Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    You clearly have lost the plot by comparing a normal practicing Muslim to a Nazi. I am not going down the route of explaining to you the difference between a normal practicing Muslim and an extremist (or terrorist). [The second being the what you could compare to a Nazi].
    how about comparing a normal practicing Muslim to an average Communist ?

    most communists are by now just normal people, not terrorists

    both Muslims and Communists have ideas for social reform and a social/political agenda to which they are quite committed (some of them are in fact animated by very high ideals)

    let us assume that I am Chinese and that part of my family was killed during the Cultural revolution : would I be justified in denying entrance to my restaurant to people bearing Communist pins or symbols on hats, berets etc ?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    So you are saying we should succumb to blackmail? Don't dare speak up or else someone will blow themselves up.

    That's a really weak argument. One that alevelstresss has been spouting for some time now.
    Blackmail? Are you alright in the head? You're probably one of those right wing nut jobs who class these extremists as all the Muslims in the world. I have many Muslim friends and i assure you none of them wants to harm me or force their religion on me. They are normal people. Get off your high horse as you sound extremely ignorant.

    So if someone blows themselves up and says they do it for Islam my Muslim friends are to be blamed? Hell no, where is the logic in that? I truly do not understand this generations hate for Muslims, it's like you people just NEED something to hate on otherwise your pathetic boring lives are worthless. If it wasn't Muslims i'm 100% sure you would be hating on another minority that's just how you people are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Of course I didn't write it because it makes me "look right" (I suppose this means it looks well argued?) But maybe if it makes me "look right" I might well be right, and you might be wrong. It is up to you to mount a coherent counter-argument rather than impotently carping about how I insulted you. Get on with the job in hand and argue back. And make it a reasoned argument, try not to go bringing your precious feeeeeelings into it this time.



    If you are basing your opinion of Islam on a few people talking on an online forum then heaven knows what we're going to do with you. By the way, online discourses on all sides of politics are always more radical than in real life because if you're enough of a loser to spend that much time online you have not properly engaged with mainstream society, and because the medium lends itself to saying the most outrageous things.



    No, I don't think of myself as a fighter for social justice, especially not if by that you mean a Social Justice Warrior type. I abhor them. I argue for the rule of law and for tolerance, more individualist Liberal than identity politics Labour. UKIP, AfD etc are, by the way, just as invested in identity politics as Labour-type parties, it's just that they have chosen the hitherto ignored white working class identity to champion. They are both as contemptible, and regressive, as each other and both responsible for fomenting ethnic, religious divisions.
    I love the people that cry "prove it" in an online discussion. Especially after they came up with ******** like "a businesses sole consideration should be economics". Do you even understand what that means? And maybe it is economic to say, well I know a lot of people in this area that use my restaurants don't like Muslims. If I allow Muslims in they might stay away. Better to lose out on the smaller group than the larger group. The type of CSR activity a business engages in is economics, too? The type of advertisement it uses is purely economical? As is the political party they may sponsor/endorse? Apple refusing to help the FBI is economical? I mean there is nothing to prove here, because your statement was complete nonsense and if anything it is up to you to "prove it".

    My feelings aren't hurt, thanks for your concern. I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy. And it is not that it lends itself to the most outrageous things, it is more that it lends itself to people saying what they really think.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I am annoyed by those comparing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis with that of Muslims today.

    In the 19th century, Jews tried to conceal their identity and integrate as much as possible. They changed their names, left the ghettos to mix with other people, also marrying them, wore plain clothes, many also left their religion for Christianity or atheism, etc. This visual "disparition" of the Jews combined with their amazing economic and intellectual success led to conspiracy theories about the "Jewish plot". The Nazis wanted to reverse all the progress they had done by making them visible again: they send them back in the ghettos, forbade mixed marriage, forced them to wear a yellow David star, labelled their businesses as "Jewish", etc.

    Nowadays, many Muslims chose to differentiate themselves from the rest of society by wearing specific clothes in all occasions, loudly claim a specific diet, live in specific neighbourhoods, reject mixed marriages, brand all their businesses as "halal", ostracise converts, etc.

    The rest of society would like them to adopt the same attitude as the Jews in the 19th century, but they unfortunately choose to segregate themselves!

    This attitude is the real vector of division, don't put the blame on people that don't accept that.
    Are you for real? I have lived in a Jewish community here in London before and they have their own shops, their own schools and they only speak to themselves. They have every right to do this. However when Muslims want to do the same you berate them and hate on them. Why is that?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    And the cafe/restaurant owner just needs one guest saying the hijabs made them feel uncomfortable.
    Maybe so, the point is it's still unlawful to discriminate. And a customer's feeeeeelings shouldn't come into it. With the club example, excuses are based on clear procedural rules about health and safety (too many people) or judgements explicitly trusted to the bouncer on something which may make that person a tricky customer (too drunk). No feelings here.


    Which brings me to my next point. I do agree that it is completely ridiculous to have a ban on all Muslims (not least because it's infeasible). But someone wearing a symbol their ideology, one should not be forced to accommodate them if you find that ideology hateful.
    The hijab isn't a symbol of any ideology other than in your head. It's simply an item of cultural dress. Are jeans and a T-shirt a symbol of Western secular liberal democratic ideology?

