NationStates Jolt Archive

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat.

A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel.

The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force's website to read his online training diary.

But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be "ritually unclean", while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert.

Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their 'diversity' officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.
More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

If you don't like a police force that has diversity officers, I suggest you move to somewhere more suited to you.

This is one time when I side with the police. Sure, I hate dogs but I wouldn't say it's offensive. It's their choice on how to present their adverts, and from the sounds, it seems tasteful, plus dogs do play a significant role in the police force.

Is it really that silly? It's not as though they're going to be pulling the ad, are they? They just said they didn't mean to offend. I mean, making a public furor out of it is over the top, but apologizing for an accidental offense isn't kowtowing to whiney minorities, it's just politeness.

*Sigh*

There was no reason to apologise. I see why they felt they should though. They do need to build trust in the community.

Mind you, "some muslims" might be like when old Mrs. Parcel and Mrs. Merryweather and their two friends, the Eelton sisters, complain about how the H&M underwear billboards are showing too much skin.

It has become clear to me now that Muslims are taking over the UK. First it's the police apologising when they insult them, soon they'll be forcing the Queen to give them blow jobs on demand!



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

Because they're "ritually unclean?"

WTF!?

They're not advertising dogburgers.

If I was handling the press in response to this episode I'd offer humble contrition and as a peace offering from the peace officers I'd offer every offended individual a free cucumber which is ritually clean, biologically nutritious, and the ideal shape with which to go fuck yourself.

I see both sides here - dogs are evidently unnerving to moslems, its fine for the police to apologise for an inadvertent upset. However, dogs are clearly a very important part of police work - moslems, who like all of us benefit from a relatively secure environment, need to understand that well trained dogs are a part of that security, and a very much loved part of English culture.

I see both sides here - dogs are evidently unnerving to moslems, its fine for the police to apologise for an inadvertent upset. However, dogs are clearly a very important part of police work - moslems, who like all of us benefit from a relatively secure environment, need to understand that well trained dogs are a part of that security, and a very much loved part of English culture.

I think its less about Muslims and more about the typical one or two lunatics getting together to moan

does this mean I wont be able to call police officers pigs for fear of upsetting Muslims ???

Damn that would suck.


over all it was silly. though i do think I read it as more they were sorry for sending the dog pictures to the Muslim communities.

Is there any thing that Muslims are not outraged about?

Is there any thing that Muslims are not outraged about?

Not anymore. Give any group an inch and they'll take a mile. That's how slavery and segregation/apartheid started. We can't allow any one group to become too powerful. We can't even let groups of groups to become too powerful. The human world has been in a powerstruggle since day one. Muslims, comprising mostly of human beings, naturally want to take part in the global struggle for world domination. They are human, after all.

I'm ok with respecting the part of their religion that forbids physical contacts with canines but to have the UK police ban all pictures of the things is absurd!

Not anymore. Give any group an inch and they'll take a mile. That's how slavery and segregation/apartheid started. We can't allow any one group to become too powerful. We can't even let groups of groups to become too powerful. The human world has been in a powerstruggle since day one. Muslims, comprising mostly of human beings, naturally want to take part in the global struggle for world domination. They are human, after all.

Amen to that. Human nature blows and stinks so bad it's worse than a diuretic elephant's fart. :(

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I'm ok with respecting the part of their religion that forbids physical contacts with canines but to have the UK police ban all pictures of the things is absurd!

Please read the article.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg


Awwwwww........

The cuteness, it burns!

I think its less about Muslims and more about the typical one or two lunatics getting together to moan

The Muslim versions of Ann Coulter if you will.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I don't know… that dog actually looks kind of evil. Souless, almost.

Please read the article.

I did, first they get pissed over sniffer dogs touching them, then they get "offended" by an inoffensive advert with a puppy on it. I assumed they'd be screaming out for all pictures of dogs to be banned in general. In fact I'm willing to bet that that will be the next step.

I did, first they get pissed over sniffer dogs touching them, then they get "offended" by an inoffensive advert with a puppy on it. I assumed they'd be screaming out for all pictures of dogs to be banned in general. In fact I'm willing to bet that that will be the next step.

As far as I can tell, the most notable response to these complaints have been the reporting of them. You can always find someone to complain about any given thing but we don't normally read about it. Why not? Because normally we can't use trivial incidents to extrapolate grander and more important developments that fit our world view. But muslim stories are always good for a "PC gone mad, white men are being oppressed" spazzo link.

My goodness, what a silly little episode.

The Muslim versions of Ann Coulter if you will.

The whole "outrage" over the ad is pretty retarded. The sad thing is, that no small amount of NSGers will take this sample of stupidity and use it to "prove" that "@11 t3h 3b1l m0zl3mz r l1k d1s, hur hur hur." Nobody takes it seriously whenever someone says all Christians are carbon copies of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertsen or Ted Hagee. So why do so many people believe all Muslims are like these morons?

I don't know… that dog actually looks kind of evil. Souless, almost.

How is this?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EUR/1155-3003~Golden-Retrievers-Puppies-Posters.jpg

How is this?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/EUR/1155-3003~Golden-Retrievers-Puppies-Posters.jpg

The one on the left is planning something.

Look I'm Muslim. People like this don't represent Muslims( or Islam for that matter).

Please don't use this to bash Islam or all Muslims.

The one on the left is planning something.

No he's not. Sleep time.

*tranquilizes*

Look I'm Muslim. People like this don't represent Muslims( or Islam for that matter).

Please don't use this to bash Islam or all Muslims.

I agree that every religion has it's extremists and it's prejudicial to paint everyone with the same brush. But it's still sad that the British are worried about an ad with a dog in it offending people. Everything offends somebody, so if it's a small minority let them get over it as long as it wasn't intentionally targeting them.

Look I'm Muslim. People like this don't represent Muslims( or Islam for that matter).

Please don't use this to bash Islam or all Muslims.

Are you really a muslim? I wanna see a receipt!

Because they're "ritually unclean?"

WTF!?

They're not advertising dogburgers.

If I was handling the press in response to this episode I'd offer humble contrition and as a peace offering from the peace officers I'd offer every offended individual a free cucumber which is ritually clean, biologically nutritious, and the ideal shape with which to go fuck yourself.

Well said!

By the gods, there are some muslims that just need to get over themselves, and realize that they are not special.

There just mad over the whole Abu Ghraib thing.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/abu_graibh5.jpg

Unfortunately, political correctness and "niceness" to minorities has taken over the world. You literally can't do anything without some crazy Muslim (yes MUSLIM not MOSLEM, I can say the name of your religion any damn way I want) complaining and making death threats. Give a minority too much power and your bound to have a problem on your hands.

…without some crazy Muslim (yes MUSLIM not MOSLEM, I can say the name of your religion any damn way I want) complaining and making death threats…

Ehrm… it's "Moslem" which is occasionally considered offensive, you know…

Unfortunately, political correctness and "niceness" to minorities has taken over the world. You literally can't do anything without some crazy Muslim (yes MUSLIM not MOSLEM, I can say the name of your religion any damn way I want) complaining and making death threats. Give a minority too much power and your bound to have a problem on your hands.

...that's true, it is Muslim, not Moslem.

I'm also more than a little amused by the accusations of craziness and "death threats" based on an article that says "a couple of people complained." Oh no, not a complaint! It's the end of civilization as we know it! Next thing you know, they might write a letter to the editor or something! The horror, the horror!

Okay... Everyone, deep breaths now.

Muslim-bashers here, let me give you a little pointer on how to proceed, should you ever feel the need to extrapolate from "a couple of people complained" to "all Muslims act like this, we should offend them as much as possible"...

There's a mantra I'm going to give you to repeat to yourselves...

It's:

"I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I have no point, I HAVE NO POINT!"

Use it, okay?

Because, indeed, you folks HAVE NO POINT. You spend your dreary lives looking through the internet for news so you can extrapolate from a couple of people into the group you already chose to hate, to despise and to distrust. That's not only shameful, intellectually dishonest and idiotic, it's also plain sad.

So, really, next time you feel the need to seek out links and post them just so you can be humiliated over and over and over again by just about everyone here that knows better, save us all the trouble and don't.

...that's true, it is Muslim, not Moslem.

I'm also more than a little amused by the accusations of craziness and "death threats" based on an article that says "a couple of people complained." Oh no, not a complaint! It's the end of civilization as we know it! Next thing you know, they might write a letter to the editor or something! The horror, the horror!

Well, European Muslims have a reputation for riots and death threats whenever someone does something that Islam doesn't exactly endorse. It takes only a few bad apples to ruin the reputation of such a large group of people.

Well, European Muslims have a reputation for riots and death threats whenever someone does something that Islam doesn't exactly endorse. It takes only a few bad apples to ruin the reputation of such a large group of people.

Which is not helped by a large majority of people with blinders on who only acknowledge those bad apples as the norm for said large groups of people. Like can be found on NSG.

Which is not helped by a large majority of people with blinders on who only acknowledge those bad apples as the norm for said large groups of people. Like can be found on NSG.

Hey, bad apples ruin all groups. Well, maybe not the Amish. Who could hate the Amish?

Muslims have a bad name because of Al-Queada and the French riots. Femenism's reputation has been tarnished by a few militant man-haters. White people may forever be viewed as evil oppressors because of a few thousand bad apples. The Chinese have communist China. Japan and Germany have the whole World War II incident. Communists have an impractable economic and social system ruining their reputation. How you expect to do away with any and all central leadership and not expect the different groups to compete now that they lack really any unifying force, I'll never know. If Communism were workable, the whole world would have united together by now.

My point is, if you aren't Amish, your group's reputation is forever tarnished by a few bad apples. Get used to it.

My point is, if you aren't Amish, your group's reputation is forever tarnished by a few bad apples. Get used to it.

Amish people letting people die without certain "modern" medicines...

Sorry. Everyone's screwed. :p

The way Muslims regard dogs and pigs is what I refer to as speciesism. It's deeply entrenched in the minds of most of the human race, but more in some parts than others.

Hey, bad apples ruin all groups. Well, maybe not the Amish. Who could hate the Amish?

Muslims have a bad name because of Al-Queada and the French riots. Femenism's reputation has been tarnished by a few militant man-haters. White people may forever be viewed as evil oppressors because of a few thousand bad apples. The Chinese have communist China. Japan and Germany have the whole World War II incident. Communists have an impractable economic and social system ruining their reputation. How you expect to do away with any and all central leadership and not expect the different groups to compete now that they lack really any unifying force, I'll never know. If Communism were workable, the whole world would have united together by now.

My point is, if you aren't Amish, your group's reputation is forever tarnished by a few bad apples. Get used to it.

oooh! Do Anarchists next!

oooh! Do Anarchists next!

Punck rocker morons that put on an anarchy pendant, start breaking stuff and THINK they're anarchists...

The way Muslims regard dogs and pigs is what I refer to as speciesism. It's deeply entrenched in the minds of most of the human race, but more in some parts than others.

My Muslim friend has two dogs. She takes the best care of them I've ever seen, plays with them, carries the poodle...

I'm ok with respecting the part of their religion that forbids physical contacts with canines but to have the UK police ban all pictures of the things is absurd!Huh?!?! I've read Kur'an-i Kerim and most of the people around me are Muslims - about 30 percent of those people keep dogs as pets. I am an atheist myself although I don't keep dogs because I have a mild phobia I do not care enough to therapy away - I'm what you would call a cat person. The reason I'm writing so confusing is I am confused myself; I have no idea where this "canines are ritually unclean" thing comes from...

Strange...

Although I have a friend here who lived most of his life in London who says "this must be because most of the black dogs in London are named "Arab" or some Arab name." Do you think this may be the case? I still find it strange though, I don't think anyone would be offended if I named my cat Elizabeth.

Cheerio!

Hey, bad apples ruin all groups. Well, maybe not the Amish. Who could hate the Amish?

Muslims have a bad name because of Al-Queada and the French riots. Femenism's reputation has been tarnished by a few militant man-haters. White people may forever be viewed as evil oppressors because of a few thousand bad apples. The Chinese have communist China. Japan and Germany have the whole World War II incident. Communists have an impractable economic and social system ruining their reputation. How you expect to do away with any and all central leadership and not expect the different groups to compete now that they lack really any unifying force, I'll never know. If Communism were workable, the whole world would have united together by now.

My point is, if you aren't Amish, your group's reputation is forever tarnished by a few bad apples. Get used to it.

Compare the typical number of threads ranting about the Problems With Muslims on NSG per week with the number of threads ranting about the Problems With Feminists, White Men, Chinese, Japanese, German, and Communists per month and you'll note a significant disparity.

...that's true, it is Muslim, not Moslem.

I'm also more than a little amused by the accusations of craziness and "death threats" based on an article that says "a couple of people complained." Oh no, not a complaint! It's the end of civilization as we know it! Next thing you know, they might write a letter to the editor or something! The horror, the horror!

I think it was more to do with the fact that some busybody complained and they took it down.

The whole thing sounds like a storm in a teacup, the London police should continue using Rebel because it is a good marketing ploy and has only had a few complaints which I doubt really go against what the laws state and the few people who could be bothered complaining should find something else to do maybe they should come on NSG. (And I say that about people who write into the paper complaining about how an ad promotes dangerous driving because somebody was on a bus, I don't care what religion they are or where they are from those people need to get a life)
Says the man who spends to much time on NSG

*snip*

Your point? ;)

Look I'm Muslim. People like this don't represent Muslims( or Islam for that matter).




wrong

wrong

Okay, if you're going to say these thin-skinned morons represent every other Muslim in the world, then it's only fair and balanced to say that every Christian is like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertsen and Ted Hagee, every Buddhist are like the Aum Shinri Kyo, every Jew is like Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir, and every Hindu like to burn down mosques and kill Muslims.

My Muslim friend has two dogs. She takes the best care of them I've ever seen, plays with them, carries the poodle...
Is she Sunni Maliki, by any chance? If not, I'm sorry that I made a silly, unfounded generalization.

And about black puppies...
http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/dinistrandna.html
In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition.[1] According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the left control movements of equality. Really this has nothing to do about muslims. If someone could find a passage in the Koran that is against this I may think otherwise. Then again there is still plenty of horible verses in the Bible such as the one that states anyone who works on the sabath (sunday) should be stoned.

All it comes down to is one small idiotic group that wanted to create a fuss. The best way to handle this is to laugh at anyone who makes this pathetic allegation.

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

I agree,the police should be feared and respected,this is to blame for a lot of the crime these days.

If you don't like a police force that has diversity officers, I suggest you move to somewhere more suited to you.

I have no problem with police being diverse,the problem is the criminals do it as well ;)

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

yay my hometown is in the news!

Also, I wouldn't tar every Muslim with the same brush. Some people complained, many more didn't. Get over it.

yay my hometown is in the news!

Also, I wouldn't tar every Muslim with the same brush. Some people complained, many more didn't. Get over it.

Welcome to NSG, where Muslim Baiting is an Olympic Event.

Anyone find it slightly amusing the dog is called "Rebel?"

Don't you just love it when our national media (scans Daily Mail for story) blows something up out of all proportion.

We had a case near me where someone complained that a woman had statues of pigs in her window that were offensive (forget which religion)

Result - nothing. It blew over and pig-lady still displays her ornaments

How the *$£% is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg


Maybe I find yellow phones offensive. I want an apology for using a yellow phone in the picture.

Obviously that would be seen as ridiculous, but then so is the original claim of offense.
Dogs are unclean?? Its not as if the Tayside Police were demanding anyone ate the dog.

Muslims have complained over a police advert featuring a puppy sitting in an officer's hat.

A police force has apologised to Islamic leaders for the "offensive" postcard advertising a new non-emergency telephone number, which shows a six-month-old trainee police dog named Rebel.

The German shepherd puppy has proved hugely popular with the public, hundreds of who have logged on to the force's website to read his online training diary.

But some Muslims in the Dundee area have reportedly been upset by the image because they consider dogs to be "ritually unclean", while shopkeepers have refused to display the advert.

Tayside Police have admitted they should have consulted their 'diversity' officers before issuing the cards, but critics argued their apology was unnecessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Earth's apex species. :rolleyes:

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.
Aye, well we're in the EU, fuck off to Belgium if you don't like it, squire ;)

Also, I'd really love to hear how many Muslims actually complained. Sounds like the word of some bored-as guy with no job and nothing to do other than impotently complain about things.

Welcome to NSG, where Muslim Baiting is an Olympic Event.
I'd disagree with that. There's a lot more people who defend them, at times to a ridiculous extent *cough* Gravlen */cough* than there are are who bash them way too much and demand their extermination etc. *cough DK et al*

Aye, well we're in the EU, fuck off to Belgium if you don't like it, squire ;)

Also, I'd really love to hear how many Muslims actually complained. Sounds like the word of some bored-as guy with no job and nothing to do other than impotently complain about things.

I was wondering that too. Given the civilized nature to this "outrage," I would not guess too many.

Could I create a thread on "Christian outrage over Pinky and Perky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinky_and_Perky) episode" I wonder.

I think that the Muslim group claiming the ad is offensive may be a bit over the top but they still have a right to complain and it is good that the police station apologised, not because the muslim group is right or the police station made a mistake in using the puppy but, it is good because the police recognise they upset someone. Surely it would be worse if the cops said "sod off u bearded gits," despite how many of us may feel.
For example i am a smoker, everyone loves to hate smokers. We cant smoke in pubs or blow smoke in our childrens faces anymore, ITS RIDICULOUS... often people complain and say can u put that cigarette out or cough loudly near me. personally i dont give a dam about the person or their health but i still say sorry and put it out.......

I think that the Muslim group claiming the ad is offensive may be a bit over the top but they still have a right to complain and it is good that the police station apologised, not because the muslim group is right or the police station made a mistake in using the puppy but, it is good because the police recognise they upset someone. Surely it would be worse if the cops said "sod off u bearded gits," despite how many of us may feel.
For example i am a smoker, everyone loves to hate smokers. We cant smoke in pubs or blow smoke in our childrens faces anymore, ITS RIDICULOUS... often people complain and say can u put that cigarette out or cough loudly near me. personally i dont give a dam about the person or their health but i still say sorry and put it out.......

If you apologise, you're either wrong or an idiot. Clearly the police force is one or the other, but I don't think they were wrong.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Maybe it's becuase the pic has a rotary dial telephone in it - they're implying that Taysiders are too thick to use modern technology and that's what's really caused the offence? I dunno.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Earth's apex species. :rolleyes:

You mean, Muslims are a different species to the rest of us?! Why has no-one told me this before?? :rolleyes:

You mean, Muslims are a different species to the rest of us?! Why has no-one told me this before?? :rolleyes:

I was implying that humans are fuckheads.

Maybe it's becuase the pic has a rotary dial telephone in it - they're implying that Taysiders are too thick to use modern technology and that's what's really caused the offence? I dunno.

This would be offensive but it's actually true lol

I was implying that humans are fuckheads.

Well, thank you for the compliment.

Because they're "ritually unclean?"

WTF!?

They're not advertising dogburgers.

If I was handling the press in response to this episode I'd offer humble contrition and as a peace offering from the peace officers I'd offer every offended individual a free cucumber which is ritually clean, biologically nutritious, and the ideal shape with which to go fuck yourself.


Heh or perhaps bring out a whole series of ads that offend others aswell. The police equal oppertunity offendererers!

Still waiting for Nodinia to chime in and say that it isn't true, that Muslims don't have any problems with dogs...

Still waiting for Nodinia to chime in and say that it isn't true, that Muslims don't have any problems with dogs...

Hillary Clinton is an American. Hillary Clinton wants to take away guns from civilians. Hotwife/Deep Kimchi/Whispering Legs is an American. Thereby Hotwife/Deep Kimchi/Whispering Legs wants to take away guns from civilians.

If you refute this, you will prove that you have double standards.

Hillary Clinton is an American. Hillary Clinton wants to take away guns from civilians. Hotwife/Deep Kimchi/Whispering Legs is an American. Thereby Hotwife/Deep Kimchi/Whispering Legs wants to take away guns from civilians.

If you refute this, you will prove that you have double standards.

Hardly. I posted links to many, many quotes from the Koran and various hadiths that show that Muslims see dogs as extremely unclean.

Shall we revisit the many Muslim cab drivers in the US who refuse to transport blind people who have Seeing Eye dogs, because the dog is considered religiously unclean?

Hardly. I posted links to many, many quotes from the Koran and various hadiths that show that Muslims see dogs as extremely unclean.

Shall we revisit the many Muslim cab drivers in the US who refuse to transport blind people who have Seeing Eye dogs, because the dog is considered religiously unclean?

So you admit to having double standards, as well as using the no-true Scotsman fallacy. Otherwise how do you explain that my Muslim neighbor has a pair of German Sheppards?

And your "many Muslim cab drivers" is most likely as factual as the numerous other allegations you've made before to fuel your self-admitted bloodlust for killing Muslims. Either a complete fabrication, distortion, or taking a singular case and applying a mind hive blanket statement.

So, as an American, do you think like Hillary Clinton, or do you not? Either you are part of the American hive mind, of which Muslims are among them, or there is no such thing, and no Muslim hive mind either.

The only thing worth reporting in this is the stupidity of people actually having to report this kind of thing. I'm 100% sure fanatics of other religions make just as stupid complaints and are apologized to, but it won't break the news barrier because they're not muslims.

For those who don't know, I'm atheist myself, so no "evul m0sl1m c0ver1ng t3h evul pl4n"...

What I find much more silly than the complaint is the amount of people jumping to wrong conclusions after half-reading the article and then condemning all muslims over it due their own lack of reading comprehension.

So you admit to having double standards, as well as using the no-true Scotsman fallacy. Otherwise how do you explain that my Muslim neighbor has a pair of German Sheppards?

And your "many Muslim cab drivers" is most likely as factual as the numerous other allegations you've made before to fuel your self-admitted bloodlust for killing Muslims. Either a complete fabrication, distortion, or taking a singular case and applying a mind hive blanket statement.

So, as an American, do you think like Hillary Clinton, or do you not? Either you are part of the American hive mind, of which Muslims are among them, or there is no such thing, and no Muslim hive mind either.

It's not a double standard.

And it's not the "no true Scotsman".

The protests against dogs by Muslims are obviously taking place. The Muslims need to be told to shut the fuck up about non-Muslim ways and assimilate immediately.

If your imaginary neighbor exists, then he won't have a problem with that.

The protests against dogs by Muslims are obviously taking place.
*scratches chin*

Were this the case, I'm sure we'd see it on the BBC, because they know that the average Briton loves dogs. Or on Sky, because that's Rupert Murdoch's thing.

*scratches chin*

Were this the case, I'm sure we'd see it on the BBC, because they know that the average Briton loves dogs. Or on Sky, because that's Rupert Murdoch's thing.

The Muslim take appears to be "fuck blind people, no dogs allowed". No Muslim cleric has spoken out and said that dogs are OK. None.

It's certainly happening here.

MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Muslim cab drivers at Minnesota's biggest airport will face new penalties including a two-year revocation of their taxi permits if they refuse to give rides to travelers carrying liquor or accompanied by dogs, the board overseeing operations ruled Monday.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission, responding to complaints about the liquor issue, voted unanimously to impose the new penalties beginning in May.

A large number of taxi drivers in the area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslim Somali immigrants. Many say they feel the faith's ban on alcohol consumption includes transporting anyone carrying it.

Some also have refused to transport dogs, both pets and guide dogs, saying they are unclean.

The new rules cover any driver who refuses a ride for unwarranted reasons, including those who refuse to take short-haul passengers in favor of more lucrative longer trips. They can still refuse fares for certain reasons, including threats to their safety.
In Canada:
A case potentially pitting rights of the disabled against religious beliefs will be heard by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after a blind man from the North Shore who uses a guide dog to get around launched a complaint against North Shore Taxi.

Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it’s not the first time he’s been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can’t associate with dogs.

According to documents filed with the Human Rights Tribunal, North Shore Taxi said about half of their drivers are “unable to take animals in their taxis due to medical or religious reasons.”

In Australia, too:

Muslim cabbies refuse the blind and drinkers

EXCLUSIVE: By Lincoln Wright and Ian Haberfield

October 08, 2006 12:00am

MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.

At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.

And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.

Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.

"I don’t refuse to take people, but it’s hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,” he said.

There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne’s 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about "unclean” dogs and the evils of alcohol.

Drivers who refused to carry blind people with their dogs attended remedial classes at Guide Dogs Victoria, Mr Sach said.

"They are taught why blind people need dogs," Mr Sach said.

"The Victorian Taxi Association has included a program in their taxi driver training program."

Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.

"It’s sad and quite upsetting," Ms Marquette said. "We try to work with new drivers to educate them about their responsibilities and the needs and rights of blind people.

"We explain that the dog is clean, well trained, won’t go near them and will stay in the foot well with the client.

"But it’s a high turnover industry and it’s hard to capture everyone."

Ms Marquette said there was a legal requirement for taxi drivers, shops, restaurants, hotels and supermarkets to accept guide dogs."

Opposition Transport spokesman Terry Mulder said the guide dog issue would exacerbate the taxi industry’s flagging respect in the community.

Under the State Government’s customer charter, taxi passengers have the right to "be accompanied by a guide dog or hearing dog".

Mr Sach said the problem was often reversed and that Muslim drivers suffered discrimination from passengers who abused them for being "terrorists".

"Muslims are good people and the community has to realise that the days of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant are well and truly over," he said.

Over the past two years the licences of 306 drivers were revoked or suspended, including those who refused to carry the blind and their dogs.

It's not a double standard.

It is when you take singular cases and apply them to over a billion people, but pretend such standards don't apply to you. Your links show two individuals who take issue with it, but go ahead and pretend it is the same for everyone. You'll just have to parrot Hillary Clinton's lines then, like the good little hive mind drone you are.


If your imaginary neighbor exists, then he won't have a problem with that.

My neighbor is a lot less imaginary than your bogeyman Muslims, and if you were here, your attitude would likely result in suicide by mob inciting.

It is when you take singular cases and apply them to over a billion people, but pretend such standards don't apply to you. Your links show two individuals who take issue with it, but go ahead and pretend it is the same for everyone. You'll just have to parrot Hillary Clinton's lines then, like the good little hive mind drone you are.

My neighbor is a lot less imaginary than your bogeyman Muslims, and if you were here, your attitude would likely result in suicide by mob inciting.

Sorry, I have links to real Muslims, the real Koran, real hadiths.

You have zero evidence.

I'm far from bashing people's rights here and I'm not what you would called patriotic but is this not a little over the top? Every culture/religion has their own customs/beliefs and their's happen to be very different from ours (well, assuming every Briton shares mine :rolleyes:) If we to go to any Muslim-orientated country and made a complaint as trivial as this it's likely we would at least be locked up.

It's small things like this that really piss me off. What would piss me off even more is if the Muslim had actually asked for the apology...

Again, not disregarding or insulting beliefs; I just find it astonishing how some people behave when a culture different to their own behaves different.

The Muslim take appears to be "fuck blind people, no dogs allowed". No Muslim cleric has spoken out and said that dogs are OK. None.
" A small minority of Muslims are arseholes, hardly anyone in the community cares shocker? "

Sorry, I have links to real Muslims, the real Koran, real hadiths.

You have a handful of people, that you're projecting to over a billion. You have zero evidence to fit with your assertions.

But if it's links you want, how about this (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547226)?

Hmmm, by a Muslim scholar and Imam no less, one of the people who interpret Islamic law for Muslims to follow. I guess that crumbles your pitiful little argument. Not that I expect it to make a dent in your cognitive dissonance of course.

I don't think this has anything to do with religion. If you, as a human being, refuses to render your services to a blind person simply because they use a cuddly animal to aid them, well, that just makes you a wanker.

I don't think this has anything to do with religion. If you, as a human being, refuses to render your services to a blind person simply because they use a cuddly animal to aid them, well, that just makes you a wanker.

There seem to be thousands and thousands of them willing to say, "fuck the blind". And millions upon millions who support their decision to say, "fuck the blind".

Well, that just makes them a collective of wankers, doesn't it? If you're a good person, you'd say "Fuck that shit, I'm helping this poor blind guy".

Well, that just makes them a collective of wankers, doesn't it? If you're a good person, you'd say "Fuck that shit, I'm helping this poor blind guy".

Some people on NS think that these wankers don't exist at all, and that puts them squarely in the category of "I also want to fuck the blind".

Well, that just makes them a collective of wankers, doesn't it? If you're a good person, you'd say "Fuck that shit, I'm helping this poor blind guy".
Uhu... I don't criticise everything wrong about my community, because there's only so many hours in the day. I'm sure if you told some Muslims about some other Muslims who didn't let people with dogs into their taxis, I'm sure they'd be pretty pissed off, in that empty, impotent way that people are about Things That Are Bad But Out Of Their Control.

There seem to be thousands and thousands of them willing to say, "fuck the blind". And millions upon millions who support their decision to say, "fuck the blind".

Not that you have proof that this number actually exists anywhere than in your mind. You only have a handful of people, out of over a billion. And I note you ran away from the evidence that showed what a crumbly little world view you have constructed. But please, do keep running away. It's the trendy thing for cowards to do I understand.

Having bloodlust must be oh so empowering, but the moment someone takes away that crutch used to support it, such people run away.

Not that you have proof that this number actually exists anywhere than in your mind. You only have a handful of people, out of over a billion. And I note you ran away from the evidence that showed what a crumbly little world view you have constructed. But please, do keep running away. It's the trendy thing for cowards to do I understand.

Having bloodlust must be oh so empowering, but the moment someone takes away that crutch used to support it, such people run away.

You said it's not a problem, and there are obviously blind people who were forced to complain and sue, so you're fucking the blind. Happy now?

*sigh*

And people keep asking me why I think religious freedom is important, but there should be a law against using religion to justify anybody's actions....

And behold, from beneath the rock it crawls.....
Still waiting for Nodinia to chime in and say that it isn't true, that Muslims don't have any problems with dogs...

I never said they didn't. You made a specific claim re a town in Virginia and dog ownership and were (and still are ,it would seem) unable to provide a source for this. This is nothing new for you, because you deem it amusing to lie with a straight face on a regular basis.

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

who honestly gives a damn? This is like saying you can't use cop dogs in a neighborhood where a Muslim family lives.

Uhu... I don't criticise everything wrong about my community, because there's only so many hours in the day. I'm sure if you told some Muslims about some other Muslims who didn't let people with dogs into their taxis, I'm sure they'd be pretty pissed off, in that empty, impotent way that people are about Things That Are Bad But Out Of Their Control.Yes, exactly...

Also, many Muslims I know understand that the rules about the "unclean" animals were time dependent from an age where people promptly died if they came in close contact with diseased animals. Now we have inoculations and penicillin and whatnot. I have a very, very religious family member who sometimes eats pork when he's abroad (it is terribly difficult to find pork in Turkiye since it is not profitable, Islam forbids it so people don't have the habit of eating it :)) and when I asked about it he said "well, our Prophet Hz. Muhammed (sav) forbid it to a world where you cannot flush out parasites within days and where you can't have pork free of dangerous microbes and parasites to begin with." Some Muslims wold consider this blasphemy but there are lots of people who see things in a much more modern manner.

Even those firm and radical believers I know wouldn't object anyone keeping dogs as pets around here, for instance. They'd complain about the noise but I do too, so no religious extremism there. I phone order liquor and shelled fish all the time from various shops run by folks I know to be very religious. I buy pork products whenever I come across them and nobody complained about me yet.

Actually, people around here would be outraged if anyone claimed an ad by the police is offensive just because it has a picture of a dog.

Cheerio!

You said it's not a problem, and there are obviously blind people who were forced to complain and sue, so you're fucking the blind. Happy now?

Resorting to outright lies and smears now are we? I would imagine such tricks to be the calling card of a coward. After all, when faced with an issue they dare not face, a coward simply runs away does he not? And excuses his cowardice later by manufacturing fabrications out of thin air.

At first I thought that this thread's title was just some kind of Mail-esque tabloid headline, so I was just ignoring it, but since it was hanging around on page 1 like a bad smell I finally clicked.

The word 'outrage' is not part of the linked article (although I see it gets some use in the comments). Instead the article refers to an unspecified number of complaints that they have received. Perhaps I'm just not taking it seriously enough, but it reminds me of the sort of complaints that used to come from Mary Whitehouse types about TV content, or the frivolous complaints that get thrown out by the Advertising Standards Authority every week.

The article even states "Since then the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part and that if they had seen it was going to cause upset they would not have done it." I don't personally see that they needed to apologise any more than Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc should be expected to apologise for using a puppy in their adverts for toilet paper (as also mentioned in that article).

Seems to me that the threshold level that things need to meet to be considered an 'outrage' is slipping, of late.

I'd disagree with that. There's a lot more people who defend them, at times to a ridiculous extent *cough* Gravlen */cough*
Please explain what you're talking about here. Examples would be nice.

The protests against dogs by less than a hundred out of 1.5 billion Muslims are obviously taking place. All Muslims need to be told to shut the fuck up about non-Muslim ways and assimilate immediately because of what of these few do, so I can enjoy watching them all suffer due to having used a fake, prejudiced argument to support a view I already held.

Essentially, THAT'S what you're saying. You keep trying to paint all Muslims with a broad brush, not because this or that piece of news from the Daily Tabloid changed your mind, but because they support a prejudice you already hold. Fine, Hotwife, you hate all Muslims, we get it. But if you keep trying to come here with your hatred and try to make a case that's a reasonable hatred, you'll keep being laughed off the thread. Because you have no case. You lack a point. Your arguments are hollow, baseless, and unreasonable. And that's just the way it is until you actually try to argue for something that's reasonably similar to a fact.

Aye, well we're in the EU, fuck off to Belgium if you don't like it, squire ;)
These people are the ones of mostly foreign descent who are in this instance trying to push aspects of a foreign culture onto this country. If anybody leaves it should be them. Though Belgium ain't so bad. Went there before, nice enough country.

I think that the Muslim group claiming the ad is offensive may be a bit over the top but they still have a right to complain and it is good that the police station apologised, not because the muslim group is right or the police station made a mistake in using the puppy but, it is good because the police recognise they upset someone.
Why should the police apologise when they didn't do anything wrong? If anybody gets upset or offended over something as trivial as this then they're the ones with the problem. I don't see why the police should apologise and give their ridiculous views any legitimacy.

I hope the dog took a shit int he officers hat :p

The whiners don't merit a verbal response, just a look of disdain and contempt.

IM SO SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT...yep gotta use caps to get a little attention, but anyway.

First off, fuck you muslims...look I don't hate muslims but is there anything they arn't offended by and is there anything people won't do to please them?...fuck 'em. Your gunna be offended in life and thats just what'll happen, calm down and chill for christs sake, you wonder why people think your a hostile people, well shit it just might be the freak out session your people have almost on a daily basis for the most menial of things. Oh shit a cartoon of our prophit in a danish paper...lets go burn flags and shoot our guns...oh lord their showing a picture of a dog lets bitch and moan until they stop it...just...I don't know what else to say...I mean when was the last time you personally got so offended by something you really felt the need to have that person or persons appologize for it, and I mean something that really had no major effect on you in any way shape or form but something you just happen to notice

Snip.

Read the thread, read the article, and stop acting as if two Muslims complaining are tantamount to 1.5 billion Muslims rioting.

Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know.

A few Muslims make a stupid complaint, then the police cave in and apologise. Anyone properly informed in community relations would have realised what message this would have sent out and the ridicule it would attract and would have refused to withdraw the ad. I'm pretty sure its an issue most Muslims couldn't care less about, so why not ignore the vocal minority of extremists? Silly police.

Read the thread, read the article, and stop acting as if two Muslims complaining are tantamount to 1.5 billion Muslims rioting.

Why aren't the 1.5 muslims rioting ? These protesters give their faith a bad name. That is their problem. Their PR issue. They should be up in arms to silence them.

Simply put: if you wish to affiliate yourself with a group then actions by people from that same group will reflect on you. So up to you to "police" them.

Read the thread, read the article, and stop acting as if two Muslims complaining are tantamount to 1.5 billion Muslims rioting.

Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know.

Either way it doesn't matter. 2 or...a billion the reasons for the complaints are nearly the same, offense to THEIR religious beliefs. I don't care about their religion enough to watch my every action to make sure I don't offend them, I don't care about anyone's religion enough to do so...so why should muslims get a special 'sorry' when THEY escalate a small thing into a giant fiasco. Im not trying to classify the entire muslim people, but it is a majority who take things so faithfully.

IM SO SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT...yep gotta use caps to get a little attention, but anyway.

First off, fuck you muslims...look I don't hate muslims but is there anything they arn't offended by

Yes, most everything.

and is there anything people won't do to please them?

Yes, most anything.

...fuck 'em.

I really think my Muslim friends would take objection to your repeated fucking of them.

Your gunna be offended in life and thats just what'll happen, calm down and chill for christs sake

Somehow I doubt many Muslims would be inclined to follow this particular bit of advice. :p

, you wonder why people think your a hostile people, well shit it just might be the freak out session your people have almost on a daily basis for the most menial of things.

Ah, yes, that could be it - I mean, if there were any reason to believe that Muslims as a whole regularly "freaked out" over anything in particular, rather than, you know, a couple of specific Muslims telling police that they don't really like receiving pictures of black dogs. But hey, it's not as if it's totally ridiculous to generalize the behavior of hundreds of millions of people based on something that one or two people did, or like calling in a complaint isn't entirely equivalent to "freaking out," right? By the way, don't you just hate Christians? I mean, the bastards are always showing up at funerals with their "God Hates Fags" signs. There may really only be a handful of people doing that, but it's totally fair to attribute their behavior to Christians as a whole, right?

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.


What is the point of this campaign? Is it not to raise awareness? To get more people aware of the non-emergency number and free up the emergency number for things like, oh, I don't know...emergencies?

If the goal is as such, then a bit of research needs to be done in order to figure out a way to reach the widest audience as possible. If it is easily known (as in, with two seconds of digging on the internet, if not just picking up the phone and asking a member of the Muslim community) that a dog would not go over well with that particular segment of society, and therefore the stated goal would fail...then it would seem absolutely nonsensical to proceed anyway.

I don't think they did ask, I think that now they know, and since they want to reach people, they are rightly attempting to change their approach so that they accomplish their goal.

You call it 'pandering'. I call it plain common sense.

The anti-Muslim, chicken little crowd is out in force today, I see.

OH SHIT. THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING TO RAPE US ALL IN THE ASS!

More here. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2229719/Apology-over-'offensive'-puppy-police-advert-after-Muslim-complaints.html)

Wow, that really shows what a joke Britain has become, pandering to every whining minority group. The police should never have apologised over something like this, it just shows them to be weak and pathetic. Plus that whole 'diversity officer' thing is a load of crap, the police should just stick to solving crimes. If these whiners don't like it they should just have to shut up and deal with it, or preferabley move to somewhere more suited to them.

Why is it people like you always talk about "whiners," and you always sound like you're whining when you do it?

Is there any thing that Muslims are not outraged about?

They have no right to be outraged! Only white non-Muslims do! I AM OUTRAGED THAT A MUSLIM IS OUTRAGED!


Not anymore. Give any group an inch and they'll take a mile. That's how slavery and segregation/apartheid started. We can't allow any one group to become too powerful. We can't even let groups of groups to become too powerful. The human world has been in a powerstruggle since day one. Muslims, comprising mostly of human beings, naturally want to take part in the global struggle for world domination. They are human, after all.


HELP! THEY'RE COMING TO GET US ALL! RUN FOR THE HILLS!

Unfortunately, political correctness and "niceness" to minorities has taken over the world. You literally can't do anything without some crazy Muslim (yes MUSLIM not MOSLEM, I can say the name of your religion any damn way I want) complaining and making death threats. Give a minority too much power and your bound to have a problem on your hands.

First a complaint, next thing you know it's political correct Muslim conspiracy to TAKE OVER THE FUCKING WORLD!

My point is, if you aren't Amish, your group's reputation is forever tarnished by a few bad apples. Get used to it.

Translation: You're going to generalize and stereotype and you're damned if you're going to let anything like facts or reality get in your way! HELP THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING!

If you apologise, you're either wrong or an idiot. Clearly the police force is one or the other, but I don't think they were wrong.

You can certainly be both wrong and idiotic without an apology.

Hardly. I posted links to many, many quotes from the Koran and various hadiths that show that Muslims see dogs as extremely unclean.

Shall we revisit the many Muslim cab drivers in the US who refuse to transport blind people who have Seeing Eye dogs, because the dog is considered religiously unclean?

Yes, let's revisit that. Do post some data about how many cab drivers refuse to transport seeing eye dogs. You know - data - as in something not just pulled from your ass every time there's an anti-Muslim thread.

It's not a double standard.

And it's not the "no true Scotsman".

The protests against dogs by Muslims are obviously taking place. The Muslims need to be told to shut the fuck up about non-Muslim ways and assimilate immediately.

If your imaginary neighbor exists, then he won't have a problem with that.

I think you need to be told to shut the fuck about and assimilate. The rest of us, us normal people? We don't have stories about how killing Muslims is better than sex. The sooner you join the non-psychopathic world the more credible your babbling about "assimilation" will be.

Which in effect says you'll never, ever be credible. It doesn't help that you're a proven liar.

There seem to be thousands and thousands of them willing to say, "fuck the blind". And millions upon millions who support their decision to say, "fuck the blind".

I like how your 'evidence' literally shows ONE MAN doing this. Now it's "Millions upon millions." Will you just fucking quit trolling here already? We know you're not, and can't defend your trolling points. If you need attention that badly I'm sure you have a mother somewhere.


IM SO SICK OF THIS BULLSHIT...yep gotta use caps to get a little attention, but anyway.

First off, fuck you muslims...l

You know, some Jews once complained to me about something. FUCK YOU, JEWS! Oh wait, that's not acceptable, is it? Gosh why not? Certainly there can be nothing wrong with hating a religious minority.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww........



Seriously the Police need to learn that just become some people whine saying "You're insulting my religion!!!11"

The one or two fanatics that whine about this need to learn to STFU.

Why aren't the 1.5 muslims rioting ? These protesters give their faith a bad name. That is their problem. Their PR issue. They should be up in arms to silence them.

Simply put: if you wish to affiliate yourself with a group then actions by people from that same group will reflect on you. So up to you to "police" them.
As much as it would be a good PR stunt, it shouldn't be up to them to prove to us non-muslims that that that kind of stupid religious stereotyping doesn't hold, really. I see no reason why, if one or two muslims do something stupid, we should then assume that that trait applies to every muslim everywhere, and put the onus on them to effectively prove their innocence.

As much as it would be a good PR stunt, it shouldn't be up to them to prove to us non-muslims that that that kind of stupid religious stereotyping doesn't hold, really. I see no reason why, if one or two muslims do something stupid, we should then assume that that trait applies to every muslim everywhere, and put the onus on them to effectively prove their innocence.

Thank you.

As much as it would be a good PR stunt, it shouldn't be up to them to prove to us non-muslims that that that kind of stupid religious stereotyping doesn't hold, really. I see no reason why, if one or two muslims do something stupid, we should then assume that that trait applies to every muslim everywhere, and put the onus on them to effectively prove their innocence.

Because they are all moslims. If they were all members of the most holy alliance of the sky leopard, the cheesecake fan club or whatever group you wish to make up I would apply the same reasoning: if you wish to identify yourself as a member of group A, the actions of other members of group A will reflect on you. The good and the bad - so one should also look at the noble doctor saving others under terrible circumstances.

If you do not wish the actions of others to reflect on you, don't affiliate yourself with the group. Or let the group speak out against the deviant ones.

Because they are all moslims. If they were all members of the most holy alliance of the sky leopard, the cheesecake fan club or whatever group you wish to make up I would apply the same reasoning: if you wish to identify yourself as a member of group A, the actions of other members of group A will reflect on you. The good and the bad - so one should also look at the noble doctor saving others under terrible circumstances.

More shallow justifications. Do you associate all men with rapists? Hey, they're the same 'group' and we shouldn't, you know, use Thinking in this kind of situation when it's much better to generalize, stereotype and hate.


