It’s about time we rose up and slaughtered them all

the WHO’s experts have found time to ban disease names like German measles – because names which single out whole countries could be offensive. …..Shld avoid naming diseases w/ geo locations, species of animal or food, cultural, population, industry, occupational references…..Legionnaire’s disease, Cooks syndrome and Psoriasis butchers disease are also highlighted as examples of naming which could cause offence to entire professions. …..Japanese encephalitis, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Rift Valley fever are all examples of diseases which would have received different names under the proposals.

These are the people we pay for from our taxes to deal with things like ebola. And this is what they do instead, argue over whether different strains of flu should be identified as swine or avian. when the reason we do so is because they incubate and evolve in those species.

A pox* on them all and start building the gallows.

*We English might hope they all get the French pox, the French would offer the Italian pox, the Italians the Spanish. They all being the same disease of course.

34 comments on “It’s about time we rose up and slaughtered them all

  1. The word “Jock” should be banned: some Scots find it “offensive”.

    Plus parliament should be banned: politicians spend half their time there making “offensive” remarks about each other.

  2. I seem to recall that towards the end of last year the WHO were predicting 10,000 a week would die of Ebola. I don’t think the actual figures were quite on that scale.

  3. “Cooks syndrome”. I’m assuming this was named after someone named “Cook”, rather than after the ‘profession’ called ‘cook’.

    Have identity politics so infested the world that they believe ‘cooks’ are going to rise up as a mass because they misunderstood the name of a disease?

  4. The main article mentions ebola but doesn’t mention that must too be a no-no as it’s named after a river and the different strains named after where that particular outbreak was. Sounds like a sensible convention to me.

  5. The Telegraph have misreported this, presumably because they’re trying to compete with The Mail. Read the WHO’s actual statement and you see that they do not mention offensiveness at any point. Nor are they talking about any sort of ban.

    “In recent years, several new human infectious diseases have emerged. The use of names such as ‘swine flu’ and ‘Middle East Respiratory Syndrome’ has had unintended negative impacts by stigmatizing certain communities or economic sectors,” says Dr Keiji Fukuda, Assistant Director-General for Health Security, WHO. “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter to the people who are directly affected. We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have serious consequences for peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”

    They’re not talking about hypothetical offence; they’re talking about real-world consequences. The issue is not that a cook might find the name “Cook’s disease” offensive; it is that an ignorant population might think only cooks can catch it. Or that they can protect themselves by killing all the cooks.

    Do the British think only Germans can get German measles? No. Are there other populations in the world who might think that? Obviously, yes. The WHO have to operate with populations who believe this sort of thing:

    <blockquoteAt the height of the spate, police and government officials took out public service announcements on radio and TV urging people not to take the law into their hands over allegations of missing manhood. In some major cities, police sent out plainclothes detectives to patrol the streets and help rescue suspects under mob attack. That was how a woman was saved after a mob had placed a tire on her head, poured petrol on her and was about to set her ablaze.

    This year, instances of missing manhood have been reported as far away as Abuja, Niger and Zamfara states. A journalist, Saminu Ibrahim, narrowly escaped lynching in Gusau. As in every case, the suspect is accused of stealing a man’s penis for use in preparing voodoo that will bestow wealth and power on the kingpin who sent the suspect on the mission.

    This move is entirely sensible. It is about avoiding situations that can make epidemics worse or can give them nasty societal side effects. That’s well within the WHO’s remit.

  6. My apologies for the missing pointy bracket there. Here it is properly:

    The WHO have to operate with populations who believe this sort of thing:

    At the height of the spate, police and government officials took out public service announcements on radio and TV urging people not to take the law into their hands over allegations of missing manhood. In some major cities, police sent out plainclothes detectives to patrol the streets and help rescue suspects under mob attack. That was how a woman was saved after a mob had placed a tire on her head, poured petrol on her and was about to set her ablaze.

    This year, instances of missing manhood have been reported as far away as Abuja, Niger and Zamfara states. A journalist, Saminu Ibrahim, narrowly escaped lynching in Gusau. As in every case, the suspect is accused of stealing a man’s penis for use in preparing voodoo that will bestow wealth and power on the kingpin who sent the suspect on the mission.

