"Muslim cabbies Want to Discriminate Against Customers"

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I can't believe I'm even wasting time reading this post, let alone responding to it... What the hell, I can't sleep and I need a good laugh.

For someone that calls me out as being insulting, you sure certainly lace your posts with condescention. My guess is thats why you dogpiled in these threads. Everytime I've seen your posts in a political thread you always talk down to those your opponents with a smug superiority.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You clearly do not know the definition of "discrimination", so to save you from further embarassment down the line:

dis‧crim‧i‧na‧tion [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Ooh, the all powerful dictionary argument. So the cabbies are basing their opinions on individual merits of their customers, are they? There are more forms of discrimination that just religious and racial despite what the dictionary says....

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Discrimination applies to stereotyping a group of people (such as Muslims should not be cab drivers) not on the actions of those people (such as the decision to consume alcoholic beverages).

You can not say that people who drink are being discriminated against because these are individual choices. Maybe that is why the word "judgement" is used so frequently in my posts, because it's the appropriate terminology.

So you're saying drinking is an individual choice but religion isn't? People are just born Christians or Mulsims are they? Following a particular religion is a choice as well. You may be exposed to one religion more than another but you are free to choose to follow that religion or any other one you choose. Or not at all.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Ok, for those of you keeping count: this is personal attack number 1

You are being a hypocrite, am I not supposed to point it out to spare your feelings?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, talk about spin-doctor!

Uh-oh, what's this? A personal attack? In a post where you counted all my personal attacks against you and called me out on it? There's a word for this, but I can't quite recall what it is.... I think it might start with "hypo" and end with "crite", but I am not sure.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

So, I make the correlation between one religious group (Christians) not allowing someone into their cab that goes against their relgion (murderers) and you counterargue by saying that this analagy is equal to comparing homosexuals (who can be discriminated against) and people who consume alcohol (who can not be discriminated against)... hmmmm, I see a bigger simularity between apples and oranges. Your comparision is not a comparision at all. Until you realize that people can choose to consume alcohol, but people can not choose their sexual orientation, your theory will not make sense.

There are plently of Christians in this world that do believe homosexuality is a choice. So should they be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals based on their religion? That is my point.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I was not comparing murderers to people who drink alcohol... that's a bigger leap than WMD and Iraq.

You were comparing them to the exact same extent as I was comparing homosexuals to people who drink alcohol.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Wow, that's another three personal insults, bringing us up to four! My favourite so far: neo-con! Ba ha ha! I take personal attacks as a compliment - only when someone is not confident in their argument do they concede to personal attacks, so thank-you.

I said you argued like a neo-con, I didn't say you were one. All I said you were was a hypocrite. And those other three things you bolded don't even come close to being personal attacks. But keep making things up and exaggerating to prove your point, at least its consistent with your strategy so far.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

In reality, we have this thing called "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms"... it's pretty nifty. In fact, here is some information that might benefit you about how discriminating based on sexual orientation is illegal:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/li...criminationtxt

This was one part I found interesting in the article:

Now human rights Acts and Codes explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in all jurisdictions except Alberta.

You see, discriminating against homosexuals is not legal, discriminating against personal choices (such as the decision to drink) is legal. Your analagy is bunk. I stand by my first post.

I never claimed it was illegal for them to discriminate against their passengers? Did I say they should go to jail? What I am saying is religion cannot be used as a trump card to deny people a service when they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of society. You twist my words at every opportunity you get. And, again, thanks for the condescention with the Charter.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Four more, for a total of 8 personal insults, and two mentions of the forbidden word "judge"... impressive.

You fairly easily offended it you find "you take things to the extreme" as an insult. The only insult there was drama queen, which I still stand by and subject the above quote as further proof of that. And "judge" was purposely used to relate back to your comments, but I suppose that is forbidden?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

There has to be a distinction between Muslims judging people who drink and following their religious beliefs. Should you make someone go against their religious beliefs if it is not compromising anyone else's rights? The obvious answer for me is no, because that in itself is a neglegance of that Religion's followers' rights.

Of course you should not make people go against religious beliefs. I am a strong believer in this, and if you search my past posts you can see I agree with you on most issues (although I do have serious reservations about your arguing style). But I believe in a free society there are reasonable exceptions to every rule.

A person who never believes in exceptions and blindly follows dogma without considering the particular situation is much more dangerous to a free society that a person who believes that rules can have exceptions. In fact there is a word for this: fundamentalist.