If you do not wish the actions of others to reflect on you, don't affiliate yourself with the group. Or let the group speak out against the deviant ones.

I hope you denounce every single rapist there is. I mean individually. Every single convict, every single rape.

Make it your new job: "I am not a rapist, even though I'm a man."

Because otherwise people apparently can't help but assume that you're a rapist. And that's reasonable.

You said it's not a problem, and there are obviously blind people who were forced to complain and sue, so you're fucking the blind. Happy now?

Wow, you're arguments are getting more stupid by the second! Sorry if I don't rush away from Finland to riot againts handful of cab drivers who should get their heads examined :rolleyes:

There are rotten apples in every group, religion etc. While I agree that actions of the few paint the majority in eyes of the ignorant, it doesn't mean the projected view is true. I could go on killing rampage and some idiots would probably blame it on the amount of gaming I've done. That still wouldn't make gamers at large psychopatic mass murderers now would it :rolleyes:

Why aren't the 1.5 muslims rioting ? These protesters give their faith a bad name. That is their problem. Their PR issue. They should be up in arms to silence them.

So, where were the christian protesters rioting againts the minority that was waving "god hates fags" and other such lovely signs in soldier funerals? Hell, show me even one case where members of any religion police the misdoing of their brethren?

Simply put: if you wish to affiliate yourself with a group then actions by people from that same group will reflect on you. So up to you to "police" them.

I personally agree with this part of course, in the sense that this is how it should be done, but I don't see any religion doing it, why throw a fit when muslims don't?

If you do not wish the actions of others to reflect on you, don't affiliate yourself with the group. Or let the group speak out against the deviant ones.

Then, unless you want to be identified with the KKK, you must now spend your life disavowing what they do. The same goes for the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and on it goes.

Unless you want to be identified with them, you will dedicate all of your free time to going "I disagree with them".

Your hand, sir?

More shallow justifications. Do you associate all men with rapists? Hey, they're the same 'group' and we shouldn't, you know, use Thinking in this kind of situation when it's much better to generalize, stereotype and hate.



I hope you denounce every single rapist there is. I mean individually. Every single convict, every single rape.

Make it your new job: "I am not a rapist, even though I'm a man."

Because otherwise people apparently can't help but assume that you're a rapist. And that's reasonable.

Aww, you were funnier than me. :(

But hey, it's not as if it's totally ridiculous to generalize the behavior of hundreds of millions of people based on something that one or two people did, or like calling in a complaint isn't entirely equivalent to "freaking out," right? By the way, don't you just hate Christians? I mean, the bastards are always showing up at funerals with their "God Hates Fags" signs. There may really only be a handful of people doing that, but it's totally fair to attribute their behavior to Christians as a whole, right?

I do, in fact, consider Phelps a symptom of a serious problem with Christianity as a whole. But I would not consider it on the same level as the problem with Islam. In both cases, the ones who are seriously violent or threatening are a minority, but not equally small minorities. The proportion of Muslims who favor killing Danish civilians over the "cartoon" affair is about 2%, which is a small minority, but over a population of a billion that is dozens of millions of people, too many to ignore. The proportion of Christians who favor blowing up abortion clinics or gay bars is a small fraction of one percent; still worrisome, but not as large a group.

More shallow justifications. Do you associate all men with rapists? Hey, they're the same 'group' and we shouldn't, you know, use Thinking in this kind of situation when it's much better to generalize, stereotype and hate.

Oh please. When Mother Theresa was honored for helping people survive, her image was used to boost the image of Christianity. When the first muslims went into space, it was presented as an achievement of muslims worldwide. When doctor X discovers the cure for disease Y, his image will probably be used by group Z. Whenever someone does something good or admirable (or at least perceived as admirable), the members of the group they affiliate themselves with are quick to share in the glory.

But when a member of the group does something bad, one suddenly is no longer allowed to let the groupmembers share the blame ?

Silly. And hypocritical.

And to answer your question: yes, as a man, I believe we should do something about male rapists. I have no problem with loudly declaring that I do not like their presence in my group. See how easy that was ?

Aside from that, I have not chosen to be a man. Christains, muslims and so on have however chosen to afiliate themselves with he group.

And to answer your question: yes, as a man, I believe we should do something about male rapists. I have no problem with loudly declaring that I do not like their presence in my group. See how easy that was ?

Neither do any Muslims you ask. So, what the fuck is your point?

Then, unless you want to be identified with the KKK, you must now spend your life disavowing what they do. The same goes for the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and on it goes.

Unless you want to be identified with them, you will dedicate all of your free time to going "I disagree with them".

Your hand, sir?

Why ? Have I affiliated myself with any of those groups ?
No ?

Oh dear. Not responsible for them. How nice !

Unless of course you really wish to declare that being a white male due to biology and being a member of the KKK due to choice really are equivalent. I however tend to juddge people based on the choices they make - not based on the things they cannot help.

Oh please. When Mother Theresa was honored for helping people survive, her image was used to boost the image of Christianity.

This is the most god-awful bullshit argument I've ever seen. So it's DONE. Big deal. That doesn't make it right, or reasonable, and it doesn't excuse it when you do it. Particularly as we're not talking about boosting Christianity's image, but demonizing all of Islam. Which is not morally different from demonizing all Jews.


And to answer your question: yes, as a man, I believe we should do something about male rapists. I have no problem with loudly declaring that I do not like their presence in my group. See how easy that was ?

Nope. You have to keep doing. You have to keep doing it so that NO ONE could EVER paint you in the same group. You have to do it every time there is a rape and every time a rapist is convicted. Because that's what you're expecting, nay, DEMANDING of Muslims.

You want the entire Muslim world to DECRY terrorism. Or else you'll assume they're pro-terrorist.

Now you want them to DECRY this stupid 'outrage' nonsense.

You literally want every Muslim in the world to become a 24/7 anti-bullshit apologist. And it wouldn't do a damn bit of good anyway - people like you will, NO MATTER WHAT, stereotype, generalize and hate Muslims based on the actions of a few. Or in this case, based on nothing more than paranoia and stupidity. So why bother? Why not just let your kind make your stupid generalizations and get on with a normal life?

Neither do any Muslims you ask. So, what the fuck is your point?

That choices have consequences. Including the choice to belong to a group.

Haven't read the thread, so if this has already been posted, forgive me.

CLAIMS THAT a promotional police postcard featuring a puppy is offensive to members of the Islamic community have been dismissed by one of Dundee’s leading Muslims.

Last night Mahmud Sarwar, trustee of the Scottish Islamic and Cultural Centre and the Dura Street mosque, appealed for calm.

He said he had no problems with the postcard and called on homeowners and local businesses to display them as it is in the public interest.

“I’ve not heard anything about that from members of the community,” Mr Sarwar said.

“I was round some shops today and at the mosque and nobody has said anything about it.”
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

Story is bullshit - but apologies in advance if this has already been posted.

Haven't read the thread, so if this has already been posted, forgive me.




http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

Story is bullshit - but apologies in advance if this has already been posted.

I'm sorry, but certain people are having too much of a great time ranting about the Muslim liberal terrorist brainwashing politically correct globe-controlling conspiracy to be bothered with facts.

That choices have consequences. Including the choice to belong to a group.

Are you a Catholic? Inquisition.
Are you a Protestant? Fred Phelps.
Are you an Atheist? Soviet atheist Russia.
Are you a Republican? Gitmo.
Are you a Democrat? '64 military coup in Brazil.
Are you Jewish? Israel's genocide.

Choices have consequences, and I'll remember that unless you stop trying to justify your prejudice by disingenuous reasoning.

Make your choice.

This is the most god-awful bullshit argument I've ever seen. So it's DONE. Big deal. That doesn't make it right, or reasonable, and it doesn't excuse it when you do it. Particularly as we're not talking about boosting Christianity's image, but demonizing all of Islam. Which is not morally different from demonizing all Jews.

Oh puh-lease. THEY are the ones using the double standard of "good things are done by a groupmember, bad things are not our problem". THEIR problem that I point this out.

Not to mention that we expect this from every frigging corporation in the world. Does the word PR ring a bell ? Every conglomerate has rules for its employees, because misbehaving reflects badly on the company. Almost every mulitnational will be quick to fire someone, or at least get them out of the spotlight quickly, whenever they have done something bad - regardless if that had anything to do with the company itself.

Why do you wish to treat religions in a special, different way than the rest of the world ? Hell, 20% of the world is muslim,. 30% is Christian. It is not like they have no PR budget.

You have to keep doing it so that NO ONE could EVER paint you in the same group. You have to do it every time there is a rape and every time a rapist is convicted. Because that's what you're expecting, nay, DEMANDING of Muslims.
What we do to male rapists is not "denounce" them: we lock them up in cages to make sure they stop doing it. For that matter, that is what people in the US, mostly Christians themselves, do to the Christians who plant bombs or make serious threats to do so.

Oh puh-lease. THEY are the ones using the double standard. THEIR problem that I point this out.


They have a double standard because there are Muslims, and if one Muslim does something stupid, the other 999,999,999 are required - according to you - to denounce it?

Why does this not make sense? I can't put my finger on it. Could it be... because it's fucking retarded? Could that be it?

Not to mention that we expect this from every frigging corporation in the world.

I suppose you do. The rest of us? Us normal people? We don't, see.

Does the word PR ring a bell ? Every conglomerate has rules for its employees, because misbehaving reflects beadly on the company.

Does every corporation do PR when OTHER corporations do something?

I guess they should, or else All Business Is Evil and Hypocritical, right?

Almost every mulitnational will be quick to fire someone, or at least get them out of the spotlight quickly, whenever they have done something bad - regardless if that had anything to do with the company itself.

Why do you wish to treat religions in a special, different way than the rest of the world ?

Wait, so you are suggesting that Muslims be excommunicated because of the imaginary 'Muslim outrage' in the OP? Because apparently, being hypothetically offended is "something bad?"

Because they are all moslims. If they were all members of the most holy alliance of the sky leopard, the cheesecake fan club or whatever group you wish to make up I would apply the same reasoning: if you wish to identify yourself as a member of group A, the actions of other members of group A will reflect on you. The good and the bad - so one should also look at the noble doctor saving others under terrible circumstances.

If you do not wish the actions of others to reflect on you, don't affiliate yourself with the group. Or let the group speak out against the deviant ones.
I don't accept this as a reasonable standard to hold people to. If I want to claim anything, whether it be about muslims, freemasons or taxi drivers, it is my job to back up that claim and prove it to be correct with supporting evidence. The burden of proof always lies with the claimant. As such, it is not the duty of, in this case, all 1.5 billion muslims to all simultaneously disprove that they don't agree with the viewpoint that puppies should not be used in adverts as the burden of proof does not lie with them, and the fact that you can't prove a negative.

It's the same reason why "he's a muslim/Irish/Chechen" isn't considered evidence to make someone a terrorist in court. Being an affiliate of a group such as a religion or an ethnicity isn't proof of a particular viewpoint unless you can prove that you have to by definition.

What we do to male rapists is not "denounce" them: we lock them up in cages to make sure they stop doing it. For that matter, that is what people in the US, mostly Christians themselves, do to the Christians who plant bombs or make serious threats to do so.

So John Bolton and his remarks re Iran are resulting in his jailing when...? O wait....Thats different.

What we do to male rapists is not "denounce" them: we lock them up in cages to make sure they stop doing it. For that matter, that is what people in the US, mostly Christians themselves, do to the Christians who plant bombs or make serious threats to do so.

You see, the same happens in Muslim countries, and the same happens with Muslim perpetrators in non-Muslim countries.

But since we're not talking anything illegal here, WBC remains a fine point. They aren't put into cages. Should I assume all Christians agree with them because of it?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

I find it offensive. It implies that when I call the number, the phone will be answered by a dog. Not only is that very irresponsible, it is also impossible.

The whole "outrage" over the ad is pretty retarded. The sad thing is, that no small amount of NSGers will take this sample of stupidity and use it to "prove" that "@11 t3h 3b1l m0zl3mz r l1k d1s, hur hur hur." Nobody takes it seriously whenever someone says all Christians are carbon copies of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertsen or Ted Hagee. So why do so many people believe all Muslims are like these morons?

Oh, I can think of a few. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. Maybe it would be better to throw the stupids, not with the group they represent, but with the other idiots?

wrong

Yes. You are.

Haven't read the thread, so if this has already been posted, forgive me.




http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

Story is bullshit - but apologies in advance if this has already been posted.

Quoted because its needed to kill the thread.

Are you a Catholic? Inquisition.
Are you a Protestant? Fred Phelps.
Are you an Atheist? Soviet atheist Russia.
Are you a Republican? Gitmo.
Are you a Democrat? '64 military coup in Brazil.
Are you Jewish? Israel's genocide.

Choices have consequences, and I'll remember that unless you stop trying to justify your prejudice by disingenuous reasoning.

Make your choice.

I affiliate myself with none of the above. If I wanted to, I would share in the feeling of responsibility though.
Alternative: create a new group with no history and a unique name. Of course, if my groupmembers misbehaved, that would then, indeed, be MY problem as well.

What exactly is the problem with this reasoning ? What is even the whole point of a group if it does not apply ?

What we do to male rapists is not "denounce" them

Exactly! See, you're basically accomplices after the fact. I don't see the denouncement, and if I don't see denouncement I'm just going to assume your total approval.

Regardless of what you actually say.

: we lock them up in cages to make sure they stop doing it.

We do? So why does Rape Crisis Services (http://www.pprsr.org/rapecrisis/statistics.cfm) claim that 1 out of every 16 rapists will NEVER spend a single day in jail, and that 15 out of 16 rapists will walk free, and that 61% of rapes are not even reported to the police?

Sounds like complicity to me. See, I can paint with a wide brush just as well as you can.

Better, I think, since the only thing you got on the EVIL MOSLEM CONSPIRACY is a bullshit article that even if true, means only that you're offended that a few Muslims were offended. Cry me a fucking river.

From PM's link.....

Cheers, an off-licence on Campfield Square, Broughty Ferry, which is owned and operated by Muslims, has not been given the postcards to display or distribute.

Shop assistant Irza Saeed said, however, Cheers would be happy to have the postcards featuring police-dog-in-training Rebel and advertising the new contact number for non-emergency calls to the police.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

Evil intolerant off-licence owning happy-to-display-poster Muslims....

I affiliate myself with none of the above. If I wanted to, I would share in the feeling of responsibility though.
Alternative: create a new group with no history and a unique name. Of course, if my groupmembers misbehaved, that would then, indeed, be MY problem as well.

Ah, so you're not a Christian, nor an Atheist nor Jewish nor Muslim? What are you? Oh, I know. You use the Internet. So did the duo that drove Megan Meier to suicide. You must now spend your life railing against them lest you be thought a person that does it too.