    This move is entirely sensible. It is about avoiding situations that can make epidemics worse or can give them nasty societal side effects. That’s well within the WHO’s remit.

  7. Fascinating quote in The Mail:

    bacteriologist Professor Hugh Pennington … said: … ‘As for avoiding upsetting animals, that is a load of rubbish.’

    I strongly suspect that that was him telling The Mail that they were talking bollocks, and they’ve positioned the quote carefully to make it look like he’s attacking the WHO.

    I see that “causing offence” does appear once in the introduction of the full document, but it’s clear from context and from their other statements that this is far from their primary concern. Their six points of naming advice all revolve around accurate and succinct communication and have nothing to do with political correctness. The specific example they give of naming diseases after people is Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and I find it hard to believe they’re worried about widespread prejudice against that cruelly marginalised class of people called Creutzfeldt-Jakob. And there’s certainly nothing in there about upsetting animals. I mean, for fuck’s sake, how stupid would you need to be to believe the WHO had actually issued advice to prevent animals having their feelings hurt by name-calling?

  8. Hmm, made a couple of attempts at editing it, and there it is through now. Tim’s blog appears to be blocking comments containing links to the WHO’s site. How queer.

  9. Squander Two – “We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals.”

    It is true that bird flu causes animals to be slaughtered and of course foot and mouth was insane. But apart from that does anyone have any examples where this has happened? The only religious communities that suffer backlashes are Christian, and those aren’t exactly backlashes so much as lynchings.

    “They’re not talking about hypothetical offence; they’re talking about real-world consequences.”

    Where has this naming convention ever had a real world consequence? When was the last time a British person beat up a French person for giving us syphilis and the humble cockroach?

    “At the height of the spate, police and government officials took out public service announcements on radio and TV urging people not to take the law into their hands over allegations of missing manhood.”

    That is very interesting but unless you are claiming it was carried out by Germans enraged at rubella being named after them or by British people determined to stamp out African Penis Disease, what relevance does it have?

    How precisely does an insane superstition in Africa get linked to what British people call common diseases?

    “This move is entirely sensible. It is about avoiding situations that can make epidemics worse or can give them nasty societal side effects. That’s well within the WHO’s remit.”

    If it ever happened, you might be right. But as it hasn’t, you aren’t.

  10. > It is true that bird flu causes animals to be slaughtered and of course foot and mouth was insane. But apart from that does anyone have any examples where this has happened?

    Apart from examples where this has happened, does anyone have any examples where this has happened? Funnily enough, no.

    More seriously, the WHO say they do. Perhaps, if The Mail and The Telegraph had thought of doing some proper journalism and contacting them and asking them about it, we’d have some of those examples now. Instead of insane screeching about banning names so as not to hurt animals’ feelings.

    > If it ever happened, you might be right. But as it hasn’t, you aren’t.

    You’ve already given an example of it happening yourself.

    > How precisely does an insane superstition in Africa get linked to what British people call common diseases?

    Where did you get British from? You do know what the W in WHO stands for, right?

  11. Squander Two – “Apart from examples where this has happened, does anyone have any examples where this has happened? Funnily enough, no.”

    Yes, yes, most amusing. But some prats claiming it is happening is not the same as it actually happening. When did a German last get lynched in Britain because of rubella? So the WHO says they do. So f*cking what? The WHO says a lot of sh!t that isn’t true. They are the same type of social working w@nker that makes so much of British life a joy.

    Do you believe everything they say about passive smoking?

    “Perhaps, …. we’d have some of those examples now.”

    Or perhaps we would not. As the only example cited so far has to do with African penises and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. What we call Mad Cow Disease is not going to make Africans stop.

    “You’ve already given an example of it happening yourself.”

    Really? Where and when?

    “Where did you get British from? You do know what the W in WHO stands for, right?”

    The world does not speak English yet. We do. Mostly. They want to make us stop using common English words to stop Africans stealing each others d!cks. This is nuts. Why are you defending it?

