely went to court. or perhaps you think DK wrote that law just to screw Muslims over?

This coming from a poster who advocates genocide against Muslims (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11118610&postcount=148), and also has suggested sterilization of Muslims to eliminate them from the face of the earth.and those are other threads... where is the Muslim Bashing from DK in THIS THREAD. Remember how upset you were when I insiuated that you "TEND" to post anti-american thougths and slanders even if the thread has nothing to do with America? that's what you are doing with DK.

He obviously goes out of his way to find news that tends to reflect badly on Muslims and starts threads to bash them. This thread is clearly an example of another in a series of Muslim hating/bashing by DK. I am sure he appreciates your support."clearly", "tends"... :rolleyes:

Lunatic Goofballs "TENDS" to post frivolous and humerous threads, but when he posts serious ones, people take them seriously, are you saying it should be CLEAR that all of LG's posts and threads should NOT be taken seriously? of course not. because LG's view TENDS not to clash with yours. but since DK has an axe to grind against Muslims... anything and everything he posts is OMG!!!1111 MUSLIM BASHING111!!!!! to you.

Anyone asserting that Kimchi is doing this to report news and not because it shows Muslims discriminating against other people isn't worth listening to. That shounds like irrational bullshit, but how irrational do you have to be to believe Kimchi isn't belittling the Muslims just because he isn't calling for their genocide in any particular one of his Muslim bashing threads?

Anyone asserting that Kimchi is doing this to report news and not because it shows Muslims discriminating against other people isn't worth listening to. That shounds like irrational bullshit, but how irrational do you have to be to believe Kimchi isn't belittling the Muslims just because he isn't calling for their genocide in any particular one of his Muslim bashing threads?
I feel the same way about people who ASSUME things and jump to conclusions baised not was is presented but who presents them. It's unfair to the information given, it's unfair to the poster, and it also speaks much about those who do so.

no one else on this thread except a few posters ;) ever insiuated that this was a MUSLIM bashing thread. I challange you again to point out in THIS THREAD, where DK is bashing Muslims.

I've tried writing several different things, but I won't bother. I wish more of you would choose this particular option. It's just not worth it - not the thread, not the story, and not the OP, either.

Obvious... please point out in this thread where he attacks the Muslim cab driver's Religous beliefs?
I already pointed that out in a previous reply to you. Please pay attention:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778208&postcount=61

As for firing them? he did not say fire, but remove their licence. that is stated as a punnishment for breaking that law. so you also believe that DK wrote that article for the Daily Mail? after all, it's not DK calling for the removal of his licence, but it's part of the LAW.
or perhaps you think DK wrote that law just to screw Muslims over?
DK stated that the guy should lose his licence "permanently" based solely on the driver's stated intentions, although the driver's intentions are not directly quoted in the article. IF the driver loses his licence then obviously he will be fired from his job.

I can't believe that I am having to spell this out for you, and quit trying to put words in my mouth (highlighted above).

and those are other threads... where is the Muslim Bashing from DK in THIS THREAD.
Again, I posted my thoughts on that above and linked to the post.

Remember how upset you were when I insiuated that you "TEND" to post anti-american thougths and slanders even if the thread has nothing to do with America? that's what you are doing with DK.
That may be your take on it, but certainly not mine, and I might add, that many other posters agree.

"clearly", "tends"... :rolleyes:

Lunatic Goofballs "TENDS" to post frivolous and humerous threads, but when he posts serious ones, people take them seriously, are you saying it should be CLEAR that all of LG's posts and threads should NOT be taken seriously? of course not. because LG's view TENDS not to clash with yours.
That is a fair assessment but I do not agree with all of LG's posts, but I do enjoy most of his posts.

but since DK has an axe to grind against Muslims... anything and everything he posts is OMG!!!1111 MUSLIM BASHING111!!!!! to you.
There you go trying to put words in my mouth again. I have never suggested that ever. I "tend" to disagree with everything that DK posts. The fact that far too many of them are Muslim bashing in nature is what annoys me the most.

As a matter of fact, before DK got into his Muslim bashing mode, most of our differences centred around guns and gun control. We had some very extensive exchanges on those topics.

DK promotes his brand of hatred towards Muslims with Muslim bashing threads, and I and many others call him on it. You don't see the Muslim bashing in this thread but I and others do. I guess it is a matter of preception? Defend him all you wish, just as I will feel free to call him on his "stuff".

I've tried writing several different things, but I won't bother. I wish more of you would choose this particular option. It's just not worth it - not the thread, not the story, and not the OP, either.
Perhaps that is the best advice.

So, a Muslim breaks the law, and gets punished for it. Is this really, really worth a rant and fuss? Or are we now going to see a new thread every time a taxi driver gets a fine?

So, a Muslim breaks the law, and gets punished for it. Is this really, really worth a rant and fuss? Or are we now going to see a new thread every time a taxi driver gets a fine?
Only if it is a Muslim taxi driver. :p

I already pointed that out in a previous reply to you. Please pay attention:

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11778208&postcount=61
no you didn't, I asked for you to point it out. you didn't, you only said "it was obvious" inother words, you are ASSUMING he's muslim bashing with this article.

DK stated that the guy should lose his licence "permanently" based solely on the driver's stated intentions, although the driver's intentions are not directly quoted in the article. IF the driver loses his licence then obviously he will be fired from his job.err, removal of Licence is part of the law. and probably will happen.

so every post that someone says "they should kill bush" has to be taken seriously as pegging that poster as Anti-american? riight.


I can't believe that I am having to spell this out for you, and quit trying to put words in my mouth (highlighted above).This is just another DK Muslim bashing thread, based on DK's posting history. Trying to defend him on this pathetic article seems kinda pointless.nope, not putting words in your mouth. you assumed, that this is a muslim bashing thread, yet when Asked to point out the bashing in this thread, you point to past threads that DK had posted and done.
There is no assumption.....it is extremely obvious. He attacks the Muslim cab driver's religious beliefs and suggests that he should be fired for them. here you state that fireing the cab driver over his relibous beliefs should be done. he did not say that, he said.
Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license. Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.not for his beliefs, but because he declared an intent to continue to break the law.

and note his last line.. HIS own making. not some religous theocracy, not Muslim theocracy, not Islamic Theocracy... so it seems like you too are putting words in his mouth.

and when a mod points out that you are attacking the poster...You have used many words to defend one of NS's favourite trolls. We are talking about DK, the same DK who has advocated genocide to Muslims and/or sterilization of Muslims. People get sick of reading his particular rant and this OP is no different in that he attacked the cab driver's religious beliefs. where in the OP did he Attack the Cab Drivers beliefs. he stated that breaking the law because of religious beliefs (general, not specific to any religion) is wrong. again, you also attempt to put words in DK's mouth. I call you a kettle to DK's Pot.

