• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hitting Women

Professor Yaffle said:
Something tells me you haven't followed the links to the actual question (like many others in this thread).

No skin off my nose if you prefer to talk about some imaginary research rather than the research that was actually done.
Click to expand...

True enough. It seems I was careless in skimming the thread and missed your earlier post. Thanks for pointing that out. :blush:
 
DrDave said:
If you want it to be about that then give the full information in your op. otherwise you're going to get discussion over what certain circumstances means.
Click to expand...

Actually, even without Yaffle's clarification it was pretty clear what the survey was about since the question posted on top of the graph was "Women respondents who think that, under certain circumstances..."

The operative words being "who think that" rather than "certain circumstances". OP's own top line reads "In which countries is domestic violence considered acceptable". Except the missing question mark (which most reasonable readers would infer) that also clearly outlines attitudes (operative word: "[is] considered") as the actual question.

In fact, you'd have to read arse first to get it to be about how many women get hit or under what circumstances it is acceptable.

And if anything, it is the opposite of autistic to not read the actual words but start filling in with your own imagination or hooking on a non operative word and make it the whole argument. That's the kind of semantic bullfrippery that I got used to from teaching (neurotypical) fourth graders - they will discuss ANYTHING rather than the actual question, as a matter of course. Oh, and their most common reaction to any question? "That's not FAIR! Because <my group> isn't included in this one, limited, question which is one in a set of several questions also covering <my group> except this is the one we are discussing now and THAT'S NOT FAIR so we need to discuss <my group> first! And rather forget all about the original question altogether!"

And then they want to GreenEggsandHam the [straw]question: "Could I hit her on a train? Could I hit her on a plane? Could I hit her with some Spam? When do I hit her, Sam-I-Am?"

Actually, that sentence would make for a good test question to check reading comprehension:

Women respondents who think that, under certain circumstances, a husband is justified in hitting his wife.

Has the above survey studied:

A: The attitudes towards domestic violence, among women, in different countries?
B: Under what circumstances hitting women can be considered acceptable?
C: How many women are subjected to violence in these different countries?
 
Morrigan said:
And the award for the posts going out of their way to be offended at a colloquial, non-scientific use of a word goes to these two autists pointless nitpickers... ;)
Click to expand...
Because using the name of an involuntary neurological disorder as a pejorative is definitely not bigoted or insulting.

Morrigan said:
They're just insults. No need to get your panties in a bunch. "Dumb" used to mean "mute", but I'm sure the mute community isn't throwing tantrums at the "misuse of the word" whenever someone says "you're dumb" or "that's dumb" or whatever.

Edit: likewise, I'm female, but if someone gets told that he punches/throws/etc. "like a girl", I'm not gonna whine about how that's demeaning to women. It's just a saying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, who cares if some retarded ******* get jewed out of a little respect and common courtesy. No need to be such a **** about it.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.


As a side note: under certain circumstances, it is acceptable to hit an autistic woman?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I take it you've never used the word "dumb" because it's offensive and demeaning to mute people? Okay then...
 
whatthebutlersaw said:
Actually, even without Yaffle's clarification it was pretty clear what the survey was about since the question posted on top of the graph was "Women respondents who think that, under certain circumstances..."

The operative words being "who think that" rather than "certain circumstances". OP's own top line reads "In which countries is domestic violence considered acceptable". Except the missing question mark (which most reasonable readers would infer) that also clearly outlines attitudes (operative word: "[is] considered") as the actual question.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the text in the article is very poorly written. One might be forgiven for thinking something titled "Views of Domestic Violence" would be about views of domestic violence.

I suppose "A Very Small Subset of Women's Views of Some Kinds of Domestic Violence In Some Countries that Economist Readers Probably Don't Like Much Anyway" would not be as punchy.
 
epepke said:
To be fair, the text in the article is very poorly written. One might be forgiven for thinking something titled "Views of Domestic Violence" would be about views of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

In your view, what does the word "view" mean? (Hint: it can be interchanged with "opinion" but not with "action".)

You just, basically, repeated what I said but somehow seem to think you are saying the opposite.

I suppose "A Very Small Subset of Women's Views of Some Kinds of Domestic Violence In Some Countries that Economist Readers Probably Don't Like Much Anyway" would not be as punchy.
Click to expand...

Very few people with reading comprehension above sixth grade would need that title to avoid jumping to the conclusion that the article is discussing alternatives B or C.
 
Morrigan said:
Evasion noted. ;) Yeah yeah, you're offended, I get it. Just all seems inconsistent to me.
Click to expand...

Interesting that puppycow has already apologized for the insenstive nature of his remark; something you seem supremely incapable of recognizing. I guess it's clear who is still worth bothering with here.
 
Last edited:
whatthebutlersaw said:
In your view, what does the word "view" mean? (Hint: it can be interchanged with "opinion" but not with "action".)

You just, basically, repeated what I said but somehow seem to think you are saying the opposite.
Click to expand...

Randi has a prize for successful telepaths.

Very few people with reading comprehension above sixth grade would need that title to avoid jumping to the conclusion that the article is discussing alternatives B or C.
Click to expand...

OK, well, let's look at what else you wrote in that very post:

"That's not FAIR! Because <my group> isn't included in this one, limited, question which is one in a set of several questions also covering <my group> except this is the one we are discussing now and THAT'S NOT FAIR so we need to discuss <my group> first! And rather forget all about the original question altogether!"
Click to expand...

First of all, I really doubt that any of the people in this thread even live in the countries studied. I'm certain that most of the people don't live in any of those countries. So I have no idea what you mean by <my group>. To me, it comes across as a straw man.

Second, there's only one really interesting thing about the graph that can be concluded without additional information, which was in the OP: that poverty seems to correlate with a high degree of acceptability over a number of selected countries.

The information would be much more interesting in conjunction with other groups.

Plus, the selection of countries seems odd. The article says that the same data exist for other countries. Then, why did they pick these countries? Could they have selected them to prove a predefined point? How would they correlate to things like attitudes toward corporal punishment of children, say? Or attitudes toward other kinds of violence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom