Ever since SB 277 became law, I didn’t think I’d be writing about it much anymore. Actually, I probably won’t be writing about it much any more, because it’s now a done deal. It’s the law of the land in California. Beginning in 2016, non-medical exemptions (i.e., religious exemptions and personal belief exemptions) to school vaccine mandates will go away. Only medical exemptions will be permitted, which is as it should be. Sure, implementation will be a big deal, and I’ll probably have something to say about it as news of how it will happen filters out. However, right now, not much is going on. So why blog about it now? The reason is simple.

I’ve just seen an analogy made about SB 277 that I’ve never seen before.

I had thought I’d seen them all. To antivaccinationists, SB 277 is the Holocaust with antivaccine parents being labeled the same way Jews were labeled during Hitler’s Germany. It’s the equivalent of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. It’s fascism, authoritarianism, and Communism all rolled up into one! In brief, it’s pure evil. At least, that’s how antivaccinationists see it. Indeed, I thought I’d heard it all, but leave it to the so-called “Thinking Moms’ Revolution” to provide a new, ever more ridiculous example, that I’d never heard of before and that never would have occurred to me. Of course, the reason it never would have occurred to me before is the same reason it never would have occurred to any sane person with a rudimentary knowledge of history. It’s so incredibly, hysterically exaggerated and ahistorical. In this, it is like antivaccine analogies invoking the Holocaust.

Did it ever occur to you that SB 277 is exactly like 1700s Ireland? I know because a “Thinking Mom” whom I’ve never considered or encountered before tells us so:

Many attempts were made to thwart Ireland’s nationalistic pride. (In fact, there is a side of the history of Ireland and Great Britain that is still not fully resolved.) So how does this have any bearing on SB 277?

The Irish at the time spoke Gaelic, not English. They were scholars and poets, religious and traditionally devout. Religious leaders spoke Latin and Greek. Beginning in 1702, a series of Penal Laws were passed in Ireland by Great Britain aimed at extinguishing this rich Irish culture. One of the first laws stated, “Whereas it has been found by experience that tolerating at papists keeping schools or instructing youth in literature is one great reason of many of the natives continuing ignorant of the principles of the true religion, and strangers to the scriptures, and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language, no person of the popish religion shall publicly teach school or instruct youth, or in private houses teach youth, except only the children of the master or mistress of the private house, upon pain of twenty pounds, and prison for three months for every such offence. 7 Will III c.4 (1695)” [Editor’s note: don’t you love it when educational reformers sound like they themselves haven’t been educated?] As noted here, “The Punishment Laws passed by the Anglo-Irish parliament were so harmful to the Irish people that the Frenchman Montesquieu described them as “conceived by demons, written in blood, and registered in Hell.” Sound familiar? One commentator said that “It was not merely the persecution of a religion, it was an attempt to degrade and demoralize a whole nation.” Or, to put it mildly, a kind of religious apartheid.

Many have been the examples of a ruling nation trying to stamp out the religion and culture of a nation throughout history. Such examples exist today. If there is one depressing tendency throughout history, it’s the tendency of conquerers or colonizers to eliminate anything that might fuel rebellion or resistance. Rulers vary in just how brutal they are about suppressing dissent and cultural characteristics that fule that dissent, but the tendency is the same.

So why does ShamROCK mention this particular time period in Irish history? Surely you can see what’s coming. If you can’t, ShamROCK is more than happy to make it explicit:

SB 277 threatens a similar apartheid based upon the vaccine status of California’s children. Perhaps what transpired in Ireland could serve as inspiration for the future of California.

Because requiring that children be vaccinated before they attend school or are enrolled in day care is exactly like the Penal Laws in Ireland in the early 1700s, just as it is exactly like the Holocaust, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, fascism, Communism, and whatever evils antivaccinationists can imagine as being related to SB 277. This sort of nonsense leads “ShamROCK” to opine:

I don’t see the “vaccine debate” as being different from a religious debate. By their nature, it’s impossible to debate people’s personal religious beliefs — simply because they are beliefs that are personal. That’s why we have the First Amendment. In a similar way, it has become equally impossible to debate the merits and demerits of vaccination in a civil manner because of the collision of personal beliefs on both sides of the question. Obviously, those who use personal belief exemptions are doing so based upon their personal beliefs, but the rationale for mandating vaccines is also hinged on personal beliefs, albeit scientific-sounding dogma about “herd immunity,” “resurging disease,” “debunked theories,” and vaccine reactions being rare, that have little basis in fact, logic, or science.

Although I’ve not infrequently likened alternative medicine and destructive beliefs that flow from it to a religion or a cult, the “vaccine debate” is nonetheless not the same thing as a religious debate, no matter what someone like ShamROCK believes. Wait. Scratch that. It is somewhat like a religious debate but not in the way ShamROCK thinks. It is antiscience versus science, as the battle between creationism and evolution is. However, in the case of the antivaccine movement, rarely is the motivation explicitly religious, as is the case with creationism. Nor is it an entire culture and world view, as, for example, Irish language and culture and Roman Catholicism were for the Irish. Indeed, SB 277 has nothing to do with stamping out religion or culture of the usually affluent, nearly always privileged members of the antivaccine movement. Rather, it has everything to do with protecting the rest of society from their antiscience and infectious disregard for the rest of society.

Right on cue, Shamrock demonstrates that disregard:

We live in a complex world and unless we build a wall around each state, that ever-elusive perfect “herd immunity” cannot be achieved. California already has high rates of vaccination, including measles vaccine, and we can see that their high rates of vaccination did protect them in the Disney outbreak, keeping rates of infection quite low, despite the high number of adults who either were never immune or are no longer, thereby invalidating that justification in the Pan/Allen bill. No panic. No spread of disease in schools. Not one school was shut down. No national emergency at all — except for media-propagated hysteria. Vaccinating the remaining tiny percentage of shoolchildren who have not been vaccinated already cannot prevent future outbreaks of measles as long as people are free to travel to places where measles is still endemic. In spite of all that, heavily influenced by pharmaceutical company donations and political posturing (see Doctor Bob’s Daily for June 25th at 3:35 p.m.), SB 277 emerged and fast-tracked its way through the legislature to become law, and children whose parents wish to abstain or delay even one vaccine are being marginalized. They are being denied their basic rights as citizens afforded to them by the constitutions of California and the United States, based on their religious or personal beliefs. Religious segregation if you will.

The appeal to high statewide vaccination rates is, of course, a common factoid trotted out by antivaccine activists that seems reasonable but is quite deceptive. Yes, California has high statewide vaccination rates. That’s not the problem. The problem is pockets of children with low vaccination rates in the very affluent communities that are home to antivaccinationists, rates below that necessary for herd immunity. That’s where the outbreaks begin, as predicted when those pockets were first noted. These are the communities that are home to antivaccine or antivaccine-pandering pediatricians like Dr. Jay Gordon or Dr. Bob Sears, the latter of whom touts that only 50% of his practice is completely unvaccinated. Yes, an increasingly mobile population means that traveling can result in exposure to diseases like the measles—which is all the more reason to be vaccinated! Similarly, travelers from areas where measles is endemic can bring measles to the US—which is also all the more reason to maintain high vaccination rates, so that even if one or a handful of people catch the measles a larger outbreak is prevented by herd immunity. Finally, most adults have been vaccinated against te measles, but even so in the case of immunosuppression they can lose their immunity. Indeed, the first death from measles in years occurred in just such an adult.

As for “freedom,” one can’t help but note that among antivaccine activists, “freedom” is all about the parents’ freedom and “parental rights” and seldom, if ever, about the rights of the child to good quality preventive medical care, which includes vaccines to protect them from dangerous illnesses. It’s all about the parents, not the children. Indeed, the overall attitude tends to be the one explicitly stated by Rand Paul in what had to be a Freudian slip: “The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom.”

The freedom and rights of the parents über alles, that is. The parents’ appeal to “freedom” and “parental rights” are what I like to call an antivaccine dog whistle, reasons that resonate because everyone’s for freedom and rights, because…’Merica!

ShamROCK ends thusly:

The United States was founded on the principle that people should be free to practice their religion based on their own beliefs. That principle is being tested right now in California. Constitutional rights must and will prevail, but only the will of the people will see it through. It is going to be a fight, maybe the fight of our lives. The lesson from Ireland is that it can be done — even if it takes 120 years. We don’t have 120 years; we have only a matter of months. But there was no social media in 18th century Ireland . . .

Because, to antivaccinationists, SB 277 is just like the battles waged by the Irish against the British. Of course, if that analogy is taken far enough, it could easily go to a very, dark place. I’m referring, of course, to the numerous bombings carried out by the Irish Republican Army and other groups over the course of over three decades last century, particularly the 1970s. Is that where ShamROCK really wants to go with this. One really needs to be careful when making boneheaded historical analogies.

I can’t help but finishing wondering what off-base, tone-deaf historical analogy antivaccinationists will come up with next for their “plight.” Hmmmm. Let me think. Will it be the oppression and genocide committed against Native Americans? I wouldn’t put it past them, although one can’t help but note that a lot fewer Native Americans would have died if they had had access to vaccines against diseases brought by the European conquerors.

Comments

  1. #1 Not a Troll
    July 14, 2015

    “…we can see that their high rates of vaccination did protect them in the Disney outbreak, keeping rates of infection quite low…”

    And this is an argument against ensuring a vaccinated population, how?

  2. #2 Eric Lund
    July 14, 2015

    The United States was founded on the principle that people should be free to practice their religion based on their own beliefs.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Freedom from religion is a necessary condition for freedom of religion. That means that it is appropriate to restrict religious beliefs that are actually harmful to others That category includes sending your kids to school when they have not been vaccinated because of your religious beliefs against vaccination. Such kids are a danger to other kids who either cannot (for legitimate medical reasons) be vaccinated, or in whom the vaccine fails to take.

    People like “ShamROCK” can still home school their unvaccinated kids. SB277 does not, and should not, prevent that. But that would mean she has to take responsibility for her children’s education. That may not be an ideal outcome, but at least her spawn won’t be endangering other people’s kids. And at least she would be putting her money and effort where her mouth is.

  3. #3 JGC
    July 14, 2015

    In a similar way, it has become equally impossible to debate the merits and demerits of vaccination in a civil manner because [while the merits of routine childhood vaccination are established as fact the presumed demerits of routine childhood vaccination represent articles of faith].

    FTFY

    The United States was founded on the principle that people should be free to practice their religion based on their own beliefs.

    And SB277 has donenothing to deny anyone that freedom What you’re really complaining about is that doing so is no longer as likely to be without consequence, and you’ll no longer be allowed to place others at increased risk of infection as a consequence of your exercising your freedom to practice your religion based on tyour own beliefs.

  4. #4 Rebecca Fisher
    That London
    July 14, 2015

    In fact, there is a side of the history of Ireland and Great Britain that is still not fully resolved.

    Hmm – mistress of the understatement, isn’t she?

  5. #5 Mu
    July 14, 2015

    They’re using this analogy wrong. As Ireland is not a hotbed of the Church of England nowadays this should be their rallying cry for successful subversion of the evil occupier. A hidden Sears book in every household, a Gordon hole to hide from raids. Of course, there’s the issue with Ireland not becoming the land of poetry etc until 150 years later, and was mainly considered the most backwards corner of Europe for most of the 17th and 18th century. But that again fits with the analogy, antivaccinationists are truly the 18th century Irish of the 21st century.

  6. #6 Dan
    UK
    July 14, 2015

    “California already has high rates of vaccination”
    “and we can see that their high rates of vaccination did protect them in the Disney outbreak”
    “No panic.”
    “No spread of disease in schools.”
    “Not one school was shut down.”
    “No national emergency at all”

    Wait a minute…

  7. #7 Denice Walter
    July 14, 2015

    Interestingly, she elevates her cause by comparison to a historical one that most likely involved a great number of people over centuries.

    So I guess that means we’re English now, not N-zis.

    I read this the other day and have yet to run it past my select committee of Irish born cohorts ( both Irelands, -btw-). I know that their responses will probably involve cursing in both English and Gaelic, not Latin and Greek.

    At any rate, as if this isn’t wild enough, SIMULTANEOUSLY AoA posted a link to an article by a woman who is protesting Merck, carrying signs, who compares her ‘quest’ to that of the Polish people who opposed various conquerers/ rulers.

    She has even written a poem on the matter.

  8. #8 JP
    July 14, 2015

    At any rate, as if this isn’t wild enough, SIMULTANEOUSLY AoA posted a link to an article by a woman who is protesting Merck, carrying signs, who compares her ‘quest’ to that of the Polish people who opposed various conquerers/ rulers.

    Oh, FFS. Dare I look? Not now, I think.

    The Polish and Irish have a sort of national bromance, BTW. It’s very sweet.

  9. #9 Selena Wolf
    Ontario, Canada
    July 14, 2015

    Un-freakin’-believable.

  10. #10 Denice Walter
    July 14, 2015

    @ JP:

    I advise that you not read her poetry/ blog unless you have a few hours to recover from that incredibly sublime experience.

    Oh wait, you read students’ exams/ papers in a foreign language: you’ll survive.

  11. #11 Sarah A
    July 14, 2015

    …and we can see that their high rates of vaccination did protect them in the Disney outbreak, keeping rates of infection quite low…

    By the same logic, just because the dam springs a few minor leaks here and there is no reason to start fear-mongering about how it needs to be repaired and reinforced; there’ll be plenty of time for panic once the dam fails catastrophically and wipes out a few towns downstream.

    I wonder if ShamROCK thinks people should be allowed to practice human sacrifice because of “freedom of religion?”

  12. #12 shay
    July 14, 2015

    She’s got the “rock” part of her ‘nym correct — from the neck up.

    (I have two Irish grandmothers, one of whom used to refer to Eamon de Valera as “that damn dago.” This woman is a clueless fool).

  13. #13 EBMOD
    United States
    July 14, 2015

    For those who also lurk on facebook groups ‘Anti-Vax Wall of Shame’ and ‘Things Anti-Vaxxers Say’, they are seriously becoming unhinged over this whole SB277, with many documented cases of violent threats.

    Clearly, not all anti-vaxxers are mentally ill and capable of violence, and much of it is insincere e-thuggery, but considering that a number of anti-vaxxers have committed violence against their own ‘vaccine injured’ children, I would not be surprised if we end up seeing some real violence against pro-vax doctors/politicians/activists.

    So frustrating when people are so deluded that rather than accept that their arguments are flawed, they resort to fascist means of silencing opposition…

  14. #14 KayMarie
    July 14, 2015

    Since when is anti-vax a religion? I guess it has zealots?

    And it’s own separate culture, traditions, and history? As much as I wonder what color the sky is in their world I thought they’d mostly been just regular Americans from all of the various ethinicities and cultures that predominate the affluent and privledge communities.

  15. #15 JP
    July 14, 2015

    Clearly, not all anti-vaxxers are mentally ill and capable of violence,

    I’m not really sure about the way in which you connect these phrases.

    Just sayin’.

  16. #16 Chris Hickie
    July 14, 2015

    Maybe we should just create a Mad Libs template for these AVers.

  17. #17 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    July 14, 2015

    Presumably ShamROCK is of the opinion that the current incidence of vaccine preventable diseases in California is acceptable or possibly too low and, therefore, the current level of vaccination is sufficient or too high. One might reasonably wonder what target VPD rate we could all agree on would be.

  18. #18 Todd W.
    http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
    July 14, 2015

    Since she’s so enamored of older Irish culture, I say we take a page from early Irish bee laws, wherein an individual stung by someone else’s bees is able to sue for damages. So to bring the analogy home, anyone infected by shamROCK or her children should be able to sue them for damages suffered.

    As I was reading Orac’s post, I kept thinking that the next analogy would be something about Europeans and Native Tribes. I planned on mentioning it after I finished reading, and then there it was in the closing.

  19. #19 DGR
    Reality
    July 14, 2015

    I can’t help but finishing wondering what off-base, tone-deaf historical analogy antivaccinationists will come up with next for their “plight.”

    300 Spartans … or at least the movie version of the same?

    The Founding Fathers were clearly aware of the downside, e,g,, war, of a state supporting one, in this case Christian, sect over another and/or state sponsored persecution adherents of other sects

    Obviously they’d been keen to avoid this type of conflict in their new nation, hence the Establishment Clause.

    Obviously ShamROCK is acquainted with the same, now historic, facts, the Founding Fathers knew.

    However, after relating the historic facts, ShamROCK goes on to state:

    I don’t see the “vaccine debate” as being different from a religious debate. By their nature, it’s impossible to debate people’s personal religious beliefs — simply because they are beliefs that are personal. That’s why we have the First Amendment.

    This entire paragraph is patently ludicrous … as is everything that follows.

    Mostly just the same old “underdog fighting the forces of evil” that anti-vaxers … among others … prefer to view themselves as being, rather than the outright wrong loons that they actually are.

    Speaking of the Founding Fathers though, I wonder what side folks like Ben Franklin would come down on in the vaccine non-debate?

    Would it be the science side or the anti-vax nonsensical belief side?

  20. #20 KayMarie
    July 14, 2015

    #18

    I am waiting for the Trail of Tears/Bataan Death March/Khmer Rouge Killing Fields mash up.

  21. #21 Vicki
    July 14, 2015

    Being personal may mean that she has the right to believe any fool nonsense, including her implied belief that personal beliefs come to people randomly and full-formed, rather than being influenced by anyone or anything around them.

    It doesn’t mean we don’t get to disagree with or debate those beliefs: if someone asserts that (making this one up) all people born in the month of August are sleeper agents for the Albanian government, I don’t have to say “that’s a nice belief, dear. I guess you don’t want to see my friend Alan.” I am–legally as well as logically and ethically–free to say “that’s ridiculous” or “where did you get that idea” or “prove it.”

    I can say the same about anti-vax “beliefs” or someone’s religious beliefs (as they can about my lack thereof): in fact, a huge amount of discourse is people asserting and debating their not-always-personal beliefs about religion, art, politics, and sports.

    I am willing to grant her implied claim that she has neither factual nor logical support for her anti-vax beliefs, that they’re all about her self-image or tribal identification. But they didn’t come from nowhere, or from a radio receiver that the CIA implanted in her brain–she got them from other people, and is trying to spread them to other people.

  22. #22 Sarah A
    July 14, 2015

    @EBMOD

    There’s a particularly egregious example over on The Poxes blog. It’s so incoherent I can’t even tell if its a serious threat or not – he mentions castrating pro-vaccine advocates with butter knives, among other things.

  23. #23 Sarah A
    July 14, 2015

    Actually, as soon as I write is out sequentially like that, it becomes obvious that it is a serious threat. The original was much more…confusing.

  24. #24 TBruce
    July 14, 2015

    How about a War of The Worlds analogy?

    The Martian conquerers oppress the Earthlings until they are wiped out by diseases that they have no immunity against.

    What?

  25. #25 ShakeB
    July 14, 2015

    The English? Come on, you can do better than that for a historical villain!

    How about Julian the Apostate, still pretty weaksauce as far as historical villains go, but you can keep the tortured analogy of SB277 being like outlawing a group you disagree with from being teachers. One of the main elements of his kinder, gentler brand of christian persecution was forbidding christian teachers from using pagan texts (the core of the Roman ciriculum) and only funding pagan teachers from the state treasury.

  26. #26 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    July 14, 2015

    The Martian conquerers oppress the Earthlings until they are wiped out by diseases that they have no immunity against.

    Wait, if we eliminate vaccine preventable diseases with an effective vaccination program, won’t we leave ourselves defenseless against the Martians? Until they land, we can’t know which diseases will be most effective, so any move to reduce or eliminate disease could have dire consequences. We should eliminate immunization immediately to be prepared for the Martian invasion!

  27. #27 Rich Woods
    South a bit
    July 14, 2015

    I can’t help but finishing wondering what off-base, tone-deaf historical analogy antivaccinationists will come up with next for their “plight.”

    When I saw the photo of the fortified house at the top of your post, I immediately thought of the Highland Clearances.

  28. #28 Todd W.
    http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
    July 14, 2015

    @DGR

    Speaking of the Founding Fathers though, I wonder what side folks like Ben Franklin would come down on in the vaccine non-debate?

    Would it be the science side or the anti-vax nonsensical belief side?

    They would probably say that Franklin would be on their side, and as support use this quote:

    Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

  29. #29 Mike
    July 14, 2015

    “As for “freedom,” one can’t help but note that among antivaccine activists, “freedom” is all about the parents’ freedom and “parental rights” and seldom, if ever, about the rights of the child to good quality preventive medical care, which includes vaccines to protect them from dangerous illnesses. It’s all about the parents, not the children. ”

    Part of this stems from the concept of rights. The right of parents to raise their kids as they see fit is a negative right (it requires no action by another person or government). In contrast, your talking about children’s “right” to healthcare requires another person or government to provide it and is called a positive “right.” But no all people believe in the concepts positive rights.

    Paul in particular is not a fan of positive rights that require someone else be forced to do or pay something in order for the positive right to be fulfilled.

    But, setting conditions for attending public school is not an issue of rights or freedom. It is setting conditions on the privilege of attending a public school.

  30. #30 phildo
    July 14, 2015

    Considering the track record the US has on obesity, childhood development and infant mortality this law fits right in.

    looking forward to seeing the state screw up again, at least it’s Americans blue on blue for a change.

    Well done the Senate, maybe it will help with population control, Connie will be swiveling in her box.

  31. #31 Not a Troll
    July 14, 2015

    “They would probably say that Franklin would be on their side…”

    Franklin probably knew that people could be unreasonable enough that they would need a law requiring vaccinations of children for the benefit of their families and their neighbors in order to participate in school but I doubt he thought it would be a “thing”. I am reminded of career politicians here for some odd reason.

    Anyway, no one knows what he would have said about this. Antivaccinationists are just throwing out arguments to see what catches on much like politicians do. I suppose historical Ireland is as good as any idea in that strategy, but it did give me a good laugh. Especially after the recent Magna Carta series by Dr. David Healy. He is “pro-vax” in case you were wondering.

  32. #32 ChrisKid
    United States
    July 14, 2015

    Two things come to mind.
    Since California’s exemption was never a religious one, but rather personal belief, I wish we had a breakdown of how many of them were actually based on religious belief, and how many were more along the lines of, “I don’t think it’s safe.”
    Also, ShamROCK’s post comes as close as anything I’ve seen to admitting that the AV mindset is actually a matter of belief and has nothing to do with science.

  33. #33 machintelligence
    July 14, 2015

    As easy as it is to claim to be a religion these days, I would predict a “Church of Bodily Purity” of some such to be founded by the antivaxxers. It wouldn’t help immediately in California, of course, but they might be able to mount a challenge based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

  34. #34 shay
    July 14, 2015

    I can’t help but finishing wondering what off-base, tone-deaf historical analogy antivaccinationists will come up with next for their “plight.”

    Well, I drew Albigensians in the office pool, so I’m hoping…

  35. #35 Alia
    July 14, 2015

    @Denice Walter #7
    When I read Orac’s last paragraph, I briefly considered such possibility, but then I thought it was a bit over the top, and also that Polish history is not that well known. As I see, I was mistaken.
    And now I just want to start swearing in Polish – and my, isn’t our language just perfect for it (well, to be frank, Russian might be even better).

  36. #36 Todd W.
    http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
    July 14, 2015

    @machintelligence

    Check out the Church of Illumination. It’s a religion basically set up seemingly for the sole purpose of rejecting vaccines (and some other medical treatments).

  37. #37 Narad
    July 14, 2015

    It wouldn’t help immediately in California, of course, but they might be able to mount a challenge based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    It doesn’t apply to the states: City of Boerne v. Flores. California didn’t enact a “mini-RFRA” in response, either (Mississippi did).

  38. #38 JP
    July 14, 2015

    And now I just want to start swearing in Polish – and my, isn’t our language just perfect for it (well, to be frank, Russian might be even better).

    I have been witness to passionate arguments about which language is better suited for swearing, Polish or Russian. I’m afraid I must remain a neutral party.

  39. #39 Todd @.
    http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com
    July 14, 2015

    @JP

    So, Swiss (Germand, French, Italian and Romansh)?

  40. #40 The Smith of Lie
    July 14, 2015

    Say what you will about shamROCK post, she got one thing right. For her and likeminded fellows, the question of vaccines is religious one. It is not about science, it is about evil pharma spirits stealing souls of their precious snowflakes.

    Which is refreshingly honest and over the table approach. No “pro safe vaccine” bovine feces or “we need proof”. Nope. It is religious debate about what their beliefs are.

  41. #41 Denice Walter
    July 14, 2015

    Actually, I like English for swearing as it has both the Germanic guttural aspect and the more smoothly-flowing, mellifluous Romantic side. Contrast is good.

  42. #42 shay
    July 14, 2015

    German. There is no language like it for vituperation.

    There exists — allegedly — a Budeswehr</I anecdote in which an old-line NCO begins by scolding a private in the second person formal (Sie sind) and descends through every grammatical level to finally letting him have it in the third person, plural (Es ist!).

    I suppose you have to German to appreciate the social nuances, though.

  43. #43 shay
    Longing for preview
    July 14, 2015

    Sigh. Italics fail.

  44. #44 JP
    July 14, 2015

    Actually, I like English for swearing as it has both the Germanic guttural aspect and the more smoothly-flowing, mellifluous Romantic side. Contrast is good.

    English swear words are pretty much universally Germanic, I think; mostly one-syllable, good strong endings. That’s what I like about them, and of course swearing in one’s native tongue always has more impact that hearing or saying swears in other languages.

    I can’t deny the incredible creativity that Slavic morphology presents when it comes to profanity, though. I actually don’t do much swearing myself in foreign languages, though, beyond things like “the devil take it,” which is very mild.