No they aren't.

Yes, they are - because again, they've devoted an entire section of the article to detail how this is a practice found in many ~different~ religions and cultures.

And if the man himself said it, why were you questioning it in your last post?

Um...yes they are. If you choose to be blind to the Mail's glaringly obvious editorial stance and agenda and instances in which they so conveniently make use of stories which can further it, that's your problem. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in fact it's highly evident in most articles they write. You only have to exercise a little bit of media content analysis to see it.

Because I'd only read the section which mentioned cultural practices. Cultural does not always equate to religious.

They've explained what culture this man is referring to when saying he doesn't use toilet paper. The same section which mentions the person having to wash the left hand which they use to use to wash with. Obviously indicating this particular man wasn't really very hygienic no matter his culture.

Still wasn't stating or implying that they are "all" unhygienic swines.

You're the one apparently blind.

Using your view of the publication as a whole to make things up about this specific article which simply is not there.

Of course it doesn't, the reason I brought religion into the equation is because the Mail did in the article - my entire point. In fact, it should be pointed out that there's as yet no evidence to suggest this man is of any faith - I've tried to research several articles but none of them specify whether he does or doesn't, so the Mail's decision to devote an entire section entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' is really quite unnecessary, no?

I am aware of the content of that section once you've read between the lines, but that subtitle is totally inflammatory, why not entitle it 'How Mr Chowdhury can't use culture as an excuse - here's how it works:' or words to that effect? Because they're trying to get their readers to go 'ewwww! So this is what they're all doing! They need to learn how to live like us!'.

Newspapers do not explicitly say things like that, they imply them and try to incite their readers to pick up on discreet messages in a bid to further their particular agenda. Just because it doesn't actually say 'this is yet another example of how these different religions and cultures are so disgusting and not like us', doesn't mean the meaning isn't there. All it takes is a little bit of objectivity and trying to assess how this story can be used to further a title's often well known editorial stance.

My view of the publication? You aren't serious, right? The Daily Mail is a well known fervent defender of British culture and its traditional, more conservative values. It is also not a huge fan of immigration, Islam or other non-Christian religions for that matter. This is not something I'm making up - it's well documented. Of course other titles have either similar or differing agendas - I'm not trying to deny that, supply me with an article from The Mirror or The Guardian and I'll show you how they're trying to push an anti-Tory, progressive, liberal agenda. I'm not being biased, just being objective. I am not passing judgement on the Mail's attempts at using this story to further their cause (though I do obviously have my opinions on it), merely pointing out that's what they're doing - because they are.

No, because the man himself said the reason he used the bottle was for a cultural reason.

Yes for a CULTURAL reason, which, as you said, is different from a religious reason. So if he didn't specify he's of any faith, why the inclusion of two religions in the subtitle and a whole section devoted to it?

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

Err... I can only assume that anyone who doesn't realise that this is the Mail "having a dig" at non-native-British ethnicities is being willfully blind.

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable? :joker:

:joker:

:joker:

I thought not reading the Mail was something everyone should aspire to :laugh:

Whether the story is untrue, partially true, or entirely true has absolutely no bearing on the paper's motivations for posting it. Entirely irrelevant to their agenda.

So therefore irrelevant to this thread and the situation we're discussing.

According to...?

Ahh, TiBB, where an article is more controversial than someone using their hand to wipe a ****.

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article. :hee:

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? :shrug: I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis :fist:.

You yourself said it was irrelevant.

Pointing out the rather obvious political leanings of the Daily Mail isn't really adding anything new to the thread about this particular story.

:joker:

But the Daily Mail has an agenda!!! :rant:

The sky is blue!!!! :rant: