Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 May 2003 16:29:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > LOL, Why do I find it funny that activist Christians threaten to boycott
> > Wal-Mart if they do not obey them. Then, when they cave to that pressure,
> > Dave is unhappy and in turn threatens the exact same type of boycott,
> > meanwhile criticizing the Christian group and all of Christianity for their
> > actions. Maybe Wal-Mart will cave to Dave’s threats and we can start this
> > process all over again. :)
> >
> > Scott
>
> These aren't activist Christians--these are pseudo-Christians who haven't
> got a clue, and only want to enforce their morals on everyone else.
Sorry Dave, but that's not the point. Doesn't matter *who* they were just so
long as they're Wal*Mart customers. Wal*Mart SHOULD be responding to their
customer's demands.
It's just that (and I agree here) those demands are stupid. Should Wal*Mart
start selling sex toys and Nazi paraphanelia if it meant that they'd lose
25% of their customers? Heck no! Wal*Mart has to choose the lesser of 2
evils. Either succomb to the demands or suffer loss of sales. Or, to put it
in better terms, to loose a little money or loose a LOT of money. There's no
"loose no money" option for Wal*Mart. But that's the fault of the
boycotters. Not Wal*Mart.
If you want to complain about the so-called Christians, be my guest. I'll
probably even support you. But don't blame Wal*Mart. That's just misplaced
revenge. You won't get back at the extremists by hurting Wal*Mart's sales.
> If you don't want the mag--don't buy the mag. It's that simple. Sure keep
> Velvet and Hustler and other "adult" content off the shelves in mass markets
> to prevent the kids from accessing such material easily.
Why? Who are you to enforce your moral values on other people's children?
(rhetorical).
> It's absolutely amazing how "passionate" people, who feel they're right, get
> all 'up in arms' to stop something, and as soon as the unvocal majority wake
> up and say, "Hey waittaminit! What you're doing and saying is actually
> wrong", these 'passionate' folks get all in a tither 'cause they're being
> questioned about it. What--we're suppose to let these things go thru
> unscrutinized?
Does this apply to your decision to stop shopping at Wal*Mart?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