  12. > When did a German last get lynched in Britain because of rubella? So the WHO says they do.

    No they don’t.

    > the only example cited so far has to do with African penises and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    That was an example from me, not the WHO, and it was quite clearly given as an example of the kind of irrationality which prevails in some cultures where the WHO operate, not as a direct example of this particular issue. As you know full well.

    > Really? Where and when?

    Here:

    > It is true that bird flu causes animals to be slaughtered

    I imagine you’re going to respond that that doesn’t count for some reason, but the unnecessary destruction of tons of a valuable food source in the middle of an epidemic in a poor country is quite a bad thing. So is the false sense of having dealt with the problem when you haven’t.

    > They want to make us stop using common English words

    No they don’t.

    > Why are you defending it?

    What’s to defend? Completely common-sense and frankly bland best practice advice for naming conventions given by the body who have responsibility for naming conventions. Big wow. The bit about political correctness: invented by The Mail. The bit about changing disease’s names so as not to upset people: invented by The Mail. The bit about changing disease’s names at all: invented by The Mail: it’s actually advice regarding the naming of newly discovered diseases. The bit about hurting animals’ feelings: invented by The Mail.

    Why are you defending their shitty journalism? Lord knows, there really is enough ridiculous political correctness in the world to get annoyed about, without inventing more.

  13. Squander Two – “That was an example from me, not the WHO, and it was quite clearly given as an example of the kind of irrationality which prevails in some cultures where the WHO operate, not as a direct example of this particular issue. As you know full well.”

    Actually your argument is so poor I do not know full well. I have no idea where you are coming from or what you are thinking. And, again, the irrationality of Africans on one issue does not prove that we should change on another completely different issue. It was an irrelevant example.

    I imagine you’re going to respond that that doesn’t count for some reason, but the unnecessary destruction of tons of a valuable food source in the middle of an epidemic in a poor country is quite a bad thing. So is the false sense of having dealt with the problem when you haven’t.

    Last time I saw it happen was in Hong Kong. Which is not really a poor country. It doesn’t count because it is not an example of what you and the WHO are complaining about, it is sensible public policy with some limits and the WHO made them do it.

    No they don’t.

    So they are not trying to ban German measles?

    What’s to defend? Completely common-sense and frankly bland best practice advice for naming conventions given by the body who have responsibility for naming conventions. Big wow.

    Sorry but what? Since when did the WHO have any sort of responsibility for naming conventions? Who gave them that power? Do you also apply this logic to the EU? They are the obvious people to ban bendy bananas, right? How are their rules common sense? Talking about German measles doesn’t want me to go out and lynch a Swabian. Does it make you want to?

    “The bit about political correctness: invented by The Mail.”

    Except for the quote from the Japanese Vice Director which is political correctness in a nutshell.

    it’s actually advice regarding the naming of newly discovered diseases.

    Baby steps. The logic applies just as well to older diseases and they did single out existing diseases. On this they have a track record too.

  14. S2 – “Why are you defending their shitty journalism? Lord knows, there really is enough ridiculous political correctness in the world to get annoyed about, without inventing more.”

    It is not about their sh!tty journalism. Which is pretty sh!tty these days. It is about being bullied. Either you are the sort of person who is fine with being bullied. Or you are not. I am not. When an unelected bossy self-righteous d!ck starts to lecture me on what language I use, I get annoyed. For instance:

    WHO assistant director general Dr Keiji Fukuda said: “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter.

    “We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals.

    “This can have serious consequences for people’s lives and livelihoods.”

    Say what you like, this is absurd. There is no evidence that disease names matter. Getting leprosy is no better if they call it Hanson’s disease.

    We seem to be in agreement that no religious or ethnic group has ever suffered a backlash because a disease is named after them. Lynch mobs don’t hunt down Jews because of Mad Cow Disease. I can’t recall a barrier to travel that was not justified. We should have had one for Ebola. And the WHO needs to stop telling people to over react which is the main cause of animal slaughter.

    No one has ever suffered one tiny little bit of harm because I referred to someone with German measles. No one ever will. It is politically correct bullying. By people who should be on the working end of a length of hempen rope.