Again, I posted my thoughts on that above and linked to the post. yep... you link to other threads to show the OBVIOUS Muslim Bashing in this one... :rolleyes:


That may be your take on it, but certainly not mine, and I might add, that many other posters agree.many others...
35 different posters, including DK you and me. and out of those 35, 4 attacks DK directly.... 4 out of 35... yeah... that's many alright...


That is a fair assessment but I do not agree with all of LG's posts, but I do enjoy most of his posts.but isn't that unfair to judge a thread by the poster? especially if it's not blatant that it's bashing any group of people?

There you go trying to put words in my mouth again. I have never suggested that ever. I "tend" to disagree with everything that DK posts. The fact that far too many of them are Muslim bashing in nature is what annoys me the most.

As a matter of fact, before DK got into his Muslim bashing mode, most of our differences centred around guns and gun control. We had some very extensive exchanges on those topics.

DK promotes his brand of hatred towards Muslims with Muslim bashing threads, and I and many others call him on it. You don't see the Muslim bashing in this thread but I and others do. I guess it is a matter of preception? Defend him all you wish, just as I will feel free to call him on his "stuff".and that is what I'm trying to point out. it's getting to the point where instead of looking at the thread for the merits of the thread itself, a victory for disabled rights, a fight for equality, the difficulties of balancing with what's fair with personal/cultural customs/religions, there are those who automatically cry out "MUSLIM BASHING" because of WHO the poster is, and not what was presented.

In other words, the 4 posters were attacking the poster, and not discussing the thread itself for all they can see is DK's prejiduce. this thread could've been a great discussion between personal/cultural customs and religion vs equality. but because people choose to look for and find DK's preference to muslim bash, they attack the poster, not what the poster presented. they are the ones focusing on MUSLIM and not the actions of the PEOPLE in the article.

we don't see eye to eye on alot of things, however, I always look at your threads with the mindset of what you are saying and presenting and I never factor in your past threads, posts, and past viewpoints.

Only if it is a Muslim taxi driver. :p

Or a muslim butcher, or a muslim teacher, or a muslim vet, or a muslim translator, or a muslim soldier, or a muslim drag queen, or a muslim RPG player, basically, ANYTHING that has muslim in it and screws up ONCE about ANYTHING.

Come on, now: There's a history here. If DK posted this topic innocently, his reputation is tarnished by all the OTHER things he wrote in which he, like a certain Adolf Hitler, called for genocide. And, again, given his previous record, what are the odds that he is NOT posting this to show how "evil" the muslims are based on one example?

I don't know, to me it all seems so idiotic that, for each time DK posts a muslim-bashing thread based on one example, I'm thinking of replying with something like "Christians killed Matthew Shepherd, so all Christians are bad now?" and, with any luck, end the thread before the "yahoo, let's kill muslims for my covert sexual gratification!" on DK and others' parts begins.

They can always just pass a law that says you cant hire Muslims as cab drivers........ See problem solved .:D

Dumb topic really.


It had potential as a sane person above me pointed out...but instead of being a topic about handicapped and culural differences ..became a rant fest about " the intent " of the OP.


Sieg Heil ! your a facist muslim/dog/ catholic/women / transvestite / miget hater !

Really quite amusing ...but not very informative .

Or pay a cleric to issue a Fatwa saying that dogs are clean when entering a cab with a faithful driver.

They can always just pass a law that says you cant hire Muslims as cab drivers........ See problem solved .:D

Dumb topic really.

And DK gets a tad happier that someone agrees with him... :rolleyes:

no you didn't, I asked for you to point it out. you didn't, you only said "it was obvious" inother words, you are ASSUMING he's muslim bashing with this article.

err, removal of Licence is part of the law. and probably will happen.

so every post that someone says "they should kill bush" has to be taken seriously as pegging that poster as Anti-american? riight.


nope, not putting words in your mouth. you assumed, that this is a muslim bashing thread, yet when Asked to point out the bashing in this thread, you point to past threads that DK had posted and done.
here you state that fireing the cab driver over his relibous beliefs should be done. he did not say that, he said.
not for his beliefs, but because he declared an intent to continue to break the law.

and note his last line.. HIS own making. not some religous theocracy, not Muslim theocracy, not Islamic Theocracy... so it seems like you too are putting words in his mouth.

and when a mod points out that you are attacking the poster...where in the OP did he Attack the Cab Drivers beliefs. he stated that breaking the law because of religious beliefs (general, not specific to any religion) is wrong. again, you also attempt to put words in DK's mouth. I call you a kettle to DK's Pot.

yep... you link to other threads to show the OBVIOUS Muslim Bashing in this one... :rolleyes:


many others...
35 different posters, including DK you and me. and out of those 35, 4 attacks DK directly.... 4 out of 35... yeah... that's many alright...


but isn't that unfair to judge a thread by the poster? especially if it's not blatant that it's bashing any group of people?

and that is what I'm trying to point out. it's getting to the point where instead of looking at the thread for the merits of the thread itself, a victory for disabled rights, a fight for equality, the difficulties of balancing with what's fair with personal/cultural customs/religions, there are those who automatically cry out "MUSLIM BASHING" because of WHO the poster is, and not what was presented.