Ah, so you're not a Christian, nor an Atheist nor Jewish nor Muslim? What are you? Oh, I know. You use the Internet. So did the duo that drove Megan Meier to suicide. You must now spend your life railing against them lest you be thought a person that does it too.

That was some very nice "handing-of-the-ass". Do you train apprentices, perchance?

That was some very nice "handing-of-the-ass". Do you train apprentices, perchance?

With pleasure! ;)

Ah, so you're not a Christian, nor an Atheist nor Jewish nor Muslim? What are you? Oh, I know. You use the Internet. So did the duo that drove Megan Meier to suicide. You must now spend your life railing against them lest you be thought a person that does it too.

There are several millions other religious beliefs out there you know.
I will however now call mine Banana.

More serious, I do in fact feel partly responsible for the atheist stalins actions. I do in fact feel ashamed to share things with him - and hope his mistakes can be prevented in the future. If I ever decide to declare myself a Stalinist, I will probably make efforts to compensate some of the people that suffered.

And did I come out and publicly declare myself to be a proud member of the organisation of internet users ? Oh dear. No again.

Please, make an effort. Think hard about the distinction between actively choosing to be part of group, and proudly sharing that membership with others, and happening to use the same things in life.

Then explain to me what being a Christian/muslim/whatever means to you if you do not feel connected to your groupmembers in any way. Tell what the differnce between a Christian and being a male or an internet user is. Because you seem to think there is no difference whatsoever.

There are several millions other religious beliefs out there you know.
I will however now call mine Banana.

More serious, I do in fact feel partly responsible for the atheist stalins actions. I do in fact feel ashamed to share things with him - and hope his mistakes can be prevented in the future. If I ever decide to declare myself a Stalinist, I will probably make efforts to compensate some of the people that suffered.

And did I come out and publicly declare myself to be a proud member of the organisation of internet users ? Oh dear. No again.

Please, make an effort. Think hard about the distinction between actively choosing to be part of group, and proudly sharing that membership with others, and happening to use the same things in life.

Then explain to me what being a Christian/muslim/whatever means to you if you do not feel connected to your groupmembers in any way.

1- You still CHOSE to be an internet user, organization or not.

2- Connection to a group doesn't mean responsibility for the actions of everyone in it the same way being a janitor in a company's 4th floor doesn't mean responsibility for the sexual harassment of a secretary in the 20th floor by the CEO.

3- I'm an agnostic.

Clearly every notice to the muslim population needs to be printed on plain white paper, in black ink in plain font... Unless black on white is offencive. Then maybe they simply shouldn't get these sort of notices at all. :rolleyes:

This shouldn't even be news. When a handful of people complain, it shouldn't even have attracted a police apology. It should have been shrugged off for the absurdity that it is regardless of what group the people are in. It's a fucking puppy for crapsake. It baffles me sometimes that these people choose to immigrate and live in a culture they seem to hate so much of. Yes, there's dogs here and OMG people LIKE dogs! And Holy SHIT! The police USE dogs!! Gotta change THAT! :rolleyes:

Anyway, before this turns into a long long rant... crazy people need to shut up so the police stop wasting their valuable time and resources on this sort of stupidity.

Exactly! See, you're basically accomplices after the fact. I don't see the denouncement, and if I don't see denouncement I'm just going to assume your total approval.
What I was saying was that we don't ONLY denounce rapists, we do MUCH MORE than that, as well as just "denounce".
We do? So why does Rape Crisis Services (http://www.pprsr.org/rapecrisis/statistics.cfm) claim that 1 out of every 16 rapists will NEVER spend a single day in jail
Not through lack of effort. But why, despite a "truce", are there daily rockets into Israel from Gaza? Because the so-called government there explicitly says they will not police it. Why are large sections of Pakistan safe havens for Taliban and al-Qaeda? Because the government explicitly says they will not police it. Mere words of denunciation from Muslims are not of any interest to me; what is lacking is effort to apprehend and shut down the violent among them.
Better, I think, since the only thing you got on the EVIL MOSLEM CONSPIRACY is a bullshit article that even if true, means only that you're offended that a few Muslims were offended. Cry me a fucking river.
The only thing "I" got? I ought to point out to you that I did not start this thread, or choose this particular example (a petty example, to be sure). I was responding to Poli's claim that extremists among the Muslims are as negligibly small a fraction of all Muslims as extremist Christians are among Christians. That, unfortunately, is far from being the case.
This particular instance seems to be just a tempest in a teapot. But would it have been unreasonable to worry that some of these complainers might have escalated to planting bombs in the local police station? Sadly, that kind of insanely disproportionate response has been far too common.

When a handful of people complain, it shouldn't even have attracted a police apology.

Or frothing rants about how political correctness has not only gone mad, but is a Muslim plot to control the world RUN FOR THE HILLS.

Do note that not a single Muslim in this thread is complaining.

Guess who is?

crazy people need to shut up

Well-said.

But would it have been unreasonable to worry that some of these complainers

Complainer. So far only one has been identified.

What I was saying was that we don't ONLY denounce rapists, we do MUCH MORE than that, as well as just "denounce".

Doesn't matter as far as the point. You don't denounce OR punish rapists to my satisfaction, therefore you support rape.
See how annoying and stupid this kind of reasoning is yet?

Not through lack of effort.

Oh, well if you can be arsed to maybe imprison more than 40% of rapists that'll mean something.

Sadly, the Muslim world has yet to censor its entire population such that none of them ever complain about anything. Which is clearly far more important.

But why, despite a "truce", are there daily rockets into Israel from Gaza? Because the so-called government there explicitly says they will not police it. Why are large sections of Pakistan safe havens for Taliban and al-Qaeda? Because the government explicitly says they will not police it. Mere words of denunciation from Muslims are not of any interest to me; what is lacking is effort to apprehend and shut down the violent among them.

And equally important as issues of violence is... issues of how Muslims shouldn't complain if they find something offensive.

Because non-Muslims find that offensive.

The only thing "I" got? I ought to point out to you that I did not start this thread, or choose this particular example (a petty example, to be sure). I was responding to Poli's claim that extremists among the Muslims are as negligibly small a fraction of all Muslims as extremist Christians are among Christians. That, unfortunately, is far from being the case.

Seemed to me that you were defending this thread's basic premise - that THE SKY IS FALLING HELP MUSLIMS ARE COMING.

I don't think you have a case about the 'fraction of all Muslims' generalization justification.


This particular instance seems to be just a tempest in a teapot. But would it have been unreasonable to worry that some of these complainers might have escalated to planting bombs in the local police station? Sadly, that kind of insanely disproportionate response has been far too common.

...or this 'far too common' claim. What IS far too common is the BNP and other screaming loons bitching about the Muslims. It's no different, again, from anti-Semitic trash. Just because it's a different religious minority doesn't suddenly mean it's acceptable.

Pot. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210003)

Kettle. (http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/27/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/)

Black. (http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2008/04/absolut-ad-redr.html)

Forgive me if any of these have already been raised.

Pot. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200511210003)

Kettle. (http://www.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2008/05/27/dunkin_donuts_yanks_rachael_ray_ad/)

Black. (http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2008/04/absolut-ad-redr.html)

Forgive me if any of these have already been raised.

Wow, shiatsu! Three pressure points, three words to hit them! Clean and nice, that technique of yours...

I however tend to juddge people based on the choices they make - not based on the things they cannot help.

And all the muslims in the world can do exactly what to prevent few rotten apples within them from spouting nonsense?

Or, in this case one, I can't stretch this enough, ONE muslim spouting nonsense.

If you actually read the article there was exactly one muslim stating that it MIGHT offend some members of the faith.

Yay. Another chance for white British men to get angry at muslims over a trivial argument. Brilliant. ;)

Seems to me that the threshold level that things need to meet to be considered an 'outrage' is slipping, of late.

If it were any other religious group making a fuss over the poster, words like "tiff," "poopoo" and "gripe" would have been used. But since The Evil Mozlemz were involved in the complaint, people like the OP have to exaggerate it with "Outrage" and "Riot" to imply to everyone that each and every single Muslim in the world hate puppies and would use them to play World Cup Football if given the chance.

EDIT: And don't forget the old standby of "They're also headchopping terrorists with a telepathic mindlink to Osama Bin Ladin."

Cheers, an off-licence on Campfield Square, Broughty Ferry, which is owned and operated by Muslims, has not been given the postcards to display or distribute.

Shop assistant Irza Saeed said, however, Cheers would be happy to have the postcards featuring police-dog-in-training Rebel and advertising the new contact number for non-emergency calls to the police.

I've been in there! I'm so cool!


Sorry, this is the first time my city or somewhere I know even remotely has been mentioned so please excuse my internet fangirlness!!

I've already given my opinion of this matter, worthless though it is! lol

And all the muslims in the world can do exactly what to prevent few rotten apples within them from spouting nonsense?

Or, in this case one, I can't stretch this enough, ONE muslim spouting nonsense.

If you actually read the article there was exactly one muslim stating that it MIGHT offend some members of the faith.

...yeah...

I think this baby's been put to bed.
This house is clear.

The thread will go on, limping as is the wont of NSG threads, but any further arguments against the cold hard facts combined with common sense are doomed to futility.

Is there any thing that Muslims are not outraged about?

Terrorism




Dogs are ritually unclean? How insane that is.... I love religions!!!

I can't help but wonder how many people that say muslims should get over themselves concerning dogs consider homosexuality wrong because their religion tells them so...

Oh, and another quote from the link:

"The postcards and posters are already in circulation and there are no plans to have them withdrawn."

Public outrage over nothing :rolleyes:

Terrorism

You should study more.

Complainer. So far only one has been identified.
Their elected representative. Hopefully, he gets bounced at next opportunity.

Seemed to me that you were defending this thread's basic premise - that THE SKY IS FALLING HELP MUSLIMS ARE COMING.
No, actually I wasn't. I completely agree with you that this particular case is an utter triviality. I was only arguing with one point that was claimed, that extremist Muslims are as rare among Muslims as extremist Christians are among Christians.

I don't think you have a case about the 'fraction of all Muslims' generalization justification.
2% favoring the murder of Danish civilians over cartoons is way too high (that was from a Pew Institute poll, cited during an earlier argument with someone, maybe Gravlen, on a thread a while back-- will dredge up if you really care) to be considered negligible. Of course that's not "all Muslims" or "most Muslims", but it's a lot.

T
No, actually I wasn't. I completely agree with you that this particular case is an utter triviality. I was only arguing with one point that was claimed, that extremist Muslims are as rare among Muslims as extremist Christians are among Christians.

Fair nuff.

2% favoring the murder of Danish civilians over cartoons is way too high (that was from a Pew Institute poll, cited during an earlier argument with someone, maybe Gravlen, on a thread a while back-- will dredge up if you really care) to be considered negligible. Of course that's not "all Muslims" or "most Muslims", but it's a lot.

How many were polled in that again? 800? 1500?

And there are how many Muslims in the world?

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." This is one of my pet peeves; I hate attempts to use polls to proclaim what some group actually thinks. Probably because I would vociferously despise it if someone asks Joe Blow a question, and then assumes that due to statistics, I would answer in exactly the same way as Joe Blow. If ya wanna know what I think, you have to ask me. Otherwise what's the point of things like, voting? You could just poll a representative sample and not have to bother with a bureaucratic and messy election and ballot process.
/rant

Their elected representative. Hopefully, he gets bounced at next opportunity.

No, actually I wasn't. I completely agree with you that this particular case is an utter triviality. I was only arguing with one point that was claimed, that extremist Muslims are as rare among Muslims as extremist Christians are among Christians.

2% favoring the murder of Danish civilians over cartoons is way too high (that was from a Pew Institute poll, cited during an earlier argument with someone, maybe Gravlen, on a thread a while back-- will dredge up if you really care) to be considered negligible. Of course that's not "all Muslims" or "most Muslims", but it's a lot.

And I wonder: How big a percentage of the Christians would like to see homosexuality made into a capital offense? Just for instance.

I've been in there! I'm so cool!


Sorry, this is the first time my city or somewhere I know even remotely has been mentioned so please excuse my internet fangirlness!!

I've already given my opinion of this matter, worthless though it is! lol

Fangirl?

....Heeeeeeeyyy! *Fonzie thumbs*

And I wonder: How big a percentage of the Christians would like to see homosexuality made into a capital offense? Just for instance.

18%. But only because we figure it will be the only way to discover which team Richard Simmons actually plays for.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww........



Seriously The Police Need To Learn That Just Become Some People Whine Saying "you're Insulting My Religion!!!11"

The One Or Two Fanatics That Whine About This Need To Learn To Stfu.

Qft

How many were polled in that again? 800? 1500?

And there are how many Muslims in the world?

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." This is one of my pet peeves; I hate attempts to use polls to proclaim what some group actually thinks.
That's only because you don't understand how statistics work. The accuracy of a poll depends on sample-size, regardless of the total population. A sample of 1500 gives the same margin of error whether the population is a million, a billion, or a trillion. The chance that if you threw 1500 coins you would get 850 heads (even though heads is really a 50/50 chance each time so that you should "expect" 750 out of 1500) is very small, less than 1 in 20,000, and this doesn't depend in any way at all on how many coins there are in the world or how often they have been tossed.
The chance that would get 30 "Yes" answers out of a sample of 1500, if the real proportion of "Yes" in the population is only 1% rather than 2% (so that you should "expect" only 15), is less than 1 out of 20,000 just like the chance of 850 or more heads.
And I wonder: How big a percentage of the Christians would like to see homosexuality made into a capital offense?
Too small to measure. Out of samples of a thousand or so, you don't get even one. This is the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Too small to measure. Out of samples of a thousand or so, you don't get even one. This is the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Yours to prove.

Too small to measure. Out of samples of a thousand or so, you don't get even one.

Considering that about 40% of Americans would make homosexuality illegal, I wouldn't be so sure.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/red_flags_detail.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights&list=14&area=3

Ok, is there anything that do not offend the muslims? Anything?!

This...this is just getting beyond stupid....

Considering that about 40% of Americans would make homosexuality illegal, I wouldn't be so sure.
He asked how many want the state to KILL us. That is not the same at all.

Yours to prove.
No, the burden of proof is on the positive not the negative side of any question. If you want to claim that there is a whole 1% or some-such measurable fraction of Christians who want the death penalty for me, you have to produce evidence that this is so.

He asked how many want the state to KILL us. That is not the same at all.

For perspective, a mere 5% out of those 40% would need to want the state to kill gays for that percentage to hold.

For perspective, a mere 5% out of those 40% would need to want the state to kill gays for that percentage to hold.
"ONLY"??? 5% would be an outrageously high percentage. By way of comparison: what percentage of Americans do you think believe that possession of marijuana should be illegal? What percentage do you think believe it should be a capital offense?

That's only because you don't understand how statistics work.