  15. > Since when did the WHO have any sort of responsibility for naming conventions?

    The WHO manage the ICD. If you don’t like it, take it up with your MP.

    > Except for the quote from the Japanese Vice Director which is political correctness in a nutshell.

    That quote in full:

    “This may seem like a trivial issue to some, but disease names really do matter to the people who are directly affected. We’ve seen certain disease names provoke a backlash against members of particular religious or ethnic communities, create unjustified barriers to travel, commerce and trade, and trigger needless slaughtering of food animals. This can have serious consequences for peoples’ lives and livelihoods.”

    Oo, yeah, I can hear the jackboots.

    You keep asserting that he’s lying, and that the WHO haven’t really seen any of these things happen, because, if they had, you, So Much For Subtlety, WOULD KNOW. Well, I have a better suggestion. They have an email address for enquiries from the press and public. Since it’s you who insists that they’re lying through their teeth, why don’t you ask them for verification? Then you can come back here and reveal their lies. Without having to rely on your amazing psychic powers.

    Personally, in a world in which the Hutus chopped off the Tutsis’ feet to teach them a lesson for being too tall, in which people get lynched for being witchdoctors, in which people refuse vaccinations because they’re convinced they’re a conspiracy between governments and pharmaceutical firms to give their children autism, I just don’t see a big obstacle to credence here. Come on, we all know what would happen across the Middle East if a new disease were called “Ashkhenazi throat”. This is hardly far-fetched stuff.

    > Baby steps. The logic applies just as well to older diseases and they did single out existing diseases.

    What a ridiculous and paranoid little man you are. Have you actually read the document? It’s utterly unremarkable. They didn’t single out diseases; they gave examples.

    And what’s this “baby steps” bollocks? Steps towards what? First they came for the, er, best practice advice on the naming of newly discovered diseases. Then they came for, er, renaming German measles as rubella. And, before you know it, we were all, er… Sorry, what?

    In other news, dropsy is now called oedema. OH NO THEY ARE COMING FOR US.

  16. > And the WHO needs to stop telling people to over react which is the main cause of animal slaughter.

    Well, you say that, but here we have a real-life example of someone from the WHO advising against animal slaughter, and you’re having conniptions.

  17. Squander Two – “The WHO manage the ICD. If you don’t like it, take it up with your MP.”

    The ICD is not responsible for naming conventions. If the WHO were in charge, they would not need to ask. They would simply refuse classification under a name they did not like.

    “Oo, yeah, I can hear the jackboots.”

    Jackboots aren’t the threat. This is the same bullsh!t that means we can’t let children read Ba Ba Black Sheep. If you do not recognise that, well, that’s up to you. It is a measure of the march through the institutions that you do not even notice it.

    “You keep asserting that he’s lying, and that the WHO haven’t really seen any of these things happen, because, if they had, you, So Much For Subtlety, WOULD KNOW.”

    Now you are lying. Stop making things up. I give you enough to work with. I continue to point out that no one has any example of this happening. The article cited none, you have none – and your example was asinine – and, yes, I know of none. At some point we have to accept it is not happening. At what point would the complete lack of evidence amount to evidence of a lack to you?

    “Without having to rely on your amazing psychic powers.”

    Again, you are losing and you know you are losing. You should be able to do better than this.

    “Personally, in a world in which the Hutus chopped off the Tutsis’ feet to teach them a lesson for being too tall, in which people get lynched for being witchdoctors, in which people refuse vaccinations because they’re convinced they’re a conspiracy between governments and pharmaceutical firms to give their children autism, I just don’t see a big obstacle to credence here.”

    Now you are really sounding like a leftist. What is the connection between Hutus cutting people’s feet off and the rest of us referring to German measles? How precisely will using the more politically correct term save a single Tutsi?

    Yes people are bat sh!t crazily irrational about a lot of things. But what makes you think the WHO is not about this particular issue? They have been on a lot of other things – again look at their record on passive smoking.

    “Come on, we all know what would happen across the Middle East if a new disease were called “Ashkhenazi throat”. This is hardly far-fetched stuff.”

