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

[g. crabtree]

Greetings Mark, For the purpose of this discussion I would settle for any 
site that doesn't have the ruin of Wal Mart as it's first priority. Just to 
be clear, I don't doubt for a second that human rights are violated in China 
and other hell holes around the planet. Where I have a problem is when 
folks would have me believe that Wal Mart is some how the cause or the sole 
benefactor. I realize that the "everyone else is doing it" argument is weak 
but, if people are going to demonize WM with it and continue to patronize 
all the other merchants who sell the same or similar products then I don't 
think that their  point is very well made either.

Regards,
Gary


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Solomon" <msolomon at moscow.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>; <joekc at adelphia.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Wal-Mart: Replies to Donovan and Crabtree


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. S 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: "S 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 S. 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