Were both people on the left side of the political specturm. The difference is I do not blindly follow what I think left-wing ideology preaches without evaluating a situation with common sense first.

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Nine.

Ten.

Yes, I compared you to a clock and then reversed your own insult back on you. When you can welcome me to the 21st century but I cannot do it back, there is a word that fits the situation. Hypocrite. Ooops, another insult....

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

If there is, they are pretty extreme and do not represent the entire Christian religion. I would not be surprised in the least if they did exist, but just like suicide bombers and the Muslim faith, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I watched a documentary just last night on Newsworld where a right-wing man from Calgary lived with a gay man from Vancouver (and vice versa). They both were Christians and while the Neo-con's church believed that homosexuality was a sin, they were still supposed to love homosexuals and pray that they find their way; while the homosexual's church was much more liberal and weren't so extreme. So do you think that whatever organization you are talking about should represent the entire Christian faith, all denominations?

No. But shouldn't his religion be protected under the Charter? On the other side of the same coin, do you think this man you saw on tv should represent the entire Christian faith?

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Way to go a few sentences without any blatent personal attacks - just condescending remarks. Congrats!

Condescention, huh? You're clearly the Queen of that.

As for the rest of the post, I don't have time to go through it point by point at the moment as I have to leave now, but its simply more of the same re-iterated over and over that hasn't already been mentioned above, so I'll leave it here for now.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Man... its a dark day when I'm agreeing with Tranny and Jolinar...

I feel the same way!!

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

still, this is ridiculous. I can't believe Muslim cab drivers should get special priveliges because they won't pick up legitimate fares. As far as I'm concerned its the same as a Catholic working at an abortion clinic; if you can't handle the job due to your religion, don't take it. Its not like its 'be a cab driver or be nothing'... What's next, separate places on buses so that each religion doesn't have to tolerate violations by people of other/non religions? Like I said before, sounds like religious apartheid to me. Keep that crap in the privacy of your own home.

These are excellent points. If you get a response, expect counter-arguments to none of this. Instead you'll be called out for comparing driving a cab to having an aborition (with a healthy dose of condescention for good measure)! How dare you, sir!?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Cheese

200 Muslim women with memberships at Fitness USA are demanding seperate workout times for men and women.

In Islam, there are codes of modesty for both genders," said Ammerah Saidi, 23, of Dearborn. "When you’re working out, you’re not dressed modestly, and you’re bending in provocative ways, so you can’t be working out with the opposite gender."

Muslim women want seperate work out times.

Why dont they just get a membership at an all womens club?

Those were very interesting Cheese...thanks for those.

This is my point exactly. If they do not like what is going on then go somewhere else or to a place that they can agree with. It is nice to know that there are Muslims out there that have some common sense.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

These are excellent points. If you get a response, expect counter-arguments to none of this. Instead you'll be called out for comparing driving a cab to having an aborition (with a healthy dose of condescention for good measure)! How dare you, sir!?

Meh, I can post with impunity, she's got me on her ignore list because I'm such a massive troll around here

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Meh, I can post with impunity, she's got me on her ignore list because I'm such a massive troll around here

She threatend to put me on her ignore list to because she thought...what was it?? Oh ya this "I think you are now on ignore, people like you just outrage me. Your blatent prejudices are anything but civilized or what living in North America is SUPPOSED to be about"

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Trying to fight for minority rights on a forum with the majority being from the Conservative heartland of Canada... I wonder why?!?!

I miss Calgary, but man, there are definately somethings about it I don't.

Well this isn't so much about being conservative or liberal, its just common sense. Anyone who knows me knows I am anything but conservative, yet I think your arguments are completely shortsighted. I think you are trying to take a position to be more liberal on the issue, even though its a pretty weak position to take, by anyone's standards. You have pretty much been schooled by everyone in this thread, righties and lefties alike.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Well this isn't so much about being conservative or liberal, its just common sense. Anyone who knows me knows I am anything but conservative, yet I think your arguments are completely shortsighted. I think you are trying to take a position to be more liberal on the issue, even though its a pretty weak position to take, by anyone's standards. You have pretty much been schooled by everyone in this thread, righties and lefties alike.

Hear hear, I'm pretty ultra-Liberal and I think its hogwash.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Hear hear, I'm pretty ultra-Liberal and I think its hogwash.

Agreed. To the same effect I posted the below, earlier:

A person who never believes in exceptions and blindly follows dogma without considering the particular situation is much more dangerous to a free society that a person who believes that rules can have exceptions. In fact there is a word for this: fundamentalist.

Were both people on the left side of the political specturm. The difference is I do not blindly follow what I think left-wing ideology preaches without evaluating a situation with common sense first.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

So you're saying drinking is an individual choice but religion isn't? People are just born Christians or Mulsims are they? Following a particular religion is a choice as well. You may be exposed to one religion more than another but you are free to choose to follow that religion or any other one you choose. Or not at all.

I would argue that if you grew up in a place like Iran, I would find it difficult to believe that if you were totally surrounded by muslims and the islamic faith, you would even contemplate another religion.

So I think that some people are a victim of circumstance where they are surrounded by a religion from birth (like many others) and know of only one way. Its more than a religion to some, its their culture. Something they don't usually choose in the first place, nor do they choose to change.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

For someone that calls me out as being insulting, you sure certainly lace your posts with condescention. My guess is thats why you dogpiled in these threads. Everytime I've seen your posts in a political thread you always talk down to those your opponents with a smug superiority..

Two personal comments. Why don't you stop muddying debate with superficial crap and talk about the topic at hand? No... but I'm the one that argues like a neo-con... riiiiiiiiiiight.

I'm getting "dogpiled" because I honestly think that people have a hard time granting the same rights to everyone, especially Muslims. Because under all your cloudyness of personal attacks the real issue at hand is simple: why can't Muslims follow their beliefs and drive a cab? Why should they be forced not to be a cab driver (where they seem to always be in shortness of) when there is a simple way that they can follow their religion and drive a cab that will not, as I have explained many, many times, affect anybody but those who have a problem levelling off the playing field for Muslims. THIS is the issue, and maybe I am talking with a "smug superiority" because I feel as though if you can pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't, I am superior morally to you.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Ooh, the all powerful dictionary argument. So the cabbies are basing their opinions on individual merits of their customers, are they? There are more forms of discrimination that just religious and racial despite what the dictionary says.... .

Right, the dictionary is wrong, and you are right. You use the term "discriminate" in the wrong context so therefor the dictionary is wrong, not you...

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

So you're saying drinking is an individual choice but religion isn't? People are just born Christians or Mulsims are they? Following a particular religion is a choice as well. You may be exposed to one religion more than another but you are free to choose to follow that religion or any other one you choose. Or not at all..

Choosing a religion and choosing to drink alcohol are not even close to being on the same playing field - hell, they're different sports. Once you are a certain religion, it rarely if ever changes and you are that religion every single day of your life - not just on weekends and when you're with your friends. Drinking alcohol is an action, being a Muslim is an identity. Maybe this is why you're having such a hard time with this simple concept, which you have not addressed. You can not discriminate against a person because of their religion - such as not hiring a Muslim cab driver, or purposely making it more difficult for someone BECAUSE they are Muslim. You can't argue that, that's the law. You can't discriminate against people who drink alcohol. period. Because that is an action and you can judge people based on their actions - that is the law.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You are being a hypocrite, am I not supposed to point it out to spare your feelings?.

Stick to the topic at hand. Trust me, it takes a lot more than your childish name-calling to hurt my feelings.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Uh-oh, what's this? A personal attack? In a post where you counted all my personal attacks against you and called me out on it? There's a word for this, but I can't quite recall what it is.... I think it might start with "hypo" and end with "crite", but I am not sure. .

And there is a word for making a personal attack on me, while crying about me making a statement about you, while calling me a hypocrite... I can't remember what it is, I would look in the dictionary for it but the dictionary is not "always right"... ( ) I think it starts with "ass" and ends with "clown"...

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

There are plently of Christians in this world that do believe homosexuality is a choice. So should they be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals based on their religion? That is my point..

Nope, because it is illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation. For the tenth time. It is not illegal to discriminate on actions.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You were comparing them to the exact same extent as I was comparing homosexuals to people who drink alcohol..

No I wasn't, you are jumping a variable. Here, I'll.. talk.. really.. slow.. I compared Christians (religion) and murderers (sin) to Muslims (religion) and alcohol (sin). You compared homsexuals (discrimination) to people who consume alcohol (non-discrimatory).

Again, jumping from one "equation" to the other does not mean they are equal.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I said you argued like a neo-con, I didn't say you were one. All I said you were was a hypocrite. And those other three things you bolded don't even come close to being personal attacks. But keep making things up and exaggerating to prove your point, at least its consistent with your strategy so far..

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. If you like getting personal, I suggest you find some friends.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I never claimed it was illegal for them to discriminate against their passengers? Did I say they should go to jail? What I am saying is religion cannot be used as a trump card to deny people a service when they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of society. You twist my words at every opportunity you get. And, again, thanks for the condescention with the Charter..

Okay, so religion can not be used as a trump card to deny people a service - but it can, and that's not me speaking, that's society. The catholic church will not marry gay couples. "Society" sees these homosexuals as doing nothing wrong, yet they can not marry gays because that is there religious beliefs. This is the same thing, but again, I think the reason why people have an easier time allowing the Catholic church to practice their religion but not Muslims is because of the negative stereotypes associated with Muslims in North America.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

You fairly easily offended it you find "you take things to the extreme" as an insult. The only insult there was drama queen, which I still stand by and subject the above quote as further proof of that. And "judge" was purposely used to relate back to your comments, but I suppose that is forbidden?.

Nothing to do with the topic...

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Of course you should not make people go against religious beliefs. I am a strong believer in this, and if you search my past posts you can see I agree with you on most issues (although I do have serious reservations about your arguing style). But I believe in a free society there are reasonable exceptions to every rule..

A reasonable exception in my mind, would be to allow Muslims to stay in line until an appropriate fare comes along, rather than putting them in an uphill battle and making them go to the back of the line risking the same thing repeatedly. To me, this is efficient and that way Muslims do not have to choose between their religion and feeding their families. If a cab driver consistantly has to go to the back of the line and wait for hours, you will be forcing them to go against their religious beliefs - something you are saying you are against.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

A person who never believes in exceptions and blindly follows dogma without considering the particular situation is much more dangerous to a free society that a person who believes that rules can have exceptions. In fact there is a word for this: fundamentalist..

Again, I really could care less what you think of me, please try to keep up with the topic at hand and respond to my points instead of throwing out personal attacks.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Were both people on the left side of the political specturm. The difference is I do not blindly follow what I think left-wing ideology preaches without evaluating a situation with common sense first..

Off topic.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Yes, I compared you to a clock and then reversed your own insult back on you. When you can welcome me to the 21st century but I cannot do it back, there is a word that fits the situation. Hypocrite. Ooops, another insult.....

Has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

No. But shouldn't his religion be protected under the Charter? On the other side of the same coin, do you think this man you saw on tv should represent the entire Christian faith?.

Yes, his religion should be protected under the charter.

Of corse the individuals I saw on tv should not represent the entire Christian faith, I mentioned them to illistrate that not every Christian (although there are undoubtedly some) do not blatently interact with homosexuals.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Condescention, huh? You're clearly the Queen of that..

Off topic.

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

As for the rest of the post, I don't have time to go through it point by point at the moment as I have to leave now, but its simply more of the same re-iterated over and over that hasn't already been mentioned above, so I'll leave it here for now.

Off topic.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I would argue that if you grew up in a place like Iran, I would find it difficult to believe that if you were totally surrounded by muslims and the islamic faith, you would even contemplate another religion.

So I think that some people are a victim of circumstance where they are surrounded by a religion from birth (like many others) and know of only one way. Its more than a religion to some, its their culture. Something they don't usually choose in the first place, nor do they choose to change.

So what??? It is still a choice. RMS was arguing that you can't help what race you are. But you can choose what religion. No one is saying you have to change your religion either....just respect others....they are free to practce the religion themselves......driving someone in their vehicle is not against their religion...unless they have a very extreme view of it.

[Shazam]

Know what? Let the baby have its bottle. And then everybody can start boycotting those cabbies, whether or not they're carrying alcohol. I'd like to see how well that'll go over.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Know what? Let the baby have its bottle. And then everybody can start boycotting those cabbies, whether or not they're carrying alcohol. I'd like to see how well that'll go over.

No, obviously the easier answer is to set up different ques at the airport based on your religion, religious apartheid = free society!

[jolinar of malkshor]

I am done discussing this topic with RMS. For some reason he/she? cannot get it thru their skull that the Cabbies are the ones forcing their beliefs on others....not the other way around. I am just very relieved that almost all the people that have posted on this site have some COMMON SENSE. Thank goodness.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

I feel the same way!!

These are excellent points. If you get a response, expect counter-arguments to none of this. Instead you'll be called out for comparing driving a cab to having an aborition (with a healthy dose of condescention for good measure)! How dare you, sir!?

You just had to go ahead and quote him, didn't you.

