freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:


I'm simply asking you to explain your own statement.

You previously stated that Europeans attempted to treat and cure "arab diseases" - and you used that exact phrase. Now you are not only asking me what it means, but acting like its the most stupid phrase in the world. After you used it, as well as clearly defined it.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:


I use my common sense. As you did when you decided what diseases were arab, when you specifically defined what it was. Gosh, I even quoted you clearly defining what it is. You can safely assume I accept and apply that same definition. You really can FD.

Imagine how dumb it would be FD if you voluntarily use a particular phrase, clearly define it, and then proceed to make a claim about it... and then insist that when someone else uses it, its ridiculous, makes no sense, and must be explained. Funniest of all - this is exactly what you are doing.

Be honest here FD, would we be having this absurd discussion if we were only talking about the phrase "arab diseases", and the phrase "European diseases" had never been mentioned? I mean, you did after all have no problem whatsoever understanding (and then using) the phrase yourself. I mean you only started this inane "me no speaka da English" routine when you decided the equivalent "European diseases" was so horribly racist.

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2018 at 6:35pm:


Hard to say, FD. You're arguing that Arabs are responsible for the spreading of all diseases, aren't you?

Would you like to clarify your view?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 12:34pm:

What European diseases are you referring to?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:
So did Muslims spread Arab diseases when they raped and pillaged other peoples lands?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:


My definition, which is coincidentally also the bleeding obvious, common sense definition, is based on who brought it and where they brought it from. So if European people brought a disease to a another continent from Europe (irrespective of who might have originally brought it to Europe hundreds of years earlier), I say its a "European disease". Is it correct to say that this concept still flies over your head?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 1:06pm:


Good answer. Now a follow up question if I may - if arabs infect people with the diseases they bring with them while they rape and pillage those people's land - do you hold arabs responsible for the spread of those diseases? I don't think I've ever got an actual answer to that one. Or my favourite: is a man to blame for infecting a woman with AIDS that he didn't realise he had when he rapes her?

I'm not getting through am I FD?

Consider this scenario...

a band of European rapists and pillagers invade the Americas. Are you still with me? Ok, so some or all of them are carrying a virus or bacterial infection that they had picked up in their homeland in Europe. I then call it a "European disease". Now can you see how this definition is perfectly adequate without needing to investigate who may have brought the disease to Europe before that? Perhaps if I draw a venn diagram?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:


What is it adequate for Gandalf?

When does it stop being a European disease?