The Student Room Group

Muslim taxi driver refuses disabled passenger because of guide dog

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Kryptonian
Umm maybe because he specifically said because 'it was against his religion'. Reading the article would be a good start.

Clearly other muslim posters have said that this was not the case. So im sorrry to say that your attempt at defaming the religion has failed.

And no im not a pleb like you to be reading the daily mail.
Original post by datboii
Clearly other muslim posters have said that this was not the case. So im sorrry to say that your attempt at defaming the religion has failed.

And no im not a pleb like you to be reading the daily mail.


At least watch the video.
Original post by datboii
Clearly other muslim posters have said that this was not the case. So im sorrry to say that your attempt at defaming the religion has failed.

And no im not a pleb like you to be reading the daily mail.


There is no doubt the driver believed it was against his religion. He was, therefore, clearly exposed as an unpleasant hypocrite who would wilfully break the law and leave a blind man standing on the pavement for reasons of his beliefs.
Reply 43
Avatar for Sfhkh
Sfhkh
4
Muslims have dogs like fouseytube so why are you bringing up dogs and Muslims 0_o
Reply 44
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Good bloke
There is no doubt the driver believed it was against his religion. He was, therefore, clearly exposed as an unpleasant hypocrite who would wilfully break the law and leave a blind man standing on the pavement for reasons of his beliefs.


Of course what he did was disgusting. However even if he believed it was against his religion, the truth is that it isnt. So for all we know he is simply using his religion, knowing that the blind man wont know anything about islam, to avoid getting a dog in his car.

Is that so difficult or shall we continue defaming the religion?
Original post by datboii
shall we continue defaming the religion?


No matter how you would like to dress it up, you cannot defame what is known to be the specious fabrication, by a cunning mediaeval warlord, of a devious mechanism to control the behaviour of his superstitious and credulous people in the interests of political aims and violent conquest.
Reply 46
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Good bloke
No matter how you would like to dress it up, you cannot defame what is known to be the specious fabrication, by a cunning mediaeval warlord, of a devious mechanism to control the behaviour of his superstitious and credulous people in the interests of political aims and violent conquest.


edgy generic comment about religion is edgy
Original post by datboii
edgy generic comment about religion is edgy


Factual specific statement about superstition is reasonable.
Reply 48
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Good bloke
Factual specific statement about superstition is reasonable.


Not sure how that is relevant when we got a man who doesnt want a dog in his car so he falsely uses religion as leverage.

Atheists are like vegans nowadays but thats none of my business
Original post by datboii
Not sure how that is relevant when we got a man who doesnt want a dog in his car so he falsely uses religion as leverage.


I don't think it was false. It was mistaken. The religion did a bad job of indoctrinating him into its obligations. To that extent, the religion is to blame. It is also to blame for not teaching him some basic humanity and morality, and how to spot situations when the law of the land is more important than the religion.
Reply 50
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Good bloke
I don't think it was false. It was mistaken. The religion did a bad job of indoctrinating him into its obligations. To that extent, the religion is to blame. It is also to blame for not teaching him some basic humanity and morality, and how to spot situations when the law of the land is more important than the religion.

You assume too much and that's what has rendered your argument null. Too many fallacies.
Original post by datboii
You assume too much and that's what has rendered your argument null. Too many fallacies.


Surely you can provide a better response than that?
Reply 52
Avatar for datboii
datboii
1
Original post by Good bloke
Surely you can provide a better response than that?


It would take far too long for me to pick your argument apart and expose its fallacies. Im sure other posters can see it anyway.

You however are a frequent Islamophobe who only seems to want to defame the religion at hand. I only come here to engage in a pragmatic conversation with an intellect. You do not fit my requirements.

Farewell.
Reply 53
Avatar for Kryptonian
Kryptonian
OP
9
Original post by datboii
Clearly other muslim posters have said that this was not the case. So im sorrry to say that your attempt at defaming the religion has failed.

And no im not a pleb like you to be reading the daily mail.


Why would I defame it? I asked a reasonable question expecting a reasonable answer. If your knowledge of Islam is weak then you need not comment on the matter. Surely telling lies in your defense is worse. I expected a response as to whether it was indeed against the religion or whether this man had assumed it to be the case, which was completely reasonable, and you clearly struggled to comprehend that.

The use of a derogatory term such as 'pleb' does not help your argument, in fact it shows you find youself in a weaker position. To satisfy your ego here is another source with the same article:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/686230/muslim-taxi-driver-blind-guide-dog-refuse
and here's one more...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-muslim-taxi-driver-refuse-8350095

I do not expect a response as I do not/did not intend to argue about this.
Original post by Good bloke
Sees brainless TSR member refuse to believe story (backed up by video taken by victim) on the grounds it is reported by a newspaper that it is fashionable to insult, posts link to another source telling identical story with same evidence.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-muslim-taxi-driver-refuse-8350095

Waits for brainless person's reaction to exposure of his idiocy.


Both of these sources, by the way, are the same - using Muslim in the title as if to act to fuel the already huge problem of Islamophobia.

"Oh look, another Muslim doing something wrong"

It was the person. That may have been his reasoning, but it's still the person, not the religion.
Same principle as in the caricature down below.



Original post by Alexion
Both of these sources, by the way, are the same - using Muslim in the title as if to act to fuel the already huge problem of Islamophobia.


Dear Alexion, Im not really sure how its possible to not realise this in 2016, but "Islamophobia" is defined as the irrational fear of muslims or islamic ideologies. Do you notice something here Alexion? Could it possibly be that Islamophobia can not be an actual thing because it implies an irrational fear? But the "fear" of a racist jew-hating, sexist and fascist ideology can hardly be considered irrational in western countries can it? Hmmm.... nah...... that cant be........ thats way too far fetched.....

So I'd think more carefully next time you throw the word islamophobia around, and maybe use common sense.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Galaxie501
Dear Alexion, Im not really sure how its possible to not realise this in 2016, but "Islamophobia" is defined as the irrational fear of muslims or islamic ideologies. Do you notice something here Alexion? Could it possibly be that Islamophobia can not be an actual thing because it implies an irrational fear? But the "fear" of a racist jew-hating, sexist and fascist ideology can hardly be considered irrational in western countries can it? Hmmm.... nah...... that cant be........ thats way too far fetched.....

So I'd think more carefully next time you throw the word islamophobia around, and maybe use common sense.


hmm ok if u say so
Original post by Alexion
hmm ok if u say so


Ah, the standard regressive response when they hit a dead end.

Before I forget, soz for the snarkiness on my part.
Original post by Alexion
Both of these sources, by the way, are the same - using Muslim in the title as if to act to fuel the already huge problem of Islamophobia.

"Oh look, another Muslim doing something wrong"

It was the person. That may have been his reasoning, but it's still the person, not the religion.


In this case the papers used Moslem and meant that individual Moslem who was behaving as he did (rather nastily, uncompassionately, illegally and irresponsibly) because of what he thought his religion told him to do. I cannot see anything unreasonable in the headlines or the stories.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you