I've heard this ad hominem before. It's not any more effective now.

The accuracy of a poll depends on sample-size, regardless of the total population. A sample of 1500 gives the same margin of error whether the population is a million, a billion, or a trillion. The chance that if you threw 1500 coins you would get 850 heads

People aren't coins. Like I said, if this statistics was so damn good at Deriving people's opinions, elections in America would be made obsolete by it. I don't see you championing for ending elections. Why not? Wouldn't you much prefer it if I chalked your opinion, on any and all subjects, up to a 'margin of error' instead of, ya know, asking it? Certainly it'd make it easier to dismiss you.

Too small to measure. Out of samples of a thousand or so, you don't get even one. This is the difference between Islam and Christianity.

Oh, that's the difference. Of course. Christianity is less violent and Islam is more violent. Golly.

"ONLY"??? 5% would be an outrageously high percentage. By way of comparison: what percentage of Americans do you think believe that possession of marijuana should be illegal? What percentage do you think believe it should be a capital offense?

So, you, a homosexual (at least that's what I gather from you saying "us"), are claiming that 40% of Americans wanting to criminalize your life is somehow less serious than 2% of Muslims (I have yet to see a source for that) saying such a thing about a newspaper...

Statistically speaking, arguments trying to condemn and demonize all Muslims for the actions of 1 are fucking retarded.

So, you, a homosexual (at least that's what I gather from you saying "us"), are claiming that 40% of Americans wanting to criminalize your life is somehow less serious than 2% of Muslims (I have yet to see a source for that) saying such a thing about a newspaper...
I certainly object to the American attitude, and would emigrate if I could. However, the number of my neighbors who actually try to kill me is quite small.
It was not 2% of Muslims thinking that some action should be taken against the newspaper (a strong majority favored that); it was 2% of Muslims favoring killing Danish civilians as a response. That is an insanely high percentage for what in other societies would be considered a fringe-extremist view. If you want the source, I will dig it back up for you (Pew Institute, I believe, was the pollster; they're a reputable organization with no particular axe to grind), but not this second because I am running late for a 6 oclock meeting.

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics." This is one of my pet peeves; I hate attempts to use polls to proclaim what some group actually thinks. Probably because I would vociferously despise it if someone asks Joe Blow a question, and then assumes that due to statistics, I would answer in exactly the same way as Joe Blow. If ya wanna know what I think, you have to ask me. Otherwise what's the point of things like, voting? You could just poll a representative sample and not have to bother with a bureaucratic and messy election and ballot process.
/rant
One of my pet peeves is the misunderstanding of polling analysis and that anyone who knows what they're talking about will not try to predict an individual's attitude from even the most accurate of polls. On the other hand, yes, you can predict an attitude trend in a population through proper polling; this has been shown time and time again, when the poll and analysis is done properly.
That's only because you don't understand how statistics work. The accuracy of a poll depends on sample-size, regardless of the total population. A sample of 1500 gives the same margin of error whether the population is a million, a billion, or a trillion. The chance that if you threw 1500 coins you would get 850 heads (even though heads is really a 50/50 chance each time so that you should "expect" 750 out of 1500) is very small, less than 1 in 20,000, and this doesn't depend in any way at all on how many coins there are in the world or how often they have been tossed.
The chance that would get 30 "Yes" answers out of a sample of 1500, if the real proportion of "Yes" in the population is only 1% rather than 2% (so that you should "expect" only 15), is less than 1 out of 20,000 just like the chance of 850 or more heads.On the other hand, it's important to keep in mind that humans aren't coins and something as small as answer-option order can drastically affect a poll's results. Picking out attitude trends in populations that are simply "Muslim" is also a bit complicated as the attitudes of an American urban black Muslim are likely to be somewhat different from, say, a Saudi Muslim or a Muslim in Turkey...in other words, even the Pew Research Institute needs to prove the validity of its methodology when trying to garner credibility for such a poll.

People aren't coins. Like I said, if this statistics was so damn good at Deriving people's opinions, elections in America would be made obsolete by it. I don't see you championing for ending elections. Why not? Wouldn't you much prefer it if I chalked your opinion, on any and all subjects, up to a 'margin of error' instead of, ya know, asking it? Certainly it'd make it easier to dismiss you.

You're calling it an ad hominem but I'm not so sure it is. You do seem to misunderstand the use of polls. On an individual level, people's attitudes are not solely determinable by a properly conducted poll....on the other hand, a population's tendency towards various attitudes is most definitely measurable. The reason statistical analysis of polling data isn't replacing elections is because it isn't infallible, there's margin of error and confidence levels and there's no reason to not be on the safe side of things; there's also the fact that people would throw a fit if such a thing were to occur, even if polls could be done with no margin of error and 100% confidence levels because people like to bitch about things even if they don't properly understand their application or method.

Statistically speaking, arguments trying to condemn and demonize all Muslims for the actions of 1 are fucking retarded.

Muslim Baiting is an Olympic Event on NSG, and you can see plenty of top athletes Going For The Gold.

Secularism please. Believe what you bloody well want, just shut the hell up about it.

Secularism please. Believe what you bloody well want, just shut the hell up about it.

You see, that's what the vast majority of Muslim DOES.

Ok, is there anything that do not offend the muslims? Anything?!

This...this is just getting beyond stupid....
Thinking that a small group of people in Dundee speak for 1.5+ million people?

Yeah, that's beyond stupid.

Thinking that one person in Dundee speak for 1.5+ million people?

Yeah, that's beyond stupid.

Fixed.

Fixed.

It was my impression that there were a few people who had an issue, but that one person has been chosen as an official spokesperson of sorts.

It was my impression that there were a few people who had an issue, but that one person has been chosen as an official spokesperson of sorts.
Same here, though if it was one person or fifty, it makes no difference; all this talk of 'the Muslims' is just ridiculous.

One of my pet peeves is the misunderstanding of polling analysis and that anyone who knows what they're talking about will not try to predict an individual's attitude from even the most accurate of polls. On the other hand, yes, you can predict an attitude trend in a population through proper polling; this has been shown time and time again, when the poll and analysis is done properly.

And if you can't predict an individual, then what have you got? Stupid generalizations. "Muslims believe this!!" "Jews are like that!" "Black people are criminals!" All supported by mathematically valid statistics, but retarded all the same.

You're saying it's been "shown," but you're not showing it. And also there seems to be a naive presumption of "properness" involved in political polls. The polls that get used for this shit almost never have any details involved.

You're calling it an ad hominem but I'm not so sure it is. You do seem to misunderstand the use of polls.

An ad hominem is when you argue that your opponent is wrong based on, essentially, an insult. "You don't know what you're talking about." Ad hominem. "You're fat." Well, so what if I was fat - it's still an ad hominem.

Truth is I know all too well how polls are 'used.' I'm not blind.

On an individual level, people's attitudes are not solely determinable by a properly conducted poll

They are not at ALL determinable by a poll.

The reason statistical analysis of polling data isn't replacing elections is because it isn't infallible

I think it's because you don't want your opinion "derived," because you're actually an individual and you believe your say should actually matter.

, there's margin of error and confidence levels and there's no reason to not be on the safe side of things; there's also the fact that people would throw a fit if such a thing were to occur, even if polls could be done with no margin of error and 100% confidence levels because people like to bitch about things even if they don't properly understand their application or method.

They are right to bitch at this monstrosity of a concept.

And if you can't predict an individual, then what have you got? Stupid generalizations. "Muslims believe this!!" "Jews are like that!" "Black people are criminals!" All supported by mathematically valid statistics, but retarded all the same.
This little book (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/How_to_lie_with_statistics) should be required reading.

An ad hominem is when you argue that your opponent is wrong based on, essentially, an insult. "You don't know what you're talking about." Ad hominem. "You're fat." Well, so what if I was fat - it's still an ad hominem.

He said that you misunderstood how statistics work. This would be akin to me telling someone that thought that things were kept to the ground because gravity pushed them away from the sky that they misunderstood how gravity worked. Is that an ad hominem?

It's not an insult. It's a correction. There's a difference.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!!!


How the FUCK is THIS (http://www.24dash.com/news/Communities/2008-07-01-Police-apologise-for-offensive-to-Muslims-puppy-dog-advert) offensive!
http://www.24dash.com/media/image/2008/07/01/5363/380_Image_police_puppy_advert.jpg

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

THAT is what German shepherds look like?! I thought they look like those drug-sniffing dogs or those dogs who find dead people...

And if you can't predict an individual, then what have you got? Stupid generalizations. "Muslims believe this!!" "Jews are like that!" "Black people are criminals!" All supported by mathematically valid statistics, but retarded all the same.
Those generalizations are stupid because...well, they aren't things you would derive from a properly conducted poll. You could say it is likely to such and such a percent that out of 100 Milwaukee area residents 85 will call refer to a water fountain as a bubbler. Now, this does not allow one to say that all Milwaukee residents call fountains bubblers or that any individual you meet is going to call it a bubbler. I'd also be interested in what "mathematically valid statistics" support those rightly described retarded assertions.
You're saying it's been "shown," but you're not showing it. And also there seems to be a naive presumption of "properness" involved in political polls. The polls that get used for this shit almost never have any details involved.
Look, I'm not going to go finding properly gathered statistics on the internet to win some silly e-peen contest. If you go to a political sciences department, specifically the part of it that deals with public opinion and polling, they can likely provide you with a heap of data and polls that do have those details involved. Am I saying that that validates the polls most news sources use? Hell, no; I completely agree that the large majority of statistics quoted by media outlets are completely useless because they almost never provide MoE, Confidence Levels, sampling method or wording samples. The point I was making in response to you was that people have this reactionary tendency to automatically ignore something that is titled a "statistic" simply for that reason, which is as idiotic as automatically believing it because it's labeled as a statistic.
An ad hominem is when you argue that your opponent is wrong based on, essentially, an insult. "You don't know what you're talking about." Ad hominem. "You're fat." Well, so what if I was fat - it's still an ad hominem.Yes, but saying you misunderstand how statistics are used does not instantly constitute an ad hominem. Calling into question someone's credibility when it is immediately relevant is not an ad hominem if there is a basis for it.
Truth is I know all too well how polls are 'used.' I'm not blind.Refer to what I said about media "polls"....I'm not saying the information cannot be distorted, but it is extremely useful and can present some interesting predictive capabilities when the results are understood correctly.

They are not at ALL determinable by a poll.

Don't think we're in disagreement here. You can never assume the individual's attitude and behavior by results taken at the aggregate level. It's rare that anyone reputable claims otherwise.

I think it's because you don't want your opinion "derived," because you're actually an individual and you believe your say should actually matter.If my opinion could be derived perfectly accurately....no, I'd be fine. But, again, refer to what I said about the individual as regards polls and such if you're unclear.

They are right to bitch at this monstrosity of a concept.

Well, that's a bit of another debate entirely but I've no doubt I'd be in the vast minority on that matter. I've a bit more of a mechanistic view of the human mind so I really don't see cause for bitching if such a complicated task could be undertaken. But I also see how others would completely disagree. *shrug* Different debate entirely, though, like I said.

If this is offensive then anything that does not adhere to the Islamic religion is offensive. This is not about tolerating religion, this is about one faith being forced on a country out of fear. If anything not accepted by Islam is offensive, then anything not Islam is offensive. By default, Islam is the state religion of Great Britain(and no, I'm not Islamophobic. I'd still be just as appalled if this was Christianity instead).

This is pitiful. The irony is that when non-Muslims see their rights being supressed to pander to one vocal minority group, many of them will come to resent all Muslims. This will go so far, and then there will be a backlash, and it will be horrible. Its always like that in human history isn't it? Things swing to one extreem, then back to the other extreem. I'm not justifying it, mearly observing it. This is not going to lead to tolerance. This is going to lead to hell on Earth.

And I know there not actually pulling the add-yet. But when they say they should have consulted their diversity officers first, it seems implied that had they done so, they would not have run the add. I may have been a little melodramatic, but the point is valid. Anything not sanctioned by Islam is to be deemed offensive.

Damn Britain's government to hell for this.:upyours::headbang::(

If this is offensive then anything that does not adhere to the Islamic religion is offensive. This is not about tolerating religion, this is about one faith being forced on a country out of fear.

Oh. Right. The unconfirmed 1 person who was offended, is forcing Islam on the entire nation through the use of terror! ZOMG RUN FOR THE HILLS, ITS A MUSLIM AND HE IS OFFENDED!

If anything not accepted by Islam is offensive, then anything not Islam is offensive. By default, Islam is the state religion of Great Britain(and no, I'm not Islamophobic. I'd still be just as appalled if this was Christianity instead).

This isn't "Islam" any more than it's "Christianity."

This is pitiful. The irony is that when non-Muslims see their rights being supressed to pander to one vocal minority group, many of them will come to resent all Muslims. This will go so far, and then there will be a backlash, and it will be horrible. Its always like that in human history isn't it? Things swing to one extreem, then back to the other extreem. I'm not justifying it, mearly observing it. This is not going to lead to tolerance. This is going to lead to hell on Earth.

Pointless alarmist nonsense.

And I know there not actually pulling the add-yet

So you know that clucking about "the use of fear" and "hell on Earth" is even *more* retarded, but you posit that hypothetically, they will pull the ad. Which hypothetically, is the terrorist vehicle for Britain's total conquest. HELL ON EARTH you say.

lol

. But when they say they should have consulted their diversity officers first, it seems implied that had they done so, they would not have run the add. I may have been a little melodramatic, but the point is valid. Anything not sanctioned by Islam is to be deemed offensive.

Your point is invalid and not supported by anything remotely resembling reality.

Damn Britain's government to hell for this.:upyours::headbang::(

:rolleyes:

Those generalizations are stupid because...well, they aren't things you would derive from a properly conducted poll.

You can, and it is done all the time. Statistically there is a higher percentage of immigrants arrested and/or incarcerated for violent crimes. That's perfectly valid statistics. And of course the anti-immigrant crowd loves to point it out - as a sign, you see, that immigrants are violent criminals.

Ditto minority ethnicities. Ditto practically anything. It ALWAYS comes down to a generalization, because that's what Political Polls are pretty much designed to do: oversimplify and generalize.

Yes, but saying you misunderstand how statistics are used

...is incorrect.

does not instantly constitute an ad hominem. Calling into question someone's credibility when it is immediately relevant is not an ad hominem if there is a basis for it.

My credibility is not relevant to my argument. Your appraisal of my knowledge of statistics is not relevant. We could go in circles like this. You're ignorant, no, you are. NO U. That's no longer a debate, it's just shouting back fallacies.

He asked how many want the state to KILL us. That is not the same at all.

Its clearly an indicator that not all christians are cuddly hand holding types, the US being overwhelmingly of that rough description. Its therefore not a stretch (bearing in mind violence against homosexuals) to speculate that perhaps one or two percentiles would prefer some extreme methods.

