I agree with:
Graffiti is a bad thing and should not be tolerated.
Vandalism is a bad thing and should not be tolerated.
I am sorry to see both of them all over Poland.
However I disagree with your skewed logic here:
polish women are like that
, or more general:
"My wife is X [has big tits for example] therefore all Polish women are X [have big tits]".
With all due respect to your wife - her opinion, look and behaviour mean very little to me and to 30-something millions of other Poles. You cannot draw any universal conclusions, involving all Polish women, based on her alone, five other of her friends, or even 10,000 other Polish women.
You, and some people like you, need to take a brush course in logic. Have you heard anything about universal quantification vs. existential quantification? Here they are, easy to remember: denoted ∀  and ∃ .
The expression ∀ n ∈ N P(n) denotes the universal quantification of the predicate P(n). Translated into plain English it means: For all n, such that n is an element of the set N, n satisfies a predicate P(n). A predicate is a function of one variable, answering either true of false. For example, if P(n) is defined as 2 * n > 10, it will answer FALSE for all n <=5, and TRUE otherwise.
Consider for example this: ∀ n ∈ set-of-all-Polish-women-married-to-a-foreigner (n thinks-that-her-husband-denigrades-Poland). Obviously, this predicate is FALSE for the entire set. It is true for your wife, roca, it is true for croggers's wife (assuming that you both are telling the truth) but its is definitively not true for all: ∀ n ∈ set-of-all-Polish-women-married-to-a-foreigner.
Capisci? So stay away from all universal statements, like this: "polish women are like that", because such statements are more likely than not to be definitely FALSE.
On the other hand, you might want to use so-called existential quantifier, "there exists", denoted by ∃.
The expression ∃ n ∈ N P(n) denotes existential quantification satisfying the predicate P(n). Translated into English, it means: There is some (or there exists) n, such that n is an element of the set N, that the predicate P(n) is true.
For example, ∃ n ∈ set-of-all-Polish-women-married-to-a-foreigner (n thinks-that-her-husband-denigrades-Poland) is TRUE, because we know that there is at least one such woman (either roca's or clogger's wife) who behaves in the prescribed way.
|
