Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 May 2003 16:40:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > 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.
>
> 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 weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> As opposed to reality, where conservatives have a surreal president in
> office? ;-)
I think the coined phrase is "fictitious";-)
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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....
>
> Boycotts have been used by the left for a long time, I honestly don't see
> why the right can't use them. All the magazines in question remain readily
> available elsewhere. If David wants to counter-boycott them, that's fine,
> too. Generally speaking, I'd rather shop at Target than Wal-Mart, anyway.
>
> > 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.
>
> Magazines are hardly a prime area of Wal-Mart's business, and it's not as if
> the magazine area is particularly well-watched. I don't have that much of a
> problem with them not wanting risque material there. But let's apply all
> that you just said to, say, Barnes & Noble. There's a specific children's
> area: it's a family store. But it's a store that specializes in books and
> magazines (printed material). Where's the line? Family stores? General
> purpose stores? General stores that are the darlings of conservatives so
> that the Christians have built-in clout? I'm not trying to say right or
> wrong so much as questioning the process and motives of those involved.
>
> > > >
> > > > > 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 $$$ Dave. Do you think WM
> > would care what these people thought if they didn't value these people's
> > business? Of course not. Believe me, WM is acting in *their own* best
> > interest. They don't care about what these people believe, and rightly so.
> > They care about their business. Bottom line.
>
> Vote with your money, it's the capitalist way of life. I'm NOT being
> sarcastic or ironic - I certainly apply it.
Of course. That is the way it should be. Nothing works like the market.
> >
> > > But does that make it *right* or *Just*?
> >
> > That is *not* the issue here.
>
> However, if the boycott was extended to all book stores and magazines
> carriers, would you be saying the same thing?
That is more problematic. Basically I see decent folk who don't want to be
<ahem> exposed to such material in their day to day lives. They don't frequent
adult book stores or go to strip clubs and so that type of stuff is generally
sight unseen. And that should be good enough. Live and let live. But they do
shop frequently at Wal*mart, and when that stuff starts creeping into their
daily lives, they have the right to confront it. I would, however, have issues
with crusades that try and abolish stuff, even though I firmly believe that
certain things definitely contribute to the deterioration of society.
> >
> > > More importantly, why Maxim, FHM, et al. Imean, they're not Swank
> > > or Hustler--we're already "protected" from the hedonistic influence of
> > > Playboy and such in Wall*Mart--so then it's Maxim. Oh no--Women's Day has
> > > advertisements of strategically posed nekkid females promoting skin cream!
> > > What if my 9 year old son takes a look at that and turns out to be a sex
> > > predator!! Women's Day--Off the shelves!!!
> >
> > Believe me, if WM somehow deemed *Bibles* to be financial liabilities, they
> > would discontinue selling them. It's all about $$$. 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.
>
> Okay, this may be a correct usage (at least within how you perceive the
> argument). :-)
How can this be a First Amendment issue when the government isn't even
involved? Morality isn't be *legislated* here. But I surmise that you already
understand that:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