    On a different note, in Britain you call it Season's Greetings, you had Xmas decoration taken from some hospitals because it offended Muslims. Why is the entire society so PC regarding them and yet they don't have to PC towards us?
    No, we don't call it Season's Greetings, as you can verify by having a look at any display of greetings cards in the run-up to Christmas. It's in America where Season's Greetings is more ubiquitous, because they have a greater diversity of religions and cultures there, most of whom have some sort of winter festival. This is probably a market-based decision rather than something done because it "offends Muslims" (of which the US has comparatively few).

    The stories about Season's Greetings or Xmas decorations being taken down are usually made up out of nothing by the tabloid press, similar to "kids have to wear goggles to play conkers now" or "claimant gets £50,000 a year in housing benefit". If there is any truth at all in these kinds of stories they are usually recycled from one small, isolated incident, and usually the idea that the decision was made because of Muslims (or whatever group requires demonising that day) is completely unsupported by the facts and has been made up by the newspaper.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    Blackmail? Are you alright in the head? You're probably one of those right wing nut jobs who class these extremists as all the Muslims in the world. I have many Muslim friends and i assure you none of them wants to harm me or force their religion on me. They are normal people. Get off your high horse as you sound extremely ignorant.

    So if someone blows themselves up and says they do it for Islam my Muslim friends are to be blamed? Hell no, where is the logic in that? I truly do not understand this generations hate for Muslims, it's like you people just NEED something to hate on otherwise your pathetic boring lives are worthless. If it wasn't Muslims i'm 100% sure you would be hating on another minority that's just how you people are.
    "Don't antagonize Muslims or else you get more extremists" - not my argument but one multiple islamopologists have used in this and other threads.

    Sounds a lot like "don't do X or else".

    Sounds a lot like blackmail.

    And fine, interesting point beneath all that rage. So why do you think it is Muslims, and not any other group? Blacks represent the most criminals, why not them? Jews are always a good target. Actually as a slight counter to your point it's not just Muslims that get the blame, it's immigrants, too. But yes, why do you think it is this particular group at this time? Is it purely coincidental?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Most people in this thread did.

    You like everyone of those people displayed a lack of knowledge on what is racism. Not to mention every muppet on here who thinks the gay/lesbian scenario is the same.
    Technically, you can choose to be in a certain relationship. So a shop owner can refuse service to a gay couple but not gay individuals.

    Would this be discrimination?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    "Don't antagonize Muslims or else you get more extremists" - not my argument but one multiple islamopologists have used in this and other threads.

    Sounds a lot like "don't do X or else".

    Sounds a lot like blackmail.

    And fine, interesting point beneath all that rage. So why do you think it is Muslims, and not any other group? Blacks represent the most criminals, why not them? Jews are always a good target. Actually as a slight counter to your point it's not just Muslims that get the blame, it's immigrants, too. But yes, why do you think it is this particular group at this time? Is it purely coincidental?
    More like don't antagonise innocent people who have done nothing and make them feel bad for something they have no part of.

    As for your last paragraph it sums up the person that you are. I'm done trying talking sense into you as you just wont understand reason and what you're doing is not helping anybody in anyway shape of form. Do try to tell him how banning Muslims from a restaurant will help anyone i would like to hear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Maybe so, the point is it's still unlawful to discriminate. And a customer's feeeeeelings shouldn't come into it. With the club example, excuses are based on clear procedural rules about health and safety (too many people) or judgements explicitly trusted to the bouncer on something which may make that person a tricky customer (too drunk). No feelings here.




    The hijab isn't a symbol of any ideology other than in your head. It's simply an item of cultural dress. Are jeans and a T-shirt a symbol of Western secular liberal democratic ideology?



    No, we don't call it Season's Greetings, as you can verify by having a look at any display of greetings cards in the run-up to Christmas. It's in America where Season's Greetings is more ubiquitous, because they have a greater diversity of religions and cultures there, most of whom have some sort of winter festival. This is probably a market-based decision rather than something done because it "offends Muslims" (of which the US has comparatively few).

    The stories about Season's Greetings or Xmas decorations being taken down are usually made up out of nothing by the tabloid press, similar to "kids have to wear goggles to play conkers now" or "claimant gets £50,000 a year in housing benefit". If there is any truth at all in these kinds of stories they are usually recycled from one small, isolated incident, and usually the idea that the decision was made because of Muslims (or whatever group requires demonising that day) is completely unsupported by the facts and has been made up by the newspaper.
    The hijab isn't a symbol? I mean you may even have a point, some will argue it's not compulsory at all. Some will argue it is. But at the end of the day, it's a culture born out of the religious belief that women are sex objects and need to cover up to stay "modest".

    Now. Suppose I wanted a nanny for my kids. And a woman turned up in that. Would I be breaking the law in not hiring her? I mean forget that it would be rather easy to say the one I found was "better" or "cheaper", but suppose that was my reason. Would I break the law? Next, do you think I should have the moral right to say I do not want such a woman with such beliefs to influence my children (fyi I would not want a religious nanny period)?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    More like don't antagonise innocent people who have done nothing and make them feel bad for something they have no part of.

