 | | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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" (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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' (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Funny. Another "John Neal" moment for debate I guess. -- Hop-Frog (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 7-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) Except, perhaps, a Democrat President? Cheers Richie Dulin (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) <nodding, a la Wayne> Good one. JOHN (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
!!! (...) 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 (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (22 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
|
|
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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