    I don’t know what would happen. What do you think would happen? They would all start hating Jews? What?

    ” What a ridiculous and paranoid little man you are. Have you actually read the document? It’s utterly unremarkable. They didn’t single out diseases; they gave examples.”

    What is the trivial distinction you are trying to make between singling out diseases, by name, and giving examples? How can do you the latter without the former?

    Britain has been down precisely this road before. If you let the Left have an inch they will take a mile.

    “Then they came for, er, renaming German measles as rubella. And, before you know it, we were all, er… Sorry, what?”

    Speaking Newspeak and unable to even express how much we dislike Big Brother because we lack the very language to do so. At least I assume that is their intent.

    So how far are you willing to take this argument? Should we ban the term “blackmail”? “Niggardly”? Should we no longer talk of Dutch courage or Chinese whispers? Should the expression “cry like a girl” be banned?

  18. SQ2: ‘Come on, we all know what would happen across the Middle East if a new disease were called “Ashkhenazi throat”.’

    ‘We’ do, do we?

  19. Squander Two – “Well, you say that, but here we have a real-life example of someone from the WHO advising against animal slaughter, and you’re having conniptions.”

    I am not, of course. I am largely relaxed about animals being killed. It is often necessary. Nor is he advising against animal slaughter. He is advising against irrational, private, animal slaughter. Not when the WHO demands it.

    However it is typical of a dysfunctional bureaucracy that it does both too much and too little. It can never get anything right. So the social services take too many children away, but they also take too few.

  20. > So how far are you willing to take this argument? Should we ban the term …

    Again, no terms are being banned here. At all. I’m generally against banning words. Let me know if some word-banning happens, and I’ll oppose it then.

    > Now you are lying. Stop making things up.

    Sorry, so you’re saying the WHO are telling the truth now? Or are you still saying they’re lying? If you’re saying they’re lying, then I’m telling the truth when I say that you say they’re lying. This is not complicated stuff.

    > I continue to point out that no one has any example of this happening. The article cited none …

    The article was very obviously written by people who hadn’t even contacted the WHO to ask.

    > … you have none – and your example was asinine – and, yes, I know of none. At some point we have to accept it is not happening. At what point would the complete lack of evidence amount to evidence of a lack to you?

    I take it you’ve decided not to contact them and ask, then? Are you afraid they might have some real cases? Come on, it would have been quicker than writing these comments. Go for it. Then you’ll be able to come back here in triumph and crow about how right you were.

    Since it’s a manufactured fake controversy, I can see why the WHO didn’t send out a ten-thousand-page stack of evidence with their very minor internal memo. But what are they suggesting? That an epidemic of, say, West Nile virus might affect trade with the West Nile regions even if the epidemic is somewhere else? Sounds entirely likely to me. You think it sounds completely ridiculous. So fine, go ask for evidence. For such a trivial and likely claim, I don’t need any.

    > The ICD is not responsible for naming conventions. If the WHO were in charge, they would not need to ask. They would simply refuse classification under a name they did not like.

    The name assigned to a new human disease by WHO or other parties following the present best practices may or may not be confirmed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) at a later stage. The ICD, managed by WHO and endorsed by its Member States, provides a final standard name for each human disease according to standard guidelines that are also aimed at reducing negative impact from names while balancing science, communication, and policy. Thus, the best practices are not intended to replace or interfere with the existing ICD system, but span the gap between identification of a new human disease event and assigning of a final name by ICD. Further, WHO recognizes that existing international systems and bodies are responsible for taxonomy and nomenclature of pathogens, which are not directly affected by these best practices.

    So that’s the WHO saying that they’re not in charge. And also that they’re not banning anything and don’t have the power to do so. And also that this won’t even affect the ICD’s naming conventions. Again, jackboots.

    > What is the connection between Hutus cutting people’s feet off and the rest of us referring to German measles?

    I didn’t say there was any. I’d usually add “As you well know” at this point, but I’m willing to concede the possibility that you can’t fucking read.

    > Speaking Newspeak and unable to even express how much we dislike Big Brother because we lack the very language to do so.

    Really? And yet I can refer to rubella and slag off the Left. A lot. Blimey. Am I a superman, or do other people have this power too?

    > Again, you are losing and you know you are losing.

    No, I’m being sarcastic, because I enjoy it and I like to keep in practice for a when a sleb spoils my lunch. (Yes, I am going to keep milking that for months. It was fun.)

    > You should be able to do better than this.

    Tsk. Mondays. But hey, I’ll get funnier tomorrow, and you’ll still be you.

  21. When an unelected bossy self-righteous d!ck starts to lecture me on what language I use, I get annoyed…
    The good news is that no one actually gives a flying fuck whether you say “Rubella” or “German Measles”. Your choice of terminology has as much effect on the real world as the real world has on your notion of fact. That is, none whatsoever.

  22. Squander Two – “Again, no terms are being banned here. At all. I’m generally against banning words. Let me know if some word-banning happens, and I’ll oppose it then.”

    There is no point conceding their entire argument just before they start banning things. The only way to oppose this insanity is early and often.

    “Sorry, so you’re saying the WHO are telling the truth now? Or are you still saying they’re lying? If you’re saying they’re lying, then I’m telling the truth when I say that you say they’re lying. This is not complicated stuff.”

    And now you change the subject. That is not what you were lying about. Nor is this a black and white world where that man must either be lying or telling the truth. He could sincerely believe his own bullsh!t. But hey, that would be a complicated argument you don’t have time for.

    “The article was very obviously written by people who hadn’t even contacted the WHO to ask.”

    Why should they? And how do you know? The burden of proof is on them and on you – the people who argue it is. Given they got a quote from someone making idiotic claims, they talked to someone.

    “I take it you’ve decided not to contact them and ask, then? Are you afraid they might have some real cases? Come on, it would have been quicker than writing these comments. Go for it. Then you’ll be able to come back here in triumph and crow about how right you were.”

    Again the burden of proof is not on me. If someone makes an absurd claim then it is up to them to defend it. If you defend said absurd claim it is up to you to support your argument. I don’t need to do a thing. All I have done is pointed out that there is no evidence for these claims. All you have done is thrown a tiny temper tantrum and some snark.

    “That an epidemic of, say, West Nile virus might affect trade with the West Nile regions even if the epidemic is somewhere else? Sounds entirely likely to me.”

    W. T. F. Why do you think something so absurd is likely? You think that people in New York are unable to work out that West Nile virus is found elsewhere apart from the West Nile? This has to be the most absurd claim of the week.

    However, again, the burden of proof is not on me. I am not making the positive claim.

    “The name assigned to a new human disease by WHO or other parties following the present best practices may or may not be confirmed by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) at a later stage.”

    Confirmed. They are certainly trying to claim naming rights.

    “Further, WHO recognizes that existing international systems and bodies are responsible for taxonomy and nomenclature of pathogens, which are not directly affected by these best practices.”

    So not in charge.

    “So that’s the WHO saying that they’re not in charge.”

    Even though two posts ago you claimed they were?

    “I didn’t say there was any. I’d usually add “As you well know” at this point, but I’m willing to concede the possibility that you can’t fucking read.”

    Then why bring it up? Your claim is Africans are stupid? I can’t quite believe that. What is the connection? Africans believe a lot of stupid irrational things so we have to make life easier for them? How is your Hutu comment not either utterly irrelevant or actually quite racist?

    “Really? And yet I can refer to rubella and slag off the Left. A lot. Blimey. Am I a superman, or do other people have this power too?”

    For now. Britain has been down this road of allowing the Left to control language. So now people are thrown in prison cells for using language that was common a generation ago – or speaking the truth as in the case of Nick Griffin. We do not want to go down that route again.

    “Tsk. Mondays. But hey, I’ll get funnier tomorrow, and you’ll still be you.”

    True. Here’s hoping.

    Social Justice Warrior – “The good news is that no one actually gives a flying fuck whether you say “Rubella” or “German Measles”. Your choice of terminology has as much effect on the real world as the real world has on your notion of fact. That is, none whatsoever.”