    As for your last paragraph it sums up the person that you are. I'm done trying talking sense into you as you just wont understand reason and what you're doing is not helping anybody in anyway shape of form. Do try to tell him how banning Muslims from a restaurant will help anyone i would like to hear.
    So when I ask you to get to the bottom of things, you insult me and stop the debate, because you have no real argument left?

    Suppose I really am a scumbag. Wouldn't you think it's interested or even vital to learn what made me pick Muslims to blame rather than any other group?Because if you learnt that you might be able to address the issue and stop others becoming like me?
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Technically, you can choose to be in a certain relationship. So a shop owner can refuse service to a gay couple but not gay individuals.

    Would this be discrimination?
    They arent allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc. So no he couldnt refuse to serve a gay couple because they were gay.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markova21)
    If this man was truly racist and an Islamophobe he would have banned all Muslims from his premises years ago. We don't know his background. He might have lost a relative or friend in Nice that day, or somewhere else where there was a terrorist attack. He seems to be reacting in an emotional way,as he said, to recent terrorist attacks in France. It affects people differently. I'm sure if there is never another terrorist attack in France again then in time his opinions will become moderate again. It's human nature to lash out and pick someone to blame when terrible things happen. My grandmother and her generation hated all Germans for many years after WW2 had ended. But eventually people are able to put things behind them and move on. Again, if he has never in the past banned Muslims then he isn't truly racist. Or else it would have been there always.
    If anything his restaurant is save from terrorists and hardly can happen there.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeus007)
    Are you for real? I have lived in a Jewish community here in London before and they have their own shops, their own schools and they only speak to themselves. They have every right to do this. However when Muslims want to do the same you berate them and hate on them. Why is that?
    I was speaking to the situation in Germany during Nazism. After WWII, some Jews thought that assimilation was pointless as they would always be targeted anyway and encouraged a strict separation from society.

    I am equally critical of the Jews and Muslims that live this way, with the minor exception that the former are not proselytic and that no terrorist activity can be linked to them. I would gladly see their religious schools closed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And this is why I ****ing hate this site, it's full of degenerate liberals/leftists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    They arent allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc. So no he couldnt refuse to serve a gay couple because they were gay.
    No my point was, inhuman said being gay is not comparable to being Muslim since only one is a choice. I think maybe he said this means only the former can't be discriminated against (could be wrong).

    But you can choose to be in a gay relationship. Refusing a gay couple would be similar to refusing a Muslim.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamDrake)
    And this is why I ****ing hate this site, it's full of degenerate liberals/leftists.
    Its people who label others as 'degenerate' for having a different opinion which makes the world a worse place.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by inhuman)
    The hijab isn't a symbol? I mean you may even have a point, some will argue it's not compulsory at all. Some will argue it is. But at the end of the day, it's a culture born out of the religious belief that women are sex objects and need to cover up to stay "modest".

    Now. Suppose I wanted a nanny for my kids. And a woman turned up in that. Would I be breaking the law in not hiring her? I mean forget that it would be rather easy to say the one I found was "better" or "cheaper", but suppose that was my reason. Would I break the law? Next, do you think I should have the moral right to say I do not want such a woman with such beliefs to influence my children (fyi I would not want a religious nanny period)?
    Hiring a nanny would be a private matter, so you could refuse to hire her and you wouldnt be breaking the law.

    If you were a business which hired out nannies and you were recruiting nannies, but you refused based on her wearing a hijab then yes you could have a claim brought against you under equality laws for discrimination.

    Yes it would be easy to say that it was becayse someone else was better, but the equality act places the burden on the employer to prove they werent discriminating. It wou be up to the court to decide who tbhey believed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    They arent allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity etc. So no he couldnt refuse to serve a gay couple because they were gay.
    You weren't against discrimination of non-Muslims and men for the burkini-day at the French aquatic park:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4238678
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    how about comparing a normal practicing Muslim to an average Communist ?

    most communists are by now just normal people, not terrorists

    both Muslims and Communists have ideas for social reform and a social/political agenda to which they are quite committed (some of them are in fact animated by very high ideals)

    let us assume that I am Chinese and that part of my family was killed during the Cultural revolution : would I be justified in denying entrance to my restaurant to people bearing Communist pins or symbols on hats, berets etc ?
    Under English law certainly, because for one thing political uniforms are banned in this country for exactly this kind of reason; and for another, political affiliation is not a protected characteristic.

    The thing about Islam which allows you to draw this comparison is that it happens in the modern era to be the glue for a coherent Islamist political movement.

    But there is far more to Islam than that: it's also a religion and associated with many cultural practices, and it is on these grounds that it's unlawful to discriminate against Muslims.

    Any court of law or reasonable observer would struggle to class Muslim cultural dress such as the hijab or even the Wahhabist inspired burqa as political uniform rather than cultural dress. An ISIS flag, by contrast, would be a political banner.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Josb)
    You weren't against discrimination of non-Muslims and men for the burkini-day at the French aquatic park:

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=4238678
    You fail to comprehend the difference between a private event and a business open to the public.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.