Its clearly an indicator that not all christians are cuddly hand holding types, the US being overwhelmingly of that rough description. Its therefore not a stretch (bearing in mind violence against homosexuals) to speculate that perhaps one or two percentiles would prefer some extreme methods.

Just like the ones who murdered Teena Brandon and Matthew Shephard.

Just like the ones who murdered Teena Brandon and Matthew Shephard.

Indeed.

I might clarify "Its clearly an indicator that not all christians are cuddly hand holding types, the US being overwhelmingly of that rough description" refers to the US being predominantly christian, not their lack of cuddliness.

Indeed.

I might clarify "Its clearly an indicator that not all christians are cuddly hand holding types, the US being overwhelmingly of that rough description" refers to the US being predominantly christian, not their lack of cuddliness.

I should hope not. Americans are some of the most cuddly people in the world. It's our major export, aside from war I mean.

I should hope not. Americans are some of the most cuddly people in the world. It's our major export, aside from war I mean.

Which is why your soldiers in Iraq are killing people and cuddling the dead? :confused:

Which is why your soldiers in Iraq are killing people and cuddling the dead? :confused:

Yep, there was that set of photos with the bodies, and the light sticks etc...
Boyish japes 'midst the carnage of war.

Further proof it's time that Muslims really start assimilating or get out. It's finally gone past the point of stupidity.

Further proof it's time that Muslims really start assimilating or get out. It's finally gone past the point of stupidity.

Try reading the thread before coming out with shite.

Its clearly an indicator that not all christians are cuddly hand holding types, the US being overwhelmingly of that rough description. Its therefore not a stretch (bearing in mind violence against homosexuals) to speculate that perhaps one or two percentiles would prefer some extreme methods.
3 to 6 million in the United States? No. I would estimate the number to be in the low tens of thousands. It is difficult to measure with precision because it is a small fraction ("vanishingly rare" is the technical term for a rate too small to accurately distinguish from zero), but the order of magnitude is clearly not what you are claiming.
Yes, but saying you misunderstand how statistics are used

...is incorrect.
Sorry, Trostia, it IS correct. That is how I earn my living: deciding whether students exhibit any grasp of statistical concepts.
People aren't coins.
Like this, for example. What is being claimed is rather that the process of randomly choosing one person to poll rather than another is as random as a coin toss. If in some town in Iowa, only 1% of the population is black, then, if you pick people out of the phone book by, say, opening the book and stabbing your finger at a page blindly, and do this 100 times, would you get 10 black people? Not very likely. If it happened, you would either have to find some reason why the phone book was not a good sampling (90% of the white people in town are unlisted or have no phones, but every black person is in there?) or you would have strong evidence that whoever told you "Only 1% of the people in that town are black" was mistaken.
Like I said, if this statistics was so damn good at Deriving people's opinions, elections in America would be made obsolete by it. I don't see you championing for ending elections.
Every election should be accompanied by an exit poll of a representative sample of voters, to check the honesty and accuracy of the reported totals. If the reported totals disagree with the polling, outside the statistical margin of error (there is never "100% confidence" in any statistics; there is always the chance of error; that is why the exit poll cannot replace the election), that is strong evidence that the election was botched or rigged: not conclusive evidence, of course, but such anomalies should always be investigated. In every recent case but one where the exit polling was wildly inconsistent with the reported totals, international opinion has condemned the election as rigged (the exception, of course, being US in 2004).
And if you can't predict an individual, then what have you got?
Statistics is not about predicting an individual. It is about measuring what fraction of a large population has certain traits.

The unconfirmed 1 person who was offended
Nothing unconfirmed about the one person: he was the communities' elected representative. As such, there was nothing at all silly about thinking he reflected the views of much of the Muslim community-- although this turns out not to be true, which will no doubt be unhealthy for his future political career.

Nothing unconfirmed about the one person: he was the communities' elected representative. As such, there was nothing at all silly about thinking he reflected the views of much of the Muslim community-- although this turns out not to be true, which will no doubt be unhealthy for his future political career.

A media whoring politician nearing election time. Hmmmm.... votes you say.

because They're "ritually Unclean?"

Wtf!?

They're Not Advertising Dogburgers.

If I Was Handling The Press In Response To This Episode I'd Offer Humble Contrition And As A Peace Offering From The Peace Officers I'd Offer Every Offended Individual A Free Cucumber Which Is Ritually Clean, Biologically Nutritious, And The Ideal Shape With Which To Go Fuck Yourself.
Sigged!!!!

A media whoring politician nearing election time. Hmmmm.... votes you say.
Rather the opposite, apparently. He seems to have misjudged the attitude of his community badly. There is nothing in the story indicating whether he is up for re-election soon or not, but if the election is soon it looks as if this affair may hurt him.

Sorry, Trostia, it IS correct. That is how I earn my living: deciding whether students exhibit any grasp of statistical concepts.

I'm not your student, and I'm pretty sure if you 'grade' your students based on no assignments, no tests, and no actual contact other than your own weak-ass, silly opinion you're not a teacher worth a dime.

(there is never "100% confidence" in any statistics; there is always the chance of error; that is why the exit poll cannot replace the election)

I've already explained the actual reason why it can't, and won't replace an election. It's the same reason people don't appreciate strawmen arguments.


Statistics is not about predicting an individual. It is about measuring what fraction of a large population has certain traits.

Traits like, "Muslim outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, there's nothing biased going on here. Just statistics and if you disagree, you're an idiot.

I'm not your student
Thank God.
Traits like, "Muslim outrage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Yes. We all know that SOME Muslims want to kill civilians, and that NOT ALL Muslims do. It is, in fact, a matter of some importance to get a sense of HOW MANY Muslims do: a couple dozen? tens of thousands? hundreds of millions? If you don't think it is important to get some reality on what the numbers are, fine (I agree that the numbers-assessment has nothing to do with assessing one individual, who should be treated on his own merits regardless-- if that's your only point), but I consider it important. I was strictly talking to Poli's claim that the number of those Muslims is comparable to the number of similarly extreme Christians: which it isn't.

Thank God.

Yes. We all know that SOME Muslims want to kill civilians, and that NOT ALL Muslims do. It is, in fact, a matter of some importance to get a sense of HOW MANY Muslims do: a couple dozen? tens of thousands? hundreds of millions? If you don't think it is important to get some reality on what the numbers are, fine (I agree that the numbers-assessment has nothing to do with assessing one individual, who should be treated on his own merits regardless-- if that's your only point), but I consider it important. I was strictly talking to Poli's claim that the number of those Muslims is comparable to the number of similarly extreme Christians: which it isn't.

depends on a few factors. 1) how do you measure extremism. 2) how do you define civilian and 3) what are you including in Christian (just main stream or all the various sects)

for a stats prof. you really didn't have enough controls there.

depends on a few factors. 1) how do you measure extremism. 2) how do you define civilian and 3) what are you including in Christian (just main stream or all the various sects)

for a stats prof. you really didn't have enough controls there.
1) the Pew poll was asking about possible actions in response to the Danish cartoon: should there be protests, should there be lethal attacks, should these attacks be against civilians? Obviously there was a smaller percentage of Yes at each more extreme option-- but of course, when the question is about Israelis rather than Danes, there is a strong majority in Palestine, and a double-digit percentage in almost any other Muslim country, in favor of lethal attacks against civilians.
2) "civilian" here would seem to be defined by how the respondents themselves understood the term
3) Principally we have been talking about American Christians here. I do not get into the game of deciding which people who call themselves "Christians" are "RealTM Christians". As an example of what kinds of self-described Christians are "extremist" in the same sense as Muslims who support killing civilians, Nodinia proposed those who are willing to kill gays (I have had some experience with them), and I would also consider the abortion clinic bombers/shooters in the same category. There is heavy overlap between those two: Eric Rudolph bombed both clinics and gay bars. My order-of-magnitude estimation "tens of thousands" within the US (pop. ~300 million, for a proportion of ~0.01%) is not well-founded-- but you cannot get an order of magnitude from polling data because it is just too small to show up. I will try to hunt up some data on those who are asked followup questions after "should homosexuality (abortion, drug possession, ... fill in the blank) be illegal?" like "what do you think the punishment should be?" to see if hypothetical support for capital punishment even shows up at all.

1) the Pew poll was asking about possible actions in response to the Danish cartoon: should there be protests, should there be lethal attacks, should these attacks be against civilians? Obviously there was a smaller percentage of Yes at each more extreme option-- but of course, when the question is about Israelis rather than Danes, there is a strong majority in Palestine, and a double-digit percentage in almost any other Muslim country, in favor of lethal attacks against civilians.
2) "civilian" here would seem to be defined by how the respondents themselves understood the term
3) Principally we have been talking about American Christians here. I do not get into the game of deciding which people who call themselves "Christians" are "RealTM Christians". As an example of what kinds of self-described Christians are "extremist" in the same sense as Muslims who support killing civilians, Nodinia proposed those who are willing to kill gays (I have had some experience with them), and I would also consider the abortion clinic bombers/shooters in the same category. There is heavy overlap between those two: Eric Rudolph bombed both clinics and gay bars. My order-of-magnitude estimation "tens of thousands" within the US (pop. ~300 million, for a proportion of ~0.01%) is not well-founded-- but you cannot get an order of magnitude from polling data because it is just too small to show up. I will try to hunt up some data on those who are asked followup questions after "should homosexuality (abortion, drug possession, ... fill in the blank) be illegal?" like "what do you think the punishment should be?" to see if hypothetical support for capital punishment even shows up at all.
1)Because "Civilians" is poorly defined.
2)thats a problem though because for many Christians any Muslim might be thought of as a combatant. IE> would you consider people who supported (but were not part of) al quaida terrorists? or would they be civilians.
3)sounds good

for many Christians any Muslim might be thought of as a combatant.
A Christian who thinks like that is getting very close to the line where I would say "extremist"; any Christian who then goes on to say therefore, "any Muslim" can be killed, has crossed it.

A Christian who thinks like that is getting very close to the line where I would say "extremist"; any Christian who then goes on to say therefore, "any Muslim" can be killed, has crossed it.

exactly. so they wouldn't classify themselves as extremists in the survey but they would, in fact, be extremist

Yes. We all know that SOME Muslims want to kill civilians, and that NOT ALL Muslims do. It is, in fact, a matter of some importance to get a sense of HOW MANY Muslims do: a couple dozen? tens of thousands? hundreds of millions? If you don't think it is important to get some reality on what the numbers are, fine (I agree that the numbers-assessment has nothing to do with assessing one individual, who should be treated on his own merits regardless-- if that's your only point), but I consider it important. I was strictly talking to Poli's claim that the number of those Muslims is comparable to the number of similarly extreme Christians: which it isn't.

According to polls. Which of course, assumes the polls are "properly conducted" and that people, when/if asked, are honest and open and willing to reveal their feelings about killing others. I would contend that most Americans in general are less willing to admit to wanting to kill other people, not least because no one wants to get onto some Watch List, or look politically incorrect.

The politically correct way to express your feelings towards Muslims is to vote for politicians who support invading and occupying foreign (Muslim) countries based on fear. And those numbers speak for themselves, Christian or no.

It may seem extreme to us, but hey, we're not them.

It may seem extreme to us, but hey, we're not them.

Fuck 'em. If they're upset about a picture of a dog, then they need to dump their religion. In fact, if there's anything about a dog that bothers them from a religious perspective, if they came from some other shithole of a country to the West, they need to leave their religion in that shithole, and adopt Western ways.

Their religion is why the place they left is a shithole.

Fuck 'em. If they're upset about a picture of a dog, then they need to dump their religion. In fact, if there's anything about a dog that bothers them from a religious perspective, if they came from some other shithole of a country to the West, they need to leave their religion in that shithole, and adopt Western ways.

Their religion is why the place they left is a shithole.

My God....I have never met a more ignorant person. So, I suppose we should execute the Mexicans as well? I'll get the shotgun!

My God....I have never met a more ignorant person. So, I suppose we should execute the Mexicans as well? I'll get the shotgun!

No executions. But if they want to fuck the blind with their ways, pack them on a plane and send them back to DirkaDirkastan on a one-way trip.

Fuck 'em. If they're upset about a picture of a dog, then they need to dump their religion. In fact, if there's anything about a dog that bothers them from a religious perspective, if they came from some other shithole of a country to the West, they need to leave their religion in that shithole, and adopt Western ways.

Their religion is why the place they left is a shithole.

Hey, everyone! I JUST INVENTED A NEW GAME!!!

It's called Ignorance-of-posts bingo!

Here's what we do! Whenever Hotwife ignores posts in threads to suit his needs for a Muslim bash, we count. The first one to count gets a point.

So, since the game started now:

One!

One more time:

The.
Story.
Is.
Bogus.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2008/07/02/newsstory11590817t0.asp

Edit: Y'all have met Hotwife/Deep Kimchi/Sierra/Whispering Legs before.... right?

Fuck 'em. If they're upset about a picture of a dog, then they need to dump their religion. In fact, if there's anything about a dog that bothers them from a religious perspective, if they came from some other shithole of a country to the West, they need to leave their religion in that shithole, and adopt Western ways.

Their religion is why the place they left is a shithole.

The issues in the Middle East are a lot more complicated, to say the least.

Wow. I'm gonna go ahead and just say sweet God I hope you never run for office.

No executions. But if they want to fuck the blind with their ways, pack them on a plane and send them back to DirkaDirkastan on a one-way trip.

Two!

Two!

Want me to post true stories of Muslims aggravated by dogs to the point where they fuck the blind? Read back in the thread!

Repent! Repent! The end is near! If we do not kill every single Muslim our way of life will be destroyed!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


Farewell, thread. Rest in peace.

Want me to post true stories of Muslims aggravated by dogs to the point where they fuck the blind? Read back in the thread!

What? The stories of ONE guy that you go on to claim represents an entire faith? Newsflash: It's WORTHLESS!

And Three!

In the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-40...cab-driver.html


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.

Islamic tradition warns Muslims against contact with dogs because they are seen as impure.

The case emerged as Jack Straw was embroiled in a controversy over Muslim women wearing veils and the row continued after a Muslim police officer was excused guard duty at the Israeli embassy. Today Mrs Vernon, 39, from Hammersmith, said: "This experience was very upsetting.

"I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like I was a second-class citizen, like I didn't count at all."

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."


In Minneapolis, Minnesota, US, complete with Fatwa (religious ruling) indicating that dogs are unclean:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472393/


MINNEAPOLIS - Some Muslim cab drivers are refusing service to a growing number of passengers with alcohol or dogs, and officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are trying to fight it.

"Our expectation is that if you're going to be driving a taxi at the airport, you need to provide service to anybody who wants it," said Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airport Commission.

Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport, and refusals for religious reasons have grown in recent months, airport officials said. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim.

The belief that carrying alcohol or dogs, including those that help people with disabilities, violates religious beliefs is "unfortunate," Airports Commissioner Bert McKasy said.