In other words, the 4 posters were attacking the poster, and not discussing the thread itself for all they can see is DK's prejiduce. this thread could've been a great discussion between personal/cultural customs and religion vs equality. but because people choose to look for and find DK's preference to muslim bash, they attack the poster, not what the poster presented. they are the ones focusing on MUSLIM and not the actions of the PEOPLE in the article.

we don't see eye to eye on alot of things, however, I always look at your threads with the mindset of what you are saying and presenting and I never factor in your past threads, posts, and past viewpoints.
There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin, so I won't bother. I still see the thread as Muslim bashing, you disagree, and that is your right. You want to bash me for taking exception to this thread that is okay too. You want to stand up and defend DK (although he is quite capable of defending himself) that is also your right. As long as DK is going to post threads that I perceive to be Muslim bashing, then I will call him on it, and so will others. He has called for the extermination of every man, woman, and child of Islam, even to the point of suggesting sterilization. I believe that his worldview is sick and twisted and I pray that one day he will overcome this sickness.

Personally, I have no complaints with you Juni, but I am taken aback by your staunch defence of DK. If you want to bash me, while you come to DK's rescue, that is okay. I can pray for you too.

Yeah!

One can hardly expect someone to simply look up the next name in the phone book and take their business elsewhere.

Ha ha. Considering that she's vision impaired.

You have used many words to defend one of NS's favourite trolls. We are talking about DK, the same DK who has advocated genocide to Muslims and/or sterilization of Muslims. People get sick of reading his particular rant and this OP is no different in that he attacked the cab driver's religious beliefs.

You suggest that my post is an "Ad Hominem attack", yet you have no problem suggesting that I am "lazy" and "foolish". Also suggesting that I don't "examine the merits of the situation presented", demonstrates that you don't really know me too well. I do in fact read most articles (not like many other posters) that are posted to support an "argument", and I respond accordingly.

If a poster is going to continue to spew garbage, I will call them on it, and I have been doing exactly that for two and 1/2 years here.

In that same period of time, I have never, ever resorted to using Moderation to resolve any perceived problem with other posters. You learn to grow a skin here on these boards.

BTW, just out of curiosity, what does P,K,B mean at the end of your post?

I have used many words to defend the idea of attacking the argument. I came out and stated I do not agree with Deep Kimchee much of the time. Now you're going to state that I am defending a troll? Wow. Great way to illustrate my point. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of ignoring the crux of the argument though it is a valid point simply because you don't like the poster. As for calling the practice of ignoring the argument lazy and foolish -- it is. I don't recall calling everyone who stated they think the cab driver was in the wrong "trolls" myself.

It appears some people would rather not bother with the fact that the man has broken the law, has stated he will continue to break the law, and that he discriminates against the handicapped who have more trouble with just "looking up the next name in the phone book" than the rest of us. Instead, it's just OMG MUSLIM BASHING! Why is that? Why is it so impossible to say, "Yeah, that guy was wrong," rather than act as if anyone daring to discuss it is automatically a troll and Muslim hater? Why is it that criticizing ONE idiot suddenly becomes an attack on a billion people?

Neither do I recall every person involved in the discussion demonizing Muslims as a whole because one person broke the law and states he intends to keep doing it.

It appears some people would rather not bother with the fact that the man has broken the law, has stated he will continue to break the law, and that he discriminates against the handicapped who have more trouble with just "looking up the next name in the phone book" than the rest of us. Instead, it's just OMG MUSLIM BASHING! Why is that? Why is it so impossible to say, "Yeah, that guy was wrong," rather than act as if anyone daring to discuss it is automatically a troll and Muslim hater? Why is it that criticizing ONE idiot suddenly becomes an attack on a billion people?

The problem is this is a thread made by a known and proven Muslim basher and hater, islamophobe if you will. Those in it agreeing with the poster are signing their own "flame me" waivers just by doing so. The thread should have been closed on the merits of the original poster as an obvious probability of an imminent flame war. This was never about the substance of the news article but about Kimchi's hate for the religion and like I said, those who agreed, while not on his level, dug their own grave.

Many replies have been stupid I agree, but this topic would not have been made unless the Muslim was involved and it was not made by some one else without a record.

The problem is this is a thread made by a known and proven Muslim basher and hater, islamophobe if you will. Those in it agreeing with the poster are signing their own "flame me" waivers just by doing so. The thread should have been closed on the merits of the original poster as an obvious probability of an imminent flame war. This was never about the substance of the news article but about Kimchi's hate for the religion and like I said, those who agreed, while not on his level, dug their own grave.

Many replies have been stupid I agree, but this topic would not have been made unless the Muslim was involved and it was not made by some one else without a record.
Why don't you actually try to add something to this thread instead of spraying shit all over DK?

It appears some people would rather not bother with the fact that the man has broken the law, has stated he will continue to break the law, and that he discriminates against the handicapped who have more trouble with just "looking up the next name in the phone book" than the rest of us. Instead, it's just OMG MUSLIM BASHING! Why is that? Why is it so impossible to say, "Yeah, that guy was wrong," rather than act as if anyone daring to discuss it is automatically a troll and Muslim hater? Why is it that criticizing ONE idiot suddenly becomes an attack on a billion people?


Repeated for emphasis.

Kat is right on this. The guy is an ass and needs to be fired if he can't follow the rules of the land. His religion doesn't not override handicap laws.

Next time he does it, he will have his license pulled.

The fact DK has issues with Muslims doesn't nullify the event or the fact the guy is a dick.

In other words, the 4 posters were attacking the poster, and not discussing the thread itself for all they can see is DK's prejiduce. this thread could've been a great discussion between personal/cultural customs and religion vs equality. but because people choose to look for and find DK's preference to muslim bash, they attack the poster, not what the poster presented. they are the ones focusing on MUSLIM and not the actions of the PEOPLE in the article.

we don't see eye to eye on alot of things, however, I always look at your threads with the mindset of what you are saying and presenting and I never factor in your past threads, posts, and past viewpoints.

Having read back through the thread, I have to disagree with you right here.

This is indeed more of DK's annoying Muslim Bashing Threads.

I applaud you for attempting to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I really do.
I did too for a while, until every thread he made instantly started out criticizing Muslims, thier culture, thier languages, thier religions, everything.

DK is becoming just as bad as the Nazi Bigots who used to hang out here more frequently and click and paste from Stormfront.
Every thread he makes is at least mild trolling, to outright and flagrant trolling, usually aimed at Muslims, but not limited to them.

Dont waste your time defending him, he really isnt worth it.

Having read back through the thread, I have to disagree with you right here.

This is indeed more of DK's annoying Muslim Bashing Threads.

