Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 May 2003 14:13:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
412 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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.
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' food because non-kosher food is against their religion?
>
> > 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.
And just because you don't get, or don't want to accept what he said doesn't
make his point an "intolerant generalization that is devoid of substance and
meaning"
>
> > >
> > > > 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....
Again, they're not voting with their wallets--that would be "Market in
Action". They are arbitrarily pre-empting the market process with their wants.
> > >
> > > > '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!
They are criticising everyone else's "free speech", John. They are saying
"We don't want *anyone* else to read that stuff, therefore we are going to
pressure the store to take it off their shelves." Tell me how much that's
different from 'burning books'.
> > > >
> > > > 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
So anything they don't like is smut? Are these mags smut? Why? The smut
is off the shelves in 'family oriented' stores already. It's still legal to
buy in many variety stores, but that's neither here nor there. Letting a
specific sect of society define what 'smut' is, is the issue. Again I say,
I flipped thru the "Soap Opera's Digest" we have here in the lunchroom at
work once, and the adverts in it are pretty revealing. Smut? What about
those Buffalo Jeans ads I see in the bus shelters in Toronto.
And if we say anything against those that are against things--we're the ones
who are 'making the stink'.
K, whatever.
> 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.
Well, no. As said above, they are the judge, jury and executioner--doing an
'end run' around 1st ammendment rights in the name of their "Christian
morals", for what other reason would they have to remove said material?
What possible motive would they have to pressure Wall*Mart to remove these
magazines? List one reason that doesn't allude to "morals".
> > >
> > > > 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 $$$ Dave. Do you think WM
> would care what these people thought if they didn't value these people's
> business? Of course not. Believe me, WM is acting in *their own* best
> interest. They don't care about what these people believe, and rightly so.
> They care about their business. Bottom line.
Of course they are. But why do they have to act in this fashion? Are they
doing it "out of the goodness of their well-being"? No--they're being
pressured by a vocal minority. What if all those apathetic folks, who don't
give a whit that Maxim's on the shelf, start saying "Well, if you start
censoring our reading material based on someone else's idea of what's good
for us, we're not shopping there"... but that won't happen, see, because the
majority of us really are apathetic when it comes to this sort of stuff, so
yes, it is the squeaky minority that gets the attention, as it has always
been. Bottom line is Wall*Mart did act in their best interest. But, again,
that doesn't make the censorship right or Just.
>
> > But does that make it *right* or *Just*?
>
> That is *not* the issue here.
It is precisely the issue.
>
> > More importantly, why Maxim, FHM, et al. Imean, they're not Swank
> > or Hustler--we're already "protected" from the hedonistic influence of
> > Playboy and such in Wall*Mart--so then it's Maxim. Oh no--Women's Day has
> > advertisements of strategically posed nekkid females promoting skin cream!
> > What if my 9 year old son takes a look at that and turns out to be a sex
> > predator!! Women's Day--Off the shelves!!!
>
> Believe me, if WM somehow deemed *Bibles* to be financial liabilities, they
> would discontinue selling them. It's all about $$$. And rightly so.
Then let it be about money. Again you're not seeing the point--these folks
didn't speak with their pocketbooks, they spoke with pressure. It's all the
difference in the world. Threats are wrong, no matter the circumstance.
"You do what I want or this harm will come to you!" That's what these
peolpe said. If you don't like the mag, don't buy the mag. If you don't
like the store that sells the mag, then don't go to the store.
I'm not shopping at Wall*Mart due to their policies of caving into vocal
minorities. Now whether I let them know that remains to be seen. Would I
be as wrong as these pseudo-Christians if I do let Wall*Mart know of my
boycott? Save it for another debate.
> > 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.
Not even close. You can't refute it. Maybe I'll start calling you
pseudo-Larry ;)
>
> JOHN
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