Officials on Wednesday asked the commission for permission to hold public hearings on a proposal that would suspend or revoke drivers' airport licenses for refusing service for reasons other than safety concerns. The commission is expected to vote Jan. 16.

A driver who refuses to transport a passenger with a service dog, in violation of the federal American with Disabilities Act, already faces a 30-day suspension of the airport license, Hogan said. A driver who refuses to transport someone carrying wine is told to go to the back of the taxicab line.

Last year, the airports commission received a fatwa, or religious edict, from the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society saying "Islamic jurisprudence" prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, "because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam."


UK again:

http://www.secularism.org.uk/objectiontobl...dirtydogla.html


A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind woman with her guide dog because of religious objections. In Islam, dogs are regarded as being “unclean” in the same way that pigs are. But his refusal has led to his being convicted under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Bernie Reddington, 37, was furious when London taxi driver Basir Miah refused to take her and her guide dog Orla in his private hire vehicle. Mrs Reddington, from Norwich, along with her son Christopher, 13, who is also blind, attended a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London last November.

Taxi driver Basir Miah arrived in his cab to collect Mrs Reddington to take her to Liverpool Street station, but when he saw her guide dog, he said: “No dogs”. After ignoring Mrs Reddington’s insistence that his refusal to take the dog was illegal, Miah left the group with a hospital receptionist. This week, at London’s Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, he admitted refusing to carry out a booking made by a disabled person on the grounds that the disabled person was accompanied by her assistance dog. He was fined £150 and agreed to pay £250 compensation.

Mrs Reddington said: “I’m really pleased about the result. The experience made me feel sub-human and awful. I was humiliated. If this can stop something like that happening to anyone else then it will be worthwhile. I really hope this sends out a message to all taxi drivers to think again before they decide to break the law. I hope this benefits other blind and partially sighted people who have guide dogs.”


Muslim lore has it that dogs are impure, so pious Muslims often try to avoid the animals. In most circumstances, this does not present a problem in the West, but it can when seeing-eye dogs are involved, for they have legal rights of entry. Interestingly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations often rushes to the defense of Muslims behaving illegally.

Muslim taxi drivers refusing to allow the guide dogs into their cars is a recurring theme. In July 1997, for example, a New Orleans taxi driver, Mahmoud Awad, got so incensed at his passenger, Sandi Dewdney, trying to bring a dog into the cab that he physically yanked her out of it by the arm while yelling "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out." He harmed her broken wrist. To this, CAIR replied by pointing out that "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer" and left it to the scholars of Islam to decide whether a guide dog should be allowed in a cab. The judge, after researching Islamic attitudes and finding no support for the driver's claims, called his behavior "a total disgrace." Awad pled guilty to battery and was sentenced to 120 days of community service at the Lighthouse for the Blind.


Cinncinnati?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/04/03/loc_cabbie.html

Another instance arose in Cincinnati in February 1999, when Annie McEachrin, blind since birth, tried to get into Hassan Taher's cab but he refused her dog entry. When McEachrin complained to the city, Taher noted that Islam holds dogs to be impure and CAIR came again to his defense, noting that "People from the Middle East especially, we have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs. The driver has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He's acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."

CAIR speaks for Muslims in the US - and they're pretty consistent on Dogs Are Unclean, Therefore, Fuck The Blind. It's not me making this up - ask CAIR - you can phone them directly.

Florida?
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/14/Hernando...__man_see.shtml

Then there was the more recent case in Brooksville, Florida, on Nov. 5, when a legally blind man, David Bearden, tried to enter a convenience store with his dog to buy a cold soda, but was thrown out by the clerk, Mike Hamed. As Hamed explains, he looked up from the counter "saw this big dog." Bearden picks up the tale: "As soon as we got inside the door, the clerk yelled at us to stop." Bearden says he tried three times to explain that state law not only requires access for seeing-eye dogs but treats denial of access as a criminal misdemeanor. Bearden quotes Hamed telling him nonetheless "Get that dog out of here; it's going to eat my food." Bearden says he plans to file a claim against Hamed. No word yet of CAIR defending Hamed's actions.

According to the Australia Herald Sun Sunday.


Muslim taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol. At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger. And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.

Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs. One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him. "I don't refuse to take people, but it's hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs," he said.


British Columbia, Canada?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...f031335&k=68681

Bruce Gilmour, a blind man from the North Shore of Vancouver, British Columbia, filed a case with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after a driver, Behzad Saidy, refused to let his guide dog into his North Shore taxi in January 2006. Gilmour complains that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of his physical disability. Saidy responds that his Muslim beliefs do not permit him to take dogs in his taxi. North Shore Taxi filed a document with the Human Rights Tribunal stating that about half of its drivers are "unable to take animals in their taxis due to medical or religious reasons."

Gilmour and the taxi driver disagree on what was said about the dog at the time. Saidy has told the Human Rights Tribunal he told Gilmour at the time that he was refusing because of religious beliefs. But Gilmour's lawyer Nazeer Mitha said all the driver said to Gilmour was, "No dogs, no dogs," before driving away. The first Gilmour heard about religious objections was after he filed a formal complaint, said Mitha.

Since then, the taxi driver has filed a statement from a Muslim cleric stating that Islam has some restrictions towards certain animals, including dogs. But Mitha says Gilmour has also filed a statement from a different Muslim cleric, stating that there can be exceptions to blanket refusals to deal with dogs, especially if it means helping someone in need. Mitha said all that would be required in most circumstances would be for a Muslim person to wash their hands before eating if they have been in contact with a dog. "That's not a terrible task to go through," he said.

Looks like the Muslim clerics in these cases, around the world, support Dogs Are Unclean, Fuck The Blind.

Norway? From a translation of Aftenposten, April 2, 2007


Blind woman Gry Berg, accompanied by her guide dog, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of the city of Oslo, Norway, this March. Three of the drivers claimed that their unwillingness to accept her dog was due to allergy, while the fourth one simply locked the car doors and refused to give an explanation for why he wouldn't let Ms. Berg into his cab.

Andreas Strand, leader of the youth organization of The Norwegian Association of the Blind and Partially Sighted, reacts strongly to this treatment. "It makes it difficult for blind people to live a social life," he says. Strand claims that it has become an increasingly common problem that blind people accompanied by guide dogs are denied access to taxis, and has written a letter of complaint to the three companies whose drivers were involved in this particular incident.

Now, the police and the local transportation authorities will cooperate on punishing drivers who refuse to accept dogs into their cars. Director Odd Bratteberg of the Transportation Authority in Oslo warns that they will conduct random tests at taxi stands, and that drivers who refuse to accept passengers with dogs risk having their license revoked.


Ah, more Fuck The Blind. Looks very consistent.

Shia clerics on dogs and Islam:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2326357.stm


A conservative Iranian cleric has denounced the "moral depravity" of owning a dog, and called for the arrest of all dogs and their owners.

Dogs are considered unclean in Islamic law and the spread of dog ownership in Westernised secular circles in Iran is frowned upon by the religious establishment.

"I demand the judiciary arrest all dogs with long, medium or short legs - together with their long-legged owners," Hojatolislam Hassani is quoted as saying in the reformist Etemad newspaper.

"Otherwise I'll do it myself," said the outspoken cleric, who leads Friday prayers in the north-western city of Urumiyeh.

"In our country there is freedom of speech, but not freedom for corruption," he said.


Dec 4, 2007, Fort McMurray, Alberta?


Remote Fort McMurray, Alberta (population: 65,000) has the same problem, Diane Bergeron, a blind woman with a seeing-eye dog, landed at the airport two days ago and despite "a whole line of ten, 15 taxis waiting outside," she said, "not one would take me because of my dog." Eventually, a bystander took her to her hotel in town.

Nor was her plight unusual: Provincial and municipal laws to the contrary, blind Albertans with guide dogs face difficulties getting cabs. "It happens frequently, everywhere," said Ellie Shuster, spokeswoman for a national non-profit agency providing services to blind Canadians. She works for blind cab riders their rights, cab drivers to learn their obligations, and police officers the laws they must enforce.

Indeed, despite laws strictly forbidding the refusal of seeing-eye dogs, local cab companies take a relaxed attitude on the topic. "We can't make the drivers do it," said Ron MacNeill, owner of Sun Taxi, who advises passengers with guide dogs to call ahead. "You have to tell our dispatch and inform us what's going on." Mustapha Hemeid, the manager at Access Taxi, agrees: "Not every driver will [permit guide dogs]. But we do have optional drivers who can, and if you call ahead, we'll do it." Fort McMurray Airport's public relations manager, Sally Beaven, responds that the taxi companies' agreement with the airport requires that "they'll not refuse any fares. This shouldn't happen."

Asked about this situation, the Muslim Association of Canada notes that many Muslims regard dog saliva as unclean, which could cause some drivers to reject dogs in their cars. In addition, "Some people just don't feel comfortable around dogs."

Repent! Repent! The end is near! If we do not kill every single Muslim our way of life will be destroyed!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!


Farewell, thread. Rest in peace.

Come on, don't you want to play?

- snip -

Huh.

"Sorry mate. I'm not taking you in my taxi."
"And why the fuck not?"
"Because we live in a capitalist, Western Liberal Democracy where I have free choice in who I want to let into my taxi."
"It's because I'm blind isn't it!?!"
"*shrug* Doesn't really matter - I don't feel like taking you. See ya." *drives away*

God I love living in a society where someone has the right to refuse for no reason. :)

Come on, don't you want to play?

Play? The fuck are we playing? Russian Roulette with a fully loaded .50 cal? If ignorant asses wish to be ignorant asses, by God, let them. That is, until they hold public office. Oh shit. THEY ALREADY DO!!!!

Snip.

When you stop ignoring all of the posts here that explain why it is wrong to assume that the actions of one or a few stand for the entire group, I'll stop calling you on it.

Till then: FOUR!

Play? The fuck are we playing? Russian Roulette with a fully loaded .50 cal? If ignorant asses wish to be ignorant asses, by God, let them. That is, until they hold public office. Oh shit. THEY ALREADY DO!!!!

It's the game I made up: Ignorance of posts bingo. Check the last page for details. I'll reset the score if you wanna play. The first that gets to 10 wins.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13810335&postcount=215

How about we just say 15 billion and get it over with. After all, that is, in all likely hood, the probable number we'll reach in the next 2 hours.

How about we just say 15 billion and get it over with. After all, that is, in all likely hood, the probable number we'll reach in the next 2 hours.

Come on, don't get angry at Hotwife, just have fun at his expense like me!

Come on, don't get angry at Hotwife, just have fun at his expense like me!

Ah, yes. Being an ignorant douche like him will certainly solve everything.

Ah, yes. Being an ignorant douche like him will certainly solve everything.

I'm not being an ignorant douche...

Well, not IGNORANT, at least.

I'm just playing some ignorance-of-post bingo!

I'm not being an ignorant douche...

Well, not IGNORANT, at least.

I'm just playing some ignorance-of-post bingo!

Not accepting that he is an ignorant douche and just letting it go is ignorant. And arrogant. And douche like.

Not accepting that he is an ignorant douche and just letting it go is ignorant. And arrogant. And douche like.

I never disputed that I was arrogant. I do dispute that it's a bad thing. :p

Want me to post true stories of Muslims aggravated by dogs to the point where they fuck the blind? Read back in the thread!

Want me to post the instances where we caught you flat out lying and then ran away? Read back in the thread!

But you're going to ignore this, I can feel, or make some more lies. Cowards do that I believe.

Want me to post the instances where we caught you flat out lying and then ran away? Read back in the thread!

But you're going to ignore this, I can feel, or make some more lies. Cowards do that I believe.

I'm still up for some post-ignorance-bingo.

they need to leave their religion in that shithole, and adopt Western ways.


And end up fine outstanding examples of honesty, decency and Western tolerance like yourself, no doubt.


But if they want to fuck the blind with their ways

Moving the goal posts, with a sprinkle of the 'biased sample'.


Want me to post true stories of Muslims .......!

No, but a source specifically referring to your claim re muslims seeking to ban dog ownership in Herndon, Virginia would be nice.

As a Muslim, and having viewed that picture, I can say that its not really offensive.

The only issue that there might be with it is that the dog is purely black.


Even in my native country of Libya, I would say that about 50% of rural households own a dog, and 100% of them are Muslim. There is no contradiction between dogs and Islam, only between black dogs and Islam.

Really the picture was kind of cute.

<snip>only between black dogs and Islam. <snip>Really? I did a research after I found about about the thing about the dogs and Islam (I live in Turkiye, lots of Muslims here) and learned that "it is not advisable to keep a dog near places you perform your religious obligations (abdest and namaz, namely)" only. Nothing about black dogs. Do you have a source for that? Just out of curiosity by the way.

Cheerio!

Should all black dogs in the suburbs be removed to please a small group of people. I personally hate cats due to the damage they cause to birds. All cats should be removed too. Then the birds sometimes wake me up. That effects my life style and others who wish to sleep in. Bye-Bye birds.

Or is this just for the case of adds. If thats the case it may be best never to put any animal in an add again as it will most likely be against someones beliefs, somehow, somewhere

Or is this just go dogs. For dogs i hate the small and yappy ones. One of thoes animals has bitten my ankle before near the achilies tendon. It took me a while to get full movement back again. I never with to see the paris hilton type dog in the handbag again.

Or we could just accept things the way they are instead of crying like a baby over every thing that we dont like.

Should all black dogs in the suburbs be removed to please a small group of people. I personally hate cats due to the damage they cause to birds. All cats should be removed too. Then the birds sometimes wake me up. That effects my life style and others who wish to sleep in. Bye-Bye birds.

Or is this just for the case of adds. If thats the case it may be best never to put any animal in an add again as it will most likely be against someones beliefs, somehow, somewhere

Or is this just go dogs. For dogs i hate the small and yappy ones. One of thoes animals has bitten my ankle before near the achilies tendon. It took me a while to get full movement back again. I never with to see the paris hilton type dog in the handbag again.

Or we could just accept things the way they are instead of crying like a baby over every thing that we dont like.

Should all black dogs in the suburbs be removed to please a small group of people. I personally hate cats due to the damage they cause to birds. All cats should be removed too. Then the birds sometimes wake me up. That effects my life style and others who wish to sleep in. Bye-Bye birds.

I personally hate cats due to the damage they cause to birds. All cats should be removed too.

I personally hate cats

Wha...? I declare you my mortal enemy. Have at thee, knave!

*brandishes a large baguette*

lol it just shows a difference of opinion

I dont believe all cats should be removed as that may lead to other animals being removed that I care about such as dogs and birds.

My point is still that we should just tollerate that people have something we dont like. (Unless there is a reasonable belief that it will cause harm to humans)

But yeah I hate cats. dog > cat so I guess we are enimies :upyours: