800 thousand Polish women are victims of domestic abuse yearly

Great, expect the diatribe from the PF Sisterhood after that one.

Who do you imply?

Sorry, my mind is drawing a blank.

hmmm. interesting, I haven't noticed. LOL. There are a lot of non-attractive women who are not feminists, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here.


you might be onto something here, but every news is a 'shocking news" to some degree since it is a nature of news in general.


good observation on your part.


that is news for you. Korwin - Mikke have used media to get attention as well, as Palikot did and other politicians. I think that this is a smart way to get an attention, so why would feminists be different????


this is not the first time that you have no idea about something. I am not able to help you with reading comprehension because it is a skill that some people lack. Those 2 article I posted are very clear in explanations of the reported state of the domestic violence in Poland.


It is a weak argument on your part because you are not providing anything concrete, just a statement.

Alcohol abuse can’t be blamed for spousal abuse. That's an excuse. Alcohol only amplifies an already assh0le personality.

But it is still very common -

"In over two-thirds of the divorce cases in Poland, women file the suit. The court finds the woman at fault only 3 percent of the time. The most common divorce causes are alcoholism,extramarital relationships, a spouse showing no interest in the family, physical cruelty, and new situations that emerged in recent years, such as drug addiction and confession of homosexuality. (excerpts from Warsaw Voice)"

polishsite.us/lifestyle-and-entertainment/family-and-children/107-divorce-rates-in-poland-and-other-european-countries-eu-report.html

You are wrong.


Korwin and Palikot use controversial form to inform public opinion about their views. They don't make up surveys.


OK, this statement from their website.


feminoteka.pl/news.php?readmore=2106

until you prove me wrong, I am right. LOL.


at least you have admitted that. They look for attention because nobody in their right mind would listen to them otherwise. Or, maybe they actually have something to say, but since they took the wrong way to advertise themselves, nobody is taking them seriously. Are you saying that Feminoteka made the numbers up?

What is wrong with surveys?????


well, maybe Feminoteka has a different agenda that PK, after all Feminoteka is not a party. I see is as: poleminka, that is all.

In this case this is obvious. Anyway, even if I would be unable to proof you right then this doesn't mean that you are right. This would mean just that I'm unable to proof you right. Pure logic :)


I always write about things like they are.


They are often right, especially Korwin. This is true that nobody would listen but this is fate of intellectual elites.


This is not their fault that media portrait them as they do. Once you are negatively labelled, really nothing can help you. Anyway Korwin earn big bucks on being controversial, while being monarchist he doesn't care about opinion of majority so much. I'm sure that neither Palikot is a democrat like nearly all politicians. He just have so much cash that he can afford being eccentric.


Perhaps this is good tool for committed scientists but in hands of political parties or different group of interests, this is just cheap propaganda.


Yes, their reliability is very low.


I think that agenda is the same just tactic a little bit different.

nicely done. I am beginning to like you:).


out of respect for your great support for him I will not comment any further.


true, at Korwin stands for what he believes, as for Palikot - well, we all know who he is.


possible, that is why I have contacted Feminiteka twice already and haven go any response. I am calling them tomorrow. Enough is enough.


I have to take your word for it, since I am not in Poland.

Miranda
"are you suggesting that only feminists provide unrealistic data? Why would they do it?"
-------------------------------

In the U.S. money is the prime incentive. If numbers of 'victims' are high than more money for the organization in question is solicited. Women are considered "battered" even if they are not hit. Yelling at someone counts as being brutalized. [Of course by that standard almost every married man is "battered" as well.

An example of "unrealistic data":
I attended a forum where women's groups and shelter advocates for women were giving their speeches and soliciting funding from attending companies. One of the speakers stated that 29 spouses were killed by their marriage partners in the past year in Illinois. No one challenged that point and one day after that conference I looked up the data and found out that indeed 29 spouses were killed by their mates. The problem is that 11 of those killed were men who were murdered by their wives. That information was not stated by the female speaker who implied by omission that 29 women were killed. Not stating the full truth is lying, and that's what feminist advocates do.

I've been traveling and still am 'on the road' but I know you've missed my correcting data.:)

It sure is. But an ever common tactic of Leftie groups and activists.

If someone must lie in order to advance their agenda, it is well time to rexamine that agenda as well as the motives of its perveyors.

Not stating the full truth is not lying at all. It is just withholding one part, that's hardly lying. If that were the case, newspapers would never have a true story.

Intentional distortion is the same as lying. You've never heard of lies by omission?
And yes, Lib newspapers lie all the time. Over here, anyway.

Well, distortion is not the same as withholding, now is it?

Not stating the full truth is not lying at all.

A lie by omission, is still a lie apparently.
Otherwise, why does Mrs Hueg always quake with anger when she asks 'what are you doing?' and I reply 'nothing', while hiding the remote under the sofa in a flourish of crumbs?

Person the Lifeboats. :)

It sure is. Very same thing. When the withholding is intended to distort.

Distortion is active, withholding is passive. One is the conscious changing of sth to bend the truth and the other is merely to keep information from people without acting.

Are you still in elementary school, Randal? ;)

With the same intended result. Same thing.

There are many ways of getting an intended result. It doesn't make them the same. Seriously Randal, you've lost this one.

Putting a story out there, without distortion, but withholding some info is not lying. Whatever happened to the public doing their own follow up?

A distinction without merit. Let's look at the following scenario (one of many that can be postulated).

Mrs. Kowalczyk's Yorkshire pudding is placed in her window sill. Her neighbor boys, Stashu and Jeeves walk past Mrs. Kowalczyk's window and Jeeves steals it. Later, Mrs. Kowalczyk sees Stashu who looks suspicious and asks him if he took the pudding. Stashu says "no" and goes his gloomy way with his head down.

Technically, he didn't lie but by omitting the full facts he left the (lying) impression with Mrs. Kowalczyk that he had no knowledge, let alone anything to do with this theft.

A distinction without merit.

Can't respond until (at least) tomorrow.

Sorry ZIMMY, that was a lame example. For a start, Stashu didn't lie as he said NO, he told the truth. You haven't even proved that he was art and part, aiding and abetting. He just happened to be with Jeeves. Maybe he didn't want to clipe/dob on his bro. There were occasions when I had to withhold info from my mum. It wasn't lying, just being tactful and sensible.

Even if I have knowledge of sth, it doesn't mean that I should put it out there. Ever heard of selective dissemination?

Look, you often don't reveal your lies unless you are a devout Catholic who confesses. Look at Bush, imagine an admission of guilt on his part. Best to say nothing sometimes.

No, you have lost here, Seanus. Intentional deceit however it is delivered is the same as lying.

OK why did she put the pudding on the window sill when she knew there were two starving boys next door? Pretty rubbish story if you ask me.

It depends who has the duty of disclosure. Merely withholding data is something that lawyers do until a timely moment when they can use it. If a public official has a reporting duty to the public and remains silent, then he may be held to account. However, this is a different matter and is called (non)disclosure in the public interest.

In the above case, materiality is a key consideration (feminists). If a man says to his wife that he is going to see his friend at his flat (and does, briefly) but sneaks off to the bar then he is lying by omission. I see your point, Randal, but you paint things too black and white sometimes.

Withholding info should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with an assessment of materiality and disclosure, rather than blankly called lying.

However, I see where you are coming from. Just don't make me read your thoughts too much and see them as blanket principles.

The speaker has the duty of disclosure; of not deceiving (lying to) their audience.

As I said, it depends on the task. Think of national secrecy where they can't divulge. It's sometimes a fine line. There are other examples.

One thing you may not be aware of, is that sometimes abused women believe that the only way to escape a brutal mate is for one of them to die. Abusive mates often threaten the wife/partner with "If you try to find I will hunt you down until I find you and kill you".

Did you leave out that information as a way to make your point about not stating the full truth? *raises brow*

well, a little update. I have received a reply from Feminoteka and they forwarded me a report, which the article was based on, which is very interesting indeed.

For those who are interested I can provide a copy.

Sure, women abuse men too. My great-grandma smacked her husband on the head with an iron pan for coming home drunk again and being verbally and physically abusive; I'm definitely not one to say he didnt deserve it though! I think thats more in line with self-defense... :\