[Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree

[Mark Solomon]

Gary,

Perhaps you could help the discussion by 
outlining what source or type of source you 
consider objective and by what standard.

Mark Solomon



At 11:27 AM -0800 3/5/06, g. crabtree wrote:
>No Joe, What I was asking for in my original 
>post was information from a source, any source, 
>that could be considered objective. Not a Wal 
>Mart smear site. My argument is not that no 
>"human rights" violations have occurred. I have 
>no argument on this particular issue until I 
>have credible information and you'll have to 
>forgive me if your say so doesn't quite fill the 
>bill. Are The products made by these alleged 
>violators sold exclusively by WM? Since you 
>assert that China does not recognize human 
>rights by what standard are you judging this 
>matter? Some other country's standard? Your own 
>personal views on the matter? My point was that 
>it's difficult to discuss this particular issue 
>if the parameters aren't defined. Despite your 
>frantic and apparently fruitful search for 
>something to be angry about, I really am simply 
>asking you for additional information. I am not 
>interested in "showing" you anything.
>
>G. Crabtree
>----- Original Message ----- From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:12 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree
>
>
>Boy, Crabtree, I guess you showed me! I thought 
>that you insulted me before but now I know what 
>insults are really like.
>
>As I look through your post, forgetting about 
>the parts that might bother a sensitive guy like 
>myself, I do find one point that I have not 
>addressed previously. You write:
>
>"... I asked for hard evidence of your assertion 
>of human rights violations by showing me 
>convictions in a court of law."
>
>Thus, your point is that if there are no 
>convictions in a court of law, then there are no 
>human rights violations. Is that it? Since China 
>doesn't recognize human rights, they cannot be 
>guilty of human rights violations, for instance.
>
>I like it when I just have to point out an 
>argument and I don't need to go through the 
>trouble of saying why it is so bad.
>
>Best,
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>=============
>My goodness, Campbell, I sure am glad you aren't the touchy, sensitive type.
>I'd be worried that I might displease you by the act of disagreement. A
>crime punishable by wounded post script. What part of my thinking that you
>are wrong is insulting exactly? Is it just the fact that I dare?  Or was it
>being referred to as "junior"? (as contrasted by Nick Gier's senior) Or was
>it that I referred to you as a "philosopher" a profession that you have told
>me repeatedly is a source of enormous pride to you. I really don't get it.
>
>Anyway, as long as you've got a case of the all bent out of shape, lets take
>a look at your responses to my point about aesthetics. Rather than telling
>me how the drawings for the proposed SWM don't live up to your highly
>refined concept of what's beautiful and what's not, you resort to the Popeye
>edict  "I'ze taken all'z  I can takes and I can't take's na more" Amazing
>how it occurs when you've got a crowd to sing the "me too" chorus.
>Politically expedient.
>
>Joe sez (I'd stick to the more formal Mr. Campbell but at this stage it
>seems it really doesn't matter what I say it'll be seen as deadly insult) in
>response to my assertion that preventing a SWM from being built is dictating
>others shopping choices..."YOU ARE WRONG. (my emphasis) There is a
>difference between dictating what people do and using one's words to
>influence what people do. The latter respects that people have the
>capacities to reason and make decisions for themselves. The former does
>not." How are you "influencing" people with words not to shop someplace when
>by your actions you prevent that venue from being built? Wouldn't seem to
>matter much what the "people" think or "reason." You've made the decision
>for them.
>
>Joe, I've really got to admit that I got a genuine belly laugh from your gas
>station argument. By your logic all wal marts as well as all gas stations in
>Latah Co. should be built on the east side of Granddad bridge, definitely
>reduces that pesky foot traffic. So just exactly what sort of "smart growth"
>retail can exist within the 1/2 mile exclusionary zone of Casa Campbell? Are
>you going to complain to the MCityA council if the kids down the street open
>a lemonade stand? That would be sad.
>
>" Crabtree asks that I provide evidence for exploitation in the form of some
>pro-Wal-Mart website." No, Joseph, I asked for hard evidence of your
>assertion of human rights violations by showing me convictions in a court of
>law.  Either the Dept. of Justice has wracked up the stats. or it hasn't.
>Pretending that this is asking the impossible is to admit that your argument
>is lacking.
>
>Lastly Joe, I don't much care if you say the pledge of allegiance or not.
>Nobody has made any judgment as to your level of perfection and I am most
>certainly not condemning you. I disagree with you. In some way or another,
>on one topic or another,  I am sure I disagree with every person on this
>list. I hope that they aren't all insulted as easily as you.
>
>hugs & kisses,
>The Guy