*sigh*


Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon
still, this is ridiculous. I can't believe Muslim cab drivers should get special priveliges because they won't pick up legitimate fares. As far as I'm concerned its the same as a Catholic working at an abortion clinic; if you can't handle the job due to your religion, don't take it. Its not like its 'be a cab driver or be nothing'... What's next, separate places on buses so that each religion doesn't have to tolerate violations by people of other/non religions? Like I said before, sounds like religious apartheid to me. Keep that crap in the privacy of your own home.

Again, this is nothing like a Catholic working at an abortion clinic because there would be no way of respecting the Catholic's religious beliefs at all in that situation. However, in this completely different situation, there is a way that Muslims can be a cab driver AND practice their religious beliefs without any kind of repercussion whatsoever.

Jeez, talk about taking the extreme ends. Seperate places on buses? Religious apartheid? Did you even read the article or are you just adding your two cents because you have no one in real life to criticize? We're talking about a line-up of cabs that would continue as usual. If the next passenger has alcohol, then the next non-Muslim in line gets that fair - benefitting both that cab driver and the person who needs a cab. Now, since in the article that you neglected to read, it said these cabs usually wait up to three hours until they get a fare. You're telling me that instead of allowing the Muslim to stay at the front of the line (where he/she has waited for, and would not have any influence on cabs behind him either than maybe allowing them to go ahead of him/her) that the cab driver should go to the back of the line and wait for another three hours, hoping that the next fare is appropriate?

That... is... dumb. But, to be expected from you.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

You're telling me that instead of allowing the Muslim to stay at the front of the line (where he/she has waited for, and would not have any influence on cabs behind him either than maybe allowing them to go ahead of him/her) that the cab driver should go to the back of the line and wait for another three hours, hoping that the next fare is appropriate?

That... is... dumb. But, to be expected from you.

YES....or......they can take the fair and respect the fact that people in North America are allowed by law to trasport liquor to and fro.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

No, obviously the easier answer is to set up different ques at the airport based on your religion, religious apartheid = free society!

You're a pretty smart guy Agamemnon. Do you think this action, in the grand scale of Things That Matter, is really all that important?

If cabbies are waiting three hours for a fare, that tells me there's a lot more cabs than there are customers over there. Looks like the only people being screwed here are those silly Muslims.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So what??? It is still a choice. RMS was arguing that you can't help what race you are. But you can choose what religion. No one is saying you have to change your religion either....just respect others....they are free to practce the religion themselves......driving someone in their vehicle is not against their religion...unless they have a very extreme view of it.

Is it really a choice for, say for example, Muslims in Iran? I understand the question, I just don't think its that socially acceptable to tell your devout muslim family that your converting to judaism.

Yeah, they may "technically" be free to do so, but realistically, they dont.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You're a pretty smart guy Agamemnon. Do you think this action, in the grand scale of Things That Matter, is really all that important?

If cabbies are waiting three hours for a fare, that tells me there's a lot more cabs than there are customers over there. Looks like the only being screwed here are those silly Muslims.

Regardless if it is small in the GRAND SCALE of things. It's called a slippery slope. Already they can refuse blind people....blind people for hell sakes. It has to stop or it will just continue on.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

Agreed. To the same effect I posted the below, earlier:

A person who never believes in exceptions and blindly follows dogma without considering the particular situation is much more dangerous to a free society that a person who believes that rules can have exceptions. In fact there is a word for this: fundamentalist.

Were both people on the left side of the political specturm. The difference is I do not blindly follow what I think left-wing ideology preaches without evaluating a situation with common sense first.

BAH! Quit quoting him!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Again, if you want to discuss the topic, awesome. If you want to discuss me, get a life.

If you think I'm "blindly" following some sort of dogma, the only dogma I am "blindly" following is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Making these cab-drivers go all the way to the back of the line, is inefficent, to say the very least. Why not make the lives of these drivers easier when it will not affect anyone but those who believe these people do not have the same rights as everyone else to practise their religion.

Have you ever been in a working situation where your morals have been tested? So, how much money are your morals worth to you exactly?

This is a good time to bring Agamemnon into the equation:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon
Hear hear, I'm pretty ultra-Liberal and I think its hogwash.

Here we have a self-proclaimed "ultra-Liberal". Has been quoted many a time to be a supporter of the green party. Yet, what does "ultra-Liberal" Agamemnon do for a living? Petroleum Land Administrator. Obviously, his morals are a lot cheaper than the Muslim cab-drivers.

Please, for love of God, stop quoting him.