 | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —John Neal
|
| | | (...) A example of an intolerant generalization that is devoid of substance and meaning. (...) Prove? Cites? More BS generalizations. (...) Yes, and Christians certainly don't believe that. The Gospel revealed by Jesus is that God loves everyone (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) Well, it's a quotation taken from a television producer/writer that has one of the best shows on television--a show that actually discusses issues of political, moral, and ethical issues--I guess that makes him basically devoid of substance (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Straw man-- I was referring to the cited quotation. I can't speak about the show since I have never actually seen it, but I don't rule out that he is indeed devoid of substance and meaning, which is entirely possible. Unlike the "Christian" (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) Pressuring companies into compliance via this method is *not* the market in action. Market in action is not buying said product. There's a huge difference. What if Jewish people start pressuring all grocery stores into only selling 'kosher' (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) How much it's different? Not sure I follow. Burning books, well do you mean me burning my books? If I do so safely and in a place permitted to do so (my property) that's free speech, I'm making a statement about the books. Or do you mean jack (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Except, perhaps, a Democrat President? Cheers Richie Dulin (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) <nodding, a la Wayne> Good one. JOHN (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, if it isn't coercion, I'd like it defined. How is this different from a gang-like group walking into "Mom-n-Pop Hair Salon" and telling them "Pay up or you'll start losing money?" Well, that's a little extreme and called extortion, so (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | Here's a tangent on this topic-- (URL) which one of our more esteemed ward councillors in the Big Smoke is in a wee bit of a tizzy against an advert. Seems that "Nellie Pedro, a Toronto District School Board trustee" doesn't like a commercial made (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) What do those scenarios have to do with what actually happen? If you are implying that the gang will forcibly drive customers away, then that is a straw man argument (thar ya go, John) since the Christian Right is saying that they are only (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Lester Witter
|
| | | | | | !!! (...) I thought that in a parlimentary type government like in Canada and many European countries, the Prime Minister and the parliment are from the same party (unless no one has a majority and then there is a coalition) Lester (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) The Party that has the most seats in the house are 'in power', and the party in Power has the PM--PM's are voted on by the party. The senate in Canada, on the other hand, are appointees. When a seat becomes vacant, whichever PM is in power (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Canada's Senate Woes--R: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | So I did a little googling (what a wonderful thing that is...) Found this little article: (URL) basically lays out what our senate is today, and what certain reformers want, i.e. EEE Senate--elected being part of that. but, as the author also (...) (21 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) You're misusing the term "straw man" as, ironically, a straw man argument. Non-applicable, a non-sequitor, too obscure, suspect TV "philosophy", perhaps. A straw man argument: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) Funny. Another "John Neal" moment for debate I guess. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I don't think so. I attacked the quotation. *He* transferred my attack and applied to the author himself (whom I don't even know). That wasn't my point. (...) I think the coined phrase is "fictitious";-) (...) Of course. That is the way it (...) (21 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