I applaud you for attempting to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I really do.
I did too for a while, until every thread he made instantly started out criticizing Muslims, thier culture, thier languages, thier religions, everything.

DK is becoming just as bad as the Nazi Bigots who used to hang out here more frequently and click and paste from Stormfront.
Every thread he makes is at least mild trolling, to outright and flagrant trolling, usually aimed at Muslims, but not limited to them.

Dont waste your time defending him, he really isnt worth it.
Hammer meets nail squarely on the head, driving home the point.

Kat is right on this. The guy is an ass and needs to be fired if he can't follow the rules of the land. His religion doesn't not override handicap laws.

Next time he does it, he will have his license pulled.

A cab-driver being a wanker isn't exactly front page news. If the man wasn't a Muslim I doubt the story would even have been reported. The Daily Mail regularly launch crusades against whomever it's trendy to hate at the time.

The cabbi broke the law and was fined. The cabbbie says he will continue to break the law, presumably to be fined. If he pays the fine, then he has purchsed the right to ignore the law. In effect, he has raised himself above the law.

What is the problem here? I see it as a perfect example of the American way.

I actually find myself agreeing with DK on this one

*sits in corner and shudders*

It's a complex issue - at what point does a persons right to practice their religion get outweighed by another persons right to not have call another cab company and take their business elsewhere?

Also - if this person DOES take the passenger, should they then have to warn any muslims (or people of other religions with similar beliefs) that the cab is currently unclean?

The only person who I think should really be able to demand the driver take the passenger is the guys boss, or if it is a black cab the London Cabbie lot who specify he must carry any fare and he agreed with that condition when he took the liscence - who should have employed him on the understanding that the job comes first. If he is self employed I see no reason why he should have to make the choice himself.

Lets look at it from the cab drivers position:
Forced by law to violate a religious belief.
Forced by law to incur a cost of having the car cleaned to remove the 'unclean' element left by the presence of the dog. If I throw up in a cab I'd be expected to pay for the cleaning cost - is the blind passenger expected to pay for the removal of the unclean element?
Forced by law to have a cab that could well be unacceptable to any following clients with similar religious beliefs.

Lets look at it from the blind persons position:
Forced to call another cab company.

Un, no. The law is the law. If you want to change it, that’s fine, but I’m not going to call for this man to face punishment for which he had no knowledge he would have to face before hand.


Umm now whats that line about ignarence being no defence...?

It's a complex issue - at what point does a persons right to practice their religion get outweighed by another persons right to not have call another cab company and take their business elsewhere?

Also - if this person DOES take the passenger, should they then have to warn any muslims (or people of other religions with similar beliefs) that the cab is currently unclean?

The only person who I think should really be able to demand the driver take the passenger is the guys boss, or if it is a black cab the London Cabbie lot who specify he must carry any fare and he agreed with that condition when he took the liscence - who should have employed him on the understanding that the job comes first. If he is self employed I see no reason why he should have to make the choice himself.

Lets look at it from the cab drivers position:
Forced by law to violate a religious belief.
Forced by law to incur a cost of having the car cleaned to remove the 'unclean' element left by the presence of the dog. If I throw up in a cab I'd be expected to pay for the cleaning cost - is the blind passenger expected to pay for the removal of the unclean element?
Forced by law to have a cab that could well be unacceptable to any following clients with similar religious beliefs.

Lets look at it from the blind persons position:
Forced to call another cab company.

Since when has Islam forbiden contact with dogs, or preached that dogd are unclean? The cabbie was a prat his faith had nowt to do with it, I'd happyly see him loose hgis licence, he obviously don't need the money!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408912&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770



Wow. Here in the US, it's a violation of the law to refuse admittance to a Seeing Eye dog - regardless of your reason.

Turns out it's illegal in the UK as well:



The cab company seems particularly stupid on this:



Yeah, like it's not important for a blind person to have their seeing eye dog accompany them - it's not very important. :rolleyes:

There's a reason that we have laws to protect the handicapped. So this sort of religious nonsense won't happen. Someone's religious beliefs should never be allowed to take precedence over a handicapped person's basic right to transport, and that includes their seeing eye dog.

Since the cab driver in question has announced his intention to never allow a dog in his cab, even though he will be fined again, I believe the state should permanently revoke his license. Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.

Superstition should NEVER be an excuse for this kind of behavior. Respecting somebody's culture is fine, but the moment they introduce superstition into their reasoning they should automatically be ignored as a crackpot. Believing that a magical sky fairy wants you to do something should render your arguments less credible, not more so.

Those in it agreeing with the poster are signing their own "flame me" waivers just by doing so.
That's where you're wrong, and that's precisely what I am pointing out. A number of posters are coming in here simply to attack the fact that the thread is DK's -- an ad hominem. You want to flame people because they post here? Be ready when you cross the line for the same consequence as when you flame people anywhere else.

The thread should have been closed on the merits of the original poster as an obvious probability of an imminent flame war. This was never about the substance of the news article but about Kimchi's hate for the religion and like I said, those who agreed, while not on his level, dug their own grave.
And as both Junii and I have pointed out, that was certainly the assumption made by "the usual suspects." However, those not blinded by the need to attack based on who posted it actually are having a discussion about it which is being hijacked by those whose need to attack the poster apparently outweighs rational discussion.

Many replies have been stupid I agree, but this topic would not have been made unless the Muslim was involved and it was not made by some one else without a record.
Are you now setting yourself up as the police of General? Because I guarantee that if your sport of choice is simply going to be following DK around and shouting, "It's just DK so we need not let anyone discuss it," you're going to find yourselves on the wrong side of the rules. Perhaps you should refresh your memory by reading what the One Stop Rules Shop says about harassing people. In fact, I'll link you -- no need to tell me I'm defending a poster again -- I'm telling you what the rules are.

Griefing: Harrassing a nation because of what they did or said. This often manifests when one player follows another around in thread after thread, abusing and flaming the target nation. Note that this is distinct from Region Griefing, covered above.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3

Disagree with his position all you want -- I know I do and have said so flat out in other places-- but the same rules apply to every poster no matter how popular their style is, their argument is, whatever. When it comes down to it, General is a DEBATE forum -- if you don't want to counter his argument with debate, then don't post in his threads. That, I think, would be a shame, but this sniping about the thread being meritless and anyone debating in it signing a "flame waiver" or being trolls stops NOW.

It took me long enough but I finally got through reading the thread, it doesn't matter if DK started the thread for more muslim bashing, as a good debate on how a multicultural society can balance the sometimes conflicting cultures within it can still be done.

The UK so far has avoided the issue as religious discrimination law only applies to the area of employment law while disability discrimination law applies to much wider range of areas. http://www.cre.gov.uk/legal/rights_religion.html

It's a complex issue - at what point does a persons right to practice their religion get outweighed by another persons right to not have call another cab company and take their business elsewhere?

Also - if this person DOES take the passenger, should they then have to warn any muslims (or people of other religions with similar beliefs) that the cab is currently unclean?

The only person who I think should really be able to demand the driver take the passenger is the guys boss, or if it is a black cab the London Cabbie lot who specify he must carry any fare and he agreed with that condition when he took the liscence - who should have employed him on the understanding that the job comes first. If he is self employed I see no reason why he should have to make the choice himself.

Lets look at it from the cab drivers position:
Forced by law to violate a religious belief.
Forced by law to incur a cost of having the car cleaned to remove the 'unclean' element left by the presence of the dog. If I throw up in a cab I'd be expected to pay for the cleaning cost - is the blind passenger expected to pay for the removal of the unclean element?
Forced by law to have a cab that could well be unacceptable to any following clients with similar religious beliefs.

Lets look at it from the blind persons position:
Forced to call another cab company.

As it is the cab driver's choice to follow his religion I believe he should incur all the costs that come with following it while obeying the laws of the land.

As it is the cab driver's choice to follow his religion I believe he should incur all the costs that come with following it while obeying the laws of the land.

So we can outlaw a persons freedom of religion but allow them to pay a sin tax to continue practicing it?

So we can outlaw a persons freedom of religion but allow them to pay a sin tax to continue practicing it?

As stated above -- if as a teacher I beat a child in class and justified it by saying that the Bible teaches if we spare the rod we spoil the child, I would be (and rightly) arrested for assault and removed from my job.

There is no difference. If you are providing a public service and are bound by regulations to do your job in a particular way, and you fail to observe the regulations, then the regulatory commission has the right to remove your license.

So we can outlaw a persons freedom of religion but allow them to pay a sin tax to continue practicing it?

No, they still have freedom of religion. However if they inccur costs because of religious requirements then it is they who should cover them, not others who do not follow the religion.

So we can outlaw a persons freedom of religion but allow them to pay a sin tax to continue practicing it?
It's real simple: if you want to get paid to do a job, you have to actually DO THAT JOB.

Being a cab driver means picking up people and transporting them around. It means accepting fares based on a certain set of rules, and those rules include picking up handicapped passengers, seeing-eye dogs, black people, Christians, women, men, gays, etc. If you aren't prepared to do the job according to its requirements, you shouldn't expect to get paid to be a cab driver.

"Religious freedom" does not include the freedom to be paid to do a job you're refusing to do. It does not include the right to do a crappy job and suffer no consequences. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with working as a cabbie then you are free to not take that job. You are not, however, free to collect a paycheck for a job that your religion prohibits you from performing correctly.

It's real simple: if you want to get paid to do a job, you have to actually DO THAT JOB.

Being a cab driver means picking up people and transporting them around. It means accepting fares based on a certain set of rules, and those rules include picking up handicapped passengers, seeing-eye dogs, black people, Christians, women, men, gays, etc. If you aren't prepared to do the job according to its requirements, you shouldn't expect to get paid to be a cab driver.

"Religious freedom" does not include the freedom to be paid to do a job you're refusing to do. It does not include the right to do a crappy job and suffer no consequences. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with working as a cabbie then you are free to not take that job. You are not, however, free to collect a paycheck for a job that your religion prohibits you from performing correctly.

If he refuses to take a fair then he doesn't get paid. Taxi drivers are paid by the mile directly by the passenger.

It's real simple: if you want to get paid to do a job, you have to actually DO THAT JOB.

Being a cab driver means picking up people and transporting them around. It means accepting fares based on a certain set of rules, and those rules include picking up handicapped passengers, seeing-eye dogs, black people, Christians, women, men, gays, etc. If you aren't prepared to do the job according to its requirements, you shouldn't expect to get paid to be a cab driver.

"Religious freedom" does not include the freedom to be paid to do a job you're refusing to do. It does not include the right to do a crappy job and suffer no consequences. If your religious beliefs are incompatible with working as a cabbie then you are free to not take that job. You are not, however, free to collect a paycheck for a job that your religion prohibits you from performing correctly.

I need more practice at replying, your reply is much better than my attempt.

If he refuses to take a fair then he doesn't get paid. Taxi drivers are paid by the mile directly by the passenger.

He is not allowed to refuse a fare without a vaild reason, his was not a valid reason.

He is not allowed to refuse a fare without a vaild reason, his was not a valid reason.

True, I was merely pointing out the Bottles' idea of him collecting a pay check for a job he wasn't doing was incorrect, as I'm sure a bright girl like her was already fully aware ;)

If he refuses to take a fair then he doesn't get paid. Taxi drivers are paid by the mile directly by the passenger.
Taxi drivers in the UK are bound by law to carry seeing-eye dogs. Thus, if you are a taxi driver you must deal with the fact that you are required to transport these animals. That is part of your license to drive a taxi. If you feel that you cannot comply with this law, you should not get a job driving a taxi.

It's really simple: don't expect to get paid for failing to do your job. And if you should fail at your job, don't be so pathetic as to claim that you should get to fail without any consequences because your religion told you to be a failure.

True, I was merely pointing out the Bottles' idea of him collecting a pay check for a job he wasn't doing was incorrect, as I'm sure a bright girl like her was already fully aware ;)
I don't know how it works in the UK, but taxi drivers in the US do receive a salary. They don't live purely off their fares, unless they are self-employed hackney drivers (which this cabbie was not, according to the story).

UPDATE: I looked it up, and it appears that taxi drivers in the UK do receive a salary if they are employed by a cab company. According to one site that I visited, the starting salary is usually around 10,000 pounds/year.