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:49 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree
>
>>Donovan and Mr. Crabtree,
>>
>>I'm sorry for the combined post but I have only one more post to use
>>today.
>>
>>Both of you used an interesting fallacy in response to a previous post of
>>mine on the proposed Super Wal-Mart.
>>
>>Mr. Crabtree wrote: "Your argument with regard to aesthetics doesn't fly
>>all that well either. Š You didn't pipe up about any of [previous]
>>developments, why the concern now? Sounds more like a case of not 'in my
>>backyard' syndrome than any real desire for architectural grace."
>>
>>Donovan wrote: "Can you please explain to me how it is that you can buy
>>plastics and gasoline from countries like Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
>>etc., that have the worst human rights record in the world, yet at the
>>same time scorn Wal-Mart for buying products from other businesses that
>>manufacture their goods in China?"
>>
>>In response, here is a story. For 15 weeks, children threw eggs at the
>>house of Mr. Crabtree-Arnold. One day, as he was walking to his car, Mr.
>>Crabtree-Arnold noticed young Tommy, throwing an egg at his house. Mr.
>>Crabtree-Arnold scolded Tommy, at which point Tommy replied: "For 15 weeks
>>kids have been throwing eggs at your house. You never said anything
>>against them, so why pick on me?"
>>
>>Does that fact that Mr. Crabtree-Arnold never said anything prior to this
>>day mean that he has no reason to scold Tommy?
>>
>>Here are some comments to other points that you've made:
>>
>>1/ Donovan: "If you believe that countries with bad human rights records
>>should be denied  jobs, and believe the US kills innocents overseas, then
>>why are you not  for exporting US jobs to countries with better human
>>rights records then our own?"
>>
>>Reply: I love our country and I want to make it the best that it can be.
>>
>>2/ Crabtree: "I would suggest that if you stand in the way of a place to
>>shop being built you are most assuredly dictating, in an albeit small way,
>>where folks can and can't shop."
>>
>>Reply: .You are wrong. There is a difference between dictating what people
>>do and using one's words to influence what people do. The latter respects
>>that people have the capacities to reason and make decisions for
>>themselves. The former does not
>>
>>Furthermore, by attempting to keep a Super Wal-Mart from coming into
>>Moscow, I am not "dictating where people can shop." We have a Wal-Mart and
>>there is a Super Wal-Mart scheduled for Pullman. People will still be able
>>to shop at Wal-Mart.
>>
>>3/ Crabtree: "Š having a Wal Mart on the east side of town would seem to
>>be in keeping with the 'smart growth' mantra I keep hearing you MCA types
>>carry on about. Isn't the idea to have shopping be within walking distance
>>of residential development?"
>>
>>Reply: You must be joking. Do you think that Super Wal-Mart would plan for
>>a gas station on location if the intent were only to increase the level of
>>walking customers? If this reply were correct, it would make a mockery of
>>the economic arguments in support of having a Super Wal-Mart in town,
>>which only work if customers beyond the east side of Moscow visit the
>>store often. Part of my concern with having a Super Wal-Mart nearby is
>>that I already have a difficult time walking or riding my bike to
>>different places in Moscow as it is. A Super Wal-Mart on Route 8 will only
>>make matters worse.
>>
>>4/ Donovan: "Just because a place offers low prices does not mean that
>>they are exploiting others."
>>
>>Reply: I didn't suggest this argument. I said that Wal-Mart happened to
>>offer low prices because they exploit others. I'm not claiming that this
>>is true because of some general rule. Crabtree asks that I provide
>>evidence for exploitation in the form of some pro-Wal-Mart website and,
>>well, I guess I can't do that. Clearly there is a problem here since both
>>of you seem to think that any evidence in support of my claim is
>>prejudiced since it is Š. well, evidence in support of something you don't
>>believe.
>>
>>I did give just one small example of exploitation. Part of the reason that
>>Wal-Mart offers low prices is that many of their products are manufactured
>>in countries that fail to recognize the concept of a human right. Point
>>out that other stores are guilty of the same and I'll point you to the
>>Tommy story above. I'm not perfect but at least I can try to stand up to
>>principles in which I truly believe as best as I can. I don't condemn
>>people who think otherwise. I do wonder why people worry so much about
>>whether we recite the pledge of allegiance instead of just living in
>>accordance with the thoughts and sentiments it conveys: "liberty and
>>justice for all."
>>
>>5/ "P.S. Tony, sorry if I'm stepping on your toes a bit here but when it
>>comes to our resident junior philosopher's musings there's plenty
>>'wrongness' for ten folks to respond."
>>
>>Reply: I'm so glad you included this PS. Otherwise it would be difficult
>>to refer to you as "the guy who is unable to say anything to me without
>>insulting me."
>>
>>Until tomorrow!
>>
>>Best, Joe
>>
>>
>>_____________________________________________________
>>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com