Shopping at Wal-Mart makes you a murderer!

[hooky]

I "get it", but her premise is jacked up. She compares apples and oranges.

 

[Jack Burton]

So by your logic withholding funds from one company for the political purpose of stopping the company from providing a certain service is not a valid parallel to boycotting (withholding funds from) another company based on a political stance in hopes that they will stop selling that product.


It would appear as though with a little critical thinking that the parallel is quite similar.

No.... it's not the same at all. If Fred collects money from Allen, and chooses not to pay Susie with it to paint George's home because Fred doesn't like George, and I choose not to go to Bill's restaurant to encourage him to take pasta, which I don't like, off the menu the actions of Fred and myself have nothing in common. It may be true that we both don't like something, but the actions have no points in common.

 

[Jack Burton]

It is so terribly sad and disheartening to read through these comments.
Those of you that attacked the author of that letter just "didn't get it". And still don't, it seems.

It's the responsibility of the author of a persuasive piece of writing to ensure that the readers don't have to jump thru hoops to "get it." If they have a epic fail in their writing, don't blame the readers. Especially when the writing is only a handful of paragraphs.

 

[Slapstick]

And to think, I thought killing people made you a murderer. Shows you how much I know.

 

[chefnick7]

What a stupid article. I still wont shop at any Walmart, my local gun stores always have better deals and I'd rather give my money to the small mom and pop stores even if the were a bit more expensive.

 

[ckcollins2003]

I think I'll write my own letter to the editor about how guns DON'T kill people. Lets see if it gets published.

 

[ckcollins2003]

Think it will ever get published?



Dear Editor,

After reading the letter that Rachel Hile had sent in, I got a bit nauseated. Mostly because that garbage won the Golden Pen award for that month. In no way does gun control have anything to do with baby food or Wal-Mart, just because they choose to sell them.
I'd like to ask how many people have seen a firearm jump out of the safe at a store, open a box of ammo, load a round into the chamber, then hobble its way in front of someone and pull it's own trigger. If anyone has ever seen this happen, please send me the video as I will further more never purchase a firearm for the rest of my life.
If you believe that guns kill people, instead of the human being that fired the weapon, I'd like to know how many of you believe that vehicles kill people. Vehicles kill people all of the time by running into each other, right? NO! It's the person behind the wheel of the vehicle that kills the other person! I'm sure every anti-gun person including the special English professor who is so anti-gun that she would rather kill an infant than shop at Wal-Mart owns a vehicle. Does this make them a hypocrite? I believe it does.
So for every anti-gun enthusiast who would rather kill a baby like this woman, please check yourself into the nearest padded room, as you've been officially labelled 'mentally incompetent'.

Thank you,
Craig Collins

 

[GuyRelford]

 

[GuyRelford]

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, (sarcastically) we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitutional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

Repost. Please consider this, particularly if you're considering a response to the paper.

 

[jgreiner]

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette keeps its reputation intact by awarding the following the "golden pen" for letter of the month:

Letter of the month | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN

Her "logic:"
Guns kill people. Wal-Mart sells guns. Therefore, buying anything at Wal-Mart makes you a murderer (you also get a "sad look" from the author.)

Bizarre!

Using that letter writers logic...then cars kill people. I guess we should all ban them too? The letter writer is a moron.

 

[IndySSD]

Wow... RIGHT under Guy's post too.....

The letter writer is a moron.

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitutional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

 

[jason765]

Im at walmart about twice a week, I guess that makes me a serial killer or "Cereal Killer" if im getting groceries.

 

[IndySSD]

Im at walmart about twice a week, I guess that makes me a serial killer or "Cereal Killer" if im getting groceries.

Now that