    If only. The Left has all but collapsed. All they have left is a desire and ability to police people’s language. You care what words I use. You care a lot. It is sad that the Left has been reduced to bullying people into using the inaccurate non-scientific personal pronoun, but there you go. It looks like the WHO is trying to get in on the act too.

    But care you do.

  23. > Nor is this a black and white world where that man must either be lying or telling the truth. He could sincerely believe his own bullsh!t.

    No, he says they’ve actually seen cases of this. You say there have been no such cases.

    > Given they got a quote from someone making idiotic claims, they talked to someone.

    No, as I already said, the quote was simply lifted from the WHO’s press release from before the controversy was invented, making it very clear that they didn’t talk to anyone. Tim’s site is blocking comments with links to the WHO’s original material for some reason, but hey, it took me all of two minutes to find it. You clearly still haven’t bothered.

    Then The Mail invented some bollocks about offending animals to grab a headline. Without that, this wouldn’t have made the news.

    > Again the burden of proof is not on me. … All I have done is pointed out that there is no evidence for these claims.

    What you are doing is saying that, as long as you assume that the people who have evidence must be lying, and as long as you refuse to look at their evidence, Hey Presto! There’s no evidence! Genius.

    > If someone makes an absurd claim then it is up to them to defend it.

    Defend against what? Against your criticism? Which you refuse to contact them about? How are they to know to provide you with evidence?

    Go, on ask them. It’ll take you five minutes.

    > Your claim is Africans are stupid? I can’t quite believe that. What is the connection? Africans believe a lot of stupid irrational things so we have to make life easier for them? How is your Hutu comment not either utterly irrelevant or actually quite racist?

    People everywhere believe lots of stupid shit. Different cultures have their own stupid shit. We have urbane middle-class anti-vaxers. America has people who believe a piece of paper will protect their rights. Nigeria has people who believe you can steal a man’s penis by shaking his hand. If I were a racist, I’d believe people’s stupidity is genetic. You know, like you do.

    > It is sad that the Left has been reduced to bullying people into using the inaccurate non-scientific personal pronoun

    You mean singular “they”? It is sad that some on the Right have such a persecution complex that they believe a piece of ordinary language used by Austen and Shakespeare can only be a neologism forced on us by political correctness.

    That’s enough on this thread, I think. You get muddy, and the pig enjoys it.

  24. Squander Two – “No, he says they’ve actually seen cases of this. You say there have been no such cases.”

    Actually I don’t think I did. I think I said I know of no case. Again if someone claims they have been probed by aliens, it is not up to me to prove aliens don’t exist.

    “What you are doing is saying that, as long as you assume that the people who have evidence must be lying, and as long as you refuse to look at their evidence, Hey Presto! There’s no evidence! Genius.”

    Again you need to lie. I don’t assume they are lying. I have not said they are lying. You said that I said that. But if they have evidence, I am happy to look at it. Do they have any? Again you need to lie by claiming I am refusing to look at it. I am not. I have asked for it any number of times. You have none I take it. So why do you believe this nonsense?

    “Defend against what? Against your criticism? Which you refuse to contact them about? How are they to know to provide you with evidence?”

    I have not even refused to contact them about it. As I am not talking to them. I am talking to you and for some reason you saw a chance to flame someone you do not know and chose a spectacularly bad topic to do it. If you object to what I have to say, you should have some evidence.

    People everywhere believe lots of stupid shit. Different cultures have their own stupid shit. We have urbane middle-class anti-vaxers. America has people who believe a piece of paper will protect their rights. Nigeria has people who believe you can steal a man’s penis by shaking his hand. If I were a racist, I’d believe people’s stupidity is genetic. You know, like you do.

    No one in their right mind denies that stupidity has a genetic cause to some extent. But excellent way of changing the subject there. Instead of talking about what connection exists in your mind between Hutus and this press release, you can cry racism instead. Well done. More suitable for CiF of course.

    “That’s enough on this thread, I think. You get muddy, and the pig enjoys it.”

    Well I am getting muddy but I can’t comment on what you enjoy. No evidence you see.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.