Subject:
|
Re: One more reason why I'm refusing to shop in Wal*Mart
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 May 2003 13:48:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
524 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek 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:
>
> > > > 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'.
>
> 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 booted thugs coming to my house and taking my books away
> and burning them against my will? That's not free speech.
>
> This scenario, assuming WalMart is not a monopoly and no coercion is being
> used, doesn't seem like a speech violation to me. WalMart is choosing to
> lose the business of people who want to buy Maxim, to retain the business of
> those who prefer that WalMart not carry it.
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 tone it down a bit--gang walks into Mom-n-Pop Hair Salon and
tells Mom-n-Pop to start cutting everyone elses hair like theirs or
mom-n-pop will start losing customers. Thugs. Coercion. And a speech
violation.
These people aren't saying "Those magazines aren't fit for us to read."
They are saying, "These magazines aren't fit for *all* to read." And
therein lies all the difference in the world.
What? You think they'll stop just at Wal*Mart? Have "they" ever stopped
just at one point? If you think that this isn't a 1st ammendment issue
today, all you have to do is sit back and wait.
Beyond the 1st ammendment, which is a parenthetical discussion of this
topic, the idea that some seem to be quite content to let certain sects,
certain non-elected or gov't appointed groups, dictate what *everyone else*
has access to, I find quite appalling. Again some would say, "It's just
Wal*Mart!" Keep your pants on--it'll be more, and why do we have to wait
for that "more" to happen? If there's an injustice now, isn't now the time
to say something about it?
>
> WalMart has enough market power that it can ask for special versions of
> products and get them. But it doesn't have enough market power to prevent me
> from going somewhere else to buy my copy of the music so I can hear it the
> way the artist originally made it, if I so choose.
>
> Christians or pseudo christians are welcome to petition free traders all
> they want. What gets my back up is when they petition governments and get
> laws passed (why can't I buy liquor on sunday in Grand Rapids? Not because
> all the stores freely decided not to carry it (there's a market opportunity
> for me if there are no barriers to entry) but rather because a majority of
> citizens decided it wasn't good for me to do that).
"A majority of citizens"? Isn't that the tenants of democracy? If a
majority wants something, then that's what *all* get. My issue is when the
loud and vocal minority want somehting and the majority sit on the sidelines
and let it happen that bothers me. Further, why does it just have to be
gov't interference before you get bothered? If there's an injustice about
that hasn't involved state/federal laws, does that mean we can just ignore it?
> That sort of lawmaking, restricting free trade and restricting behaviour of
> consenting adults(1), is tyranny. Tyranny by the majority, and small tyranny
> compared to gassing thousands of Kurds, mind you, but tyranny nevertheless.
> That's the problem I have with democracys with unlimited governmental power.
> The majority of the moment can vote ANTYHING in.
Again, I don't think it's tyranny by the majority--I think it's tyranny by a
vocal minority. As a tangent, it is our Canadian Senate that is suppose to
be the 'chamber of sober second thought', in which if laws get passed
without due consideration, the Canadian Senate has the ability to overturn
said laws. Now without getting into how it acutally works, that's what is
suppose to happen.
The issue I see today with you Yanks is that when your senate and house and
pres are all of one party, where does the 'sober second thought' come in?
Oh right, it doesn't--"Patriot Act 1 and 2".
>
> To recap, this is not a first amendment issue.
If it isn,t today, it will be.
> 1 - *Any* restriction of behaviour apriori, is a form of tyranny. Restrict
> outcomes, not intents. Senator Santorum is correct when he says that lifting
> sodomy laws may lead to constitutional challenges of laws against polygamy.
> (2) Where he is incorrect is in asserting that is a bad thing. The state has
> no business favoring one sort of interpersonal relationship at the expense
> of another.
And one sect of society has no business influencing what everyone else reads
or sees. Just as sure as the gov't should stay out of my bedroom, other
groups should stay away from my reading material (1).
>
> 2 - and it is unfortunate that so many in the media can't analyse what he
> actually said accurately.
Media is *only* interested in what catches the eyes of the people. This
whole SARS thing has driven this point home. Beyond the sheer ineptness of
the WHO, when the media circus that was the ban on Toronto was done, how
much hoopla has been shown that Toronto, today, is fine 'n dandy?
Dave K
(1) not that my usual reading material includes Maxim or FHM, but that's not
the issue. Mayhaps certain sects of society may be offended by the
adventures of one Arthur Philip Dent--for DA takes many potshots at God--and
they might 'coerce' my local bookstore not to carry any Douglas Adams books.
Or maybe they'll seek out way of stopping me from reading my favourite comic
on the internet! (www.sinfest.com) Sure it may be only Wal*Mart today--not
that this was the first step, and it most definitely won't be the last--but
I'll fight the small battles today so I don't have to fight the big ones
tomorrow.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
