Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 May 2003 07:20:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/06/news/companies/walmart_mags/index.htm
> > >
> > > "
> > > The Times said that the company's standards and the magazines' content have
> > > not changed, but the firm has been under pressure from Christian groups in
> > > the past for its sale of certain magazines.
> > > "
> > >
> > > Another reason why these "Christians" are not my idea of Christianity. I
> > > was looking for an opportune time to throw in a Sorkin quote, and here it is...
> > >
> > > "...It was very easy for me to think, as it is very
> > > easy for a lot of people to think..., that most often
> > > one should be suspicious of [religion].
> >
> > A example of an intolerant generalization that is devoid of substance and
> > meaning.
>
>
> 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 and meaning.
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" petition of
> magazines at Wal*Mart--much substance and full of meaning.
None really intended I suspect, except perhaps an example of the market in
action-- whatever meaning you give to that.
> Whether you agree with his politics or not, at least he's *saying*
> something, unlike the trended direction of television these days--'reality
> television'. But that's a different topic.
Just because he's *saying* something doesn't necessarily make it meaningful.
As far as the concept of reality TV goes, I would characterize WW as surreal
TV-- an alternate universe where Liberals can pretend that a REAL president is
in office.
> >
> > > That most often
> > > it's an instrument of hypocrisy or, worse yet, of bullying:
> >
> > Prove? Cites? More BS generalizations.
>
> Cites? Did you read above? BS Generalizations--"Christian" groups are
> bullying Wal*Mart.
Think of it as them voting with their wallets....
> >
> > > 'You're not living your life the way I would have you live it,
> > > the way God would have you live it.
> >
> > > Therefore, God is going to
> > > punish you; you are somehow less in God's eyes.' Obviously, that
> > > kind of thing is insidious and terrible."
> >
> > Yes, and Christians certainly don't believe that. The Gospel revealed by
> > Jesus is that God loves everyone *unconditionally*. Sorkin is ignorant.
>
> The *Bible* says that. However, that's not what these pseudo-Christians are
> saying--they are saying "play by our rules or you're wrong" "Believe in our
> God or you're wrong" "Adhere to what we want and forget about the 1st
> ammendment or we'll petition you until you do." It is your belief, John, if
> this is, indeed, your slant on Christianity, that is ignorant.
What are you talking about??? You are totally mischaracterizing this entire
issue! And what the heck does the First Amendment have to do with it, except
for the fact that YOU seem to want to criticize their rights to free speech!
> > >
> > > Hey you pseudo-Christians--Go back to your Bible and read the *entire*
> > > thing--don't go admonishing others about their lack of values when you are
> > > supposedly professing to be Christian and not getting that you're not
> > > suppose to do that--You're all Pharisees! To you I say, "Take a
> > > seat"--You're not helping.
> >
> > Hey plank eye-- what's crawled up yours? They are perfectly within their
> > rights to pressure Wal*Mart into removing those rags-- that is the American
> > way. So don't patronize WM because of it-- fine. But criticizing them is
> > stupid.
>
> Didn't these pseudo-Christians criticize? Am I not entitled,under the
> "American Way" to do likewise? Am I not allowed to point out hypocricy
> where it exists? Tell me, where's the difference?
They are saying "we find it offensive that you carry magazines which we
consider inappropriate for a family store to sell. If you value us as
customers, you should remove them or we will choose to not patronize your
business." They are not moralizing and saying that WM is bad or that they will
go to hell, only that WM won't get their business if they peddle smut in a
family-friendly establishment. Their reasoning is quite beside the point.
*You* are the one who is sitting in judgment of their motivations. *You* are
the intolerant one; *you* are the hypocrite.
> >
> > > And to Wal*Mart, who succumbs to this type of 'peer-pressure'--well, your
> > > decision--my decision is to not shop where I'm going to be 'protected' from
> > > life.
> >
> > They obviously care more about that group's input than yours-- TS.
>
> Obviously. Squeaky wheel and all that.
No No No. It's more than that. It is all about $$$ Dave. Do you think WM
would care what these people thought if they didn't value these people's
business? Of course not. Believe me, WM is acting in *their own* best
interest. They don't care about what these people believe, and rightly so.
They care about their business. Bottom line.
> But does that make it *right* or *Just*?
That is *not* the issue here.
> More importantly, why Maxim, FHM, et al. Imean, they're not Swank
> or Hustler--we're already "protected" from the hedonistic influence of
> Playboy and such in Wall*Mart--so then it's Maxim. Oh no--Women's Day has
> advertisements of strategically posed nekkid females promoting skin cream!
> What if my 9 year old son takes a look at that and turns out to be a sex
> predator!! Women's Day--Off the shelves!!!
Believe me, if WM somehow deemed *Bibles* to be financial liabilities, they
would discontinue selling them. It's all about $$$. And rightly so.
> Yeah, since in today's age it's politically correct to stomp on just about
> every other ammendment, let's throw out the 1st whilst we're at it, 'cause
> these pseudo-Christians know what's better for you than you do.
Straw man.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