Taxi drivers in the UK are bound by law to carry seeing-eye dogs. Thus, if you are a taxi driver you must deal with the fact that you are required to transport these animals. That is part of your license to drive a taxi. If you feel that you cannot comply with this law, you should not get a job driving a taxi.

It's really simple: don't expect to get paid for failing to do your job. And if you should fail at your job, don't be so pathetic as to claim that you should get to fail without any consequences because your religion told you to be a failure.

RE bolded part see

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11782743&postcount=106

I agree with you but it doesn't help the side of the debate I agree with for its' exponents to use bad arguements.

Edit: I stand corrected, I've never heard of a cab company paying salaries before, mainly you pay them to rent a radio. *doffs cap to bottle*

I don't know how it works in the UK, but taxi drivers in the US do receive a salary. They don't live purely off their fares, unless they are self-employed hackney drivers (which this cabbie was not, according to the story).

It is a mixture in the UK, the large cab companies pay a salary but the small firms (read one or two cabs) are paid directly by fare.

A cab-driver being a wanker isn't exactly front page news. If the man wasn't a Muslim I doubt the story would even have been reported. The Daily Mail regularly launch crusades against whomever it's trendy to hate at the time.

The only way to prove that is to find a non-muslim who did the same thing.

It's a complex issue - at what point does a persons right to practice their religion get outweighed by another persons right to not have call another cab company and take their business elsewhere?


In the matters of a handicapped individual, it doesn't. That 's why there are laws.

Also - if this person DOES take the passenger, should they then have to warn any muslims (or people of other religions with similar beliefs) that the cab is currently unclean?

The muslims who belive that are not that big. We have a percentage of Muslims and the company used to be dog friendly as you could bring them into the building.

The muslims didn't stop comming to work for Religious reasons.


The only person who I think should really be able to demand the driver take the passenger is the guys boss, or if it is a black cab the London Cabbie lot who specify he must carry any fare and he agreed with that condition when he took the liscence - who should have employed him on the understanding that the job comes first. If he is self employed I see no reason why he should have to make the choice himself.

Lets look at it from the cab drivers position:
Forced by law to violate a religious belief.
Forced by law to incur a cost of having the car cleaned to remove the 'unclean' element left by the presence of the dog. If I throw up in a cab I'd be expected to pay for the cleaning cost - is the blind passenger expected to pay for the removal of the unclean element?
Forced by law to have a cab that could well be unacceptable to any following clients with similar religious beliefs.


And that is too bad.

Lets look at it from the blind persons position:
Forced to call another cab company.

And if the blind person gets yet another one. That's not the purpose of the law.

If the Muslim has a problem with it then he can find another job that gets him away from dogs.

It's quite simple actually.

So we can outlaw a persons freedom of religion but allow them to pay a sin tax to continue practicing it?
As stated:


As it is the cab driver's choice to follow his religion I believe he should incur all the costs that come with following it while obeying the laws of the land.

The only way to prove that is to find a non-muslim who did the same thing.


Catch 22. You won't find a report of a non-muslim doing such as it won't have been reported due to the non-story of cab-drivers being idiots.

So what it your veiw on phamacists who refuse to dispence birth control or emergancy contraception DK? My oppinion is the same in both cases. You can't do your job because of your religion you either need a new religion or a new job.

then please show me the Muslim bashing in DK's post in this thread?

I know DK has a Habit of posting Anti-Muslim threads, but in this one, I see more of that being assumed by the posters and not DK.

That's what I'm testing for in my first post to this thread . . .

There are so many things wrong with your post, I don't know where to begin, so I won't bother. I still see the thread as Muslim bashing, you disagree, and that is your right. You want to bash me for taking exception to this thread that is okay too. You want to stand up and defend DK (although he is quite capable of defending himself) that is also your right. As long as DK is going to post threads that I perceive to be Muslim bashing, then I will call him on it, and so will others. He has called for the extermination of every man, woman, and child of Islam, even to the point of suggesting sterilization. I believe that his worldview is sick and twisted and I pray that one day he will overcome this sickness.

Personally, I have no complaints with you Juni, but I am taken aback by your staunch defence of DK. If you want to bash me, while you come to DK's rescue, that is okay. I can pray for you too.If you can see it as Muslim bashing, then defend the bashing, being done by the thread, but are you sure you're seeing the bashing being done in the thread, or are you seeing the DK "Muslim Genocide" that he advocates in OTHER THREADS?

I'm not defending DK, I'm attacking those that would automatically judge the thread not by what it presents, but by who presented it. Wether it be DK, MTAE, You, GNI, or even The Cat Tribe, I would still do the same thing if there was evidence presented that indicates that those posters DID NOT examine the thread but automatically jumped to conclusions because of the poster.

the automatic
Summarizing of topic in progress.
"Blah blah blah Muslims are evil blah blah blah"
He broke a law and was punished, go blow it out your ear.
is a prime example.

THP later posts
Let's see, who is right. The Muslim flaunting the law, or the trolls saying the laws should be changed to be more aggressive because it is a Muslim?
no where does DK or anyone earlier push for a changing of the law. He expressed a desire to see the harsher penalty placed after the driver "insisted that he would continue refusing passengers accompanied by guide dogs. " THP does however in post #70
Of course no one has stated it, but they have implied it. But oh wait, they can already lose their license under these circumstances.he realizes that no one (including DK) is calling for a CHANGE in the LAW...

I think, if someone else posted it, TPH would not have made such assumptions about changing the law, or any discrimination against muslims, and perhaps might even have supported a call for harsher penalties in accordance to the law because the driver was being a prick.

but because it was DK who posted it...


The problem is this is a thread made by a known and proven Muslim basher and hater, islamophobe if you will. So you admit that you are judging the thread by the poster and not what the thread presents...

Those in it agreeing with the poster are signing their own "flame me" waivers just by doing so. ... guilty by association? this just says that you fear to agree with DK, even if (and I do say IF) DK is right in his stance. you would shift your views because of the poster and not what is presented...

isn't that discrimination?

The thread should have been closed on the merits of the original poster as an obvious probability of an imminent flame war. so you are asking the mods to automatcially close any thread started by DK, no matter what... Kettle meet Pot... DK hates Muslims, and you hate DK... just put him on Ignore then.


This was never about the substance of the news article but about Kimchi's hate for the religion and like I said, those who agreed, while not on his level, dug their own grave.so you agree then with Nevin Sinclair who said...
Mrs Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, added: "The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn't really very important, and I should have more respect for other people's culture. nevermind that the cab driver didn't respect Mrs Vernon's handicap and needs.

Having read back through the thread, I have to disagree with you right here.

This is indeed more of DK's annoying Muslim Bashing Threads.please show DK's Muslim Bashing IN THIS THREAD. seriously, I want to know how this thread, about one person, is a muslim bashing thread when DK doesn't do his usual "see all muslims are trying to push their customs on the free world and we must fight back" rehtoric...

"Because it's a muslim invovled and DK posted it" is not an agrument about the thread, but the poster.

I applaud you for attempting to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I really do.
I did too for a while, until every thread he made instantly started out criticizing Muslims, thier culture, thier languages, thier religions, everything.Every thread? I think he recently made one about the Democrats, the cops shooting a suspected cop killer, one about Zombie Hunting in Sweden... so not every thread instantly starts out criticizing Muslims.

and before you say only his muslim baised one do that. alot of posters post threads about Republicans and start by critizising them, same with those that start christian threads, or threads about President Bush, America, Religion etc... yet those posters are not held in the same catagory as DK.

DK is becoming just as bad as the Nazi Bigots who used to hang out here more frequently and click and paste from Stormfront.so.... you are for Censorship of ideals and opinions on these boards...
Every thread he makes is at least mild trolling, to outright and flagrant trolling, usually aimed at Muslims, but not limited to them.not every thread, I find alot of threads from DK that isn't trolling and alot not aimed at Muslims. funny how with DK, the phrase EVERY THREAD, or DK POSTS NOTHING BUT... yet others are also guilty of taking a stand on their views, posting threads that do seem trollish, centered around one particular group, and yet they are taken seriously.

Dont waste your time defending him, he really isnt worth it.For the Record, I am not defending DK, but attacking those who are judging the thread not baised off of what's presented but by who posts it.

Those in it agreeing with the poster are signing their own "flame me" waivers just by doing so.

I don't recall signing that waiver. And I certainly don't agree with being flamed just because I happen to agree on one point with a person you find offensive. You've contributed nothing to this thread except various ad hominems based on things that DK has said in the past that don't directly relate with this particular news story. This thread is not to discuss DK's motivations for posting this thread, it's meant to discuss the actual story posted. You seem incapable of doing so, as do several others. I would recommend that you find another thread to post in, as you're obviously not capable of participating in this one intelligently.

The thread should have been closed on the merits of the original poster as an obvious probability of an imminent flame war.

And I'm fairly certain this little premise of yours could easily be extended to about half of the NS General population, your ass included. DK did nothing to instigate a flame war in this thread. If you cannot engage in civil discourse and this thread degenerates into a flame war, then it is YOU who causes that and it is YOU that should be punished. DK should not be punished for your lack of maturity. Don't like DK? Fine. This thread isn't about him. Go create one about him if that's what you want to talk about.

So what it your veiw on phamacists who refuse to dispence birth control or emergancy contraception DK? My oppinion is the same in both cases. You can't do your job because of your religion you either need a new religion or a new job.

While that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: agreed.

I would recommend that you find another thread to post in, as you're obviously not capable of participating in this one intelligently.
It seems the whole first page qualifies for that accusation.


And I'm fairly certain this little premise of yours could easily be extended to about half of the NS General population, your ass included.
If I started a thread about gun control, but I didn't. This is a thread is not about the story but about Muslim discrimination. Kimchi is again bashing Muslims, the case itself is irrelevant to the actions of the Muslim it shows.

DK did nothing to instigate a flame war in this thread. If you cannot engage in civil discourse and this thread degenerates into a flame war, then it is YOU who causes that and it is YOU that should be punished. DK should not be punished for your lack of maturity. Don't like DK? Fine. This thread isn't about him. Go create one about him if that's what you want to talk about.
Do to his opinions and repeated attacks on Muslims (this thread included), any thread DK starts about Muslims is either trolling or flame bait. Pick your poison.


PS. Junii, I would respond to your ridiculous ranting, but I believe I addressed everything you have and will say a couple pages back.

Oh please!

You're dodging here. DK makes a thread with a legitimate point and you come in here and flame him. I'm pretty sure that's against the TOS.

PS. Junii, I would respond to your ridiculous ranting, but I believe I addressed everything you have and will say a couple pages back.all you've done is prove to me and to everyone else that you attacked DK and not what what he presented. you viewed this thread with extreme prejudice towards the poster and not the subject of the thread.

congratulations and thank you very much.

In the matters of a handicapped individual, it doesn't. That 's why there are laws.

So Handicapped >> Religious?

I know there are these laws - and I disagree with the law in this case.


The muslims who belive that are not that big.
So you need lots of people to practice a brand of religion before it is protected under law?

The muslims didn't stop comming to work for Religious reasons.
I have a feeling that if you refuse to make allowances for peoples religion then you might find yourself on the sharp end of the law. Like refusing to allow muslims to go to lunch very early or late during ramadan could easily end up with you facing a constructive dissmissal case.

So Handicapped >> Religious?



As being handicapped is not by choice while following a religion is a free choice then I would have to say that I agree with the above statement. The same would be said if it was race and religion that conflicted as race is also not by free choice. If race and handicapped conflicted then I would not know how to go dealing with it.

As being handicapped is not by choice while following a religion is a free choice then I would have to say that I agree with the above statement. The same would be said if it was race and religion that conflicted as race is also not by free choice. If race and handicapped conflicted then I would not know how to go dealing with it.

Is using a guide dog a choice?

Is using a guide dog a choice?

Yes it is a choice, so now I have to go away and think about it some more.

and before you say only his muslim baised one do that. alot of posters post threads about Republicans and start by critizising them, same with those that start christian threads, or threads about President Bush, America, Religion etc... yet those posters are not held in the same catagory as DK.

This is becuase most posters do not repeat their same messages of hate like Dk does.

Let me ask you this:

When was the last time DK posted a thread that ahad anything to to with a Muslim, or Muslims, that portrayed the subject in any kind of light, other than a negative one?

This thread was clearly no exception.
Yes the driver was a schmuck, and yes, he should probably lose his job, but, do you think DK would have bothered to point this out on a thread if this guy had been anything other than Muslim?

No way.

You know it.


so.... you are for Censorship of ideals and opinions on these boards...

Not only did I NEVER insinuate such a thing, I actually take a mild offense at the idea.
I would have no issue with this, or any other of his posts, if they were not all aimed at the same goal.
His agenda is not to engage in actual debate, but to point out the negative aspects of a particular group of people.

He has every right to do so, just as I have every right to call him a racist bigot, every time he does it.



not every thread, I find alot of threads from DK that isn't trolling and alot not aimed at Muslims. funny how with DK, the phrase EVERY THREAD, or DK POSTS NOTHING BUT... yet others are also guilty of taking a stand on their views, posting threads that do seem trollish, centered around one particular group, and yet they are taken seriously.

Name one.

Name another poster on this forum who has the same kind of history of starting threads with similar intentions.
NY Norland?
Maybe, but he usually gets the same treatment as DK.


For the Record, I am not defending DK, but attacking those who are judging the thread not baised off of what's presented but by who posts it.

Very noble, but misguided.

Like I said, if you were to leap to his defense when he posts a thread highlighting Muslims in any other light but a negative one, or makes any kind of distinction wherein the Muslim involved is portrayed as a decent, human being, I will not say you have wasted your breath.

In DK's case, its all shades of trolling.

If a thread of his mentions Muslims, it wont be an honest debate, it will be crap.

You cannot separate the point of thread from who is creating it because who is creating it defines its purpose. This is not about a cab driver refusing to carry a dog and being fined. This is about a Muslim cab driver refusing to carry a dog for "religious purposes" and being fined. The thread was created by a known Muslim basher and hated and it was created to show off Muslim discriminating against other people. That's it. Since when is a cab driver refusing to take a fair news? Since fucking never. This is about a Muslim and it is being posted as an affront to Muslims, accusing them of being "islamofacist." You people obviously didn't read Kimchi's post because he accused the Muslim of wanting a "religious theocracy." If a guy with a phobia for dogs refused to take a dog in his car, Kimchi wouldn't accuse him of trying to institute some sort of phobic fascist state.


I think that sums up the topic.

You cannot separate the point of thread from who is creating it because who is creating it defines its purpose.

No, YOU cannot separate the point of the thread from who is creating it. I have no problem having an opinion of this story that is not defined by the person who posted it on NS General. I don't give a shit what the intentions of the OP are. I read the article and form an opinion based on what I am presented, not my opinion of the OP. YOU are the one turning this thread into a flame war. Not DK. Your inability to separate the poster from the posted is what is making this thread suck, not anything DK has said. YOU are the problem, not DK. DK has not said anything even remotely inflammatory, and you are attacking him for what you percieve to be his motives. Fuck his motives, just read the damn article and tell us your opinion of it. Then, debate that opinion with people who disagree with you.

You are hearbye ordered to put your pants back on...you screwed the pooch . You are wrong. The thread could stand on its own merits ..you and others made it about DK and racism ..instead of the origional topic ..of culture differences VS Hadicapped rights.


Go start a thread someplace about DK being a Muslim basher...

But not here. Because its off topic and an attack on the person who origionated the thread. And you are dead wrong .

Man up and admit it .

While that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: agreed.
I think it very much has to do with the topic at hand. The topic, as I read it, is whether or not a person's religious beliefs excuse them from doing their job correctly. A taxi driver's job is to transport passengers in accordance with the laws in their country; in this case, that meant transporting seeing-eye dogs along with blind passengers. A pharmacist's job is to dispense medication in accordance with the laws of their country; that means providing the medications that a patient and their doctor have decided are appropriate.

I think it's all part-and-parcel of the same ignorance and selfishness. A lot of people want to get paid even if they don't do their job, and some of them have figured out that they can hide behind their superstition as a way to achieve this. I think it's unacceptable, whether it be taxi drivers or pharmacists, because "religious freedom" doesn't include the right to break the law because you want to, or to fail to do your job while still getting paid for it.

You are hearbye ordered to put your pants back on...you screwed the pooch . You are wrong. The thread could stand on its own merits ..you and others made it about DK and racism ..instead of the origional topic ..of culture differences VS Hadicapped rights.

Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.

Whatever you say, Skippy.

The law was broken, justice was served. If he does it again, he will more than likely have his license revoked. It isn't like he was getting past the law or being coddled. This isn't the same as pharmacists in the US refusing to dispense medicine because of their religion. They are being defended instead of prosecuted. This guy was prosecuted and if he does it again, he will be prosecuted again, more harshly. The topic is pointless for any other reason than to defame Muslims.

This isn't the same as pharmacists in the US refusing to dispense medicine because of their religion. They are being defended instead of prosecuted.

And they shouldn't be defended, they should be prosecuted. But DK won't say a word about that, since they're fundamentalist Christians rather than fundamentalist muslims.

While that has nothing to do with the topic at hand: agreed.

How not? Both involve someone refusing to do their job on the basis of their religion.

Then he'll find out what it means to be in a nation of laws, and not some religious theocracy of his own making.

I don't see your point here. It seems that the law works, the driver was punished. Surely if it happens again, further steps will be taken. Now he knows that he does not have the right to refuse service on this basis. This merits a thread because....?

What does neesika mean?

As for the OP, the cabbie is an asshole, regardless of his religion. If he continues to defy the law, he will probably lose his license. It seems foolish to debate something that will obviously be resolved by the existing laws.

And they shouldn't be defended, they should be prosecuted. But DK won't say a word about that, since they're fundamentalist Christians rather than fundamentalist muslims.

How about because it's not part of this thread?

How not? Both involve someone refusing to do their job on the basis of their religion.

I see that point, but it'd be better argued in a separate thread.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502644

I see that point, but it'd be better argued in a separate thread.

Like many things presented. It's already been argued. ;)

[snip]I will drop the arguments because a Mod has "Put her foot down (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=502644)".

and the last thing I want is anyone given a Vacation by the mods.

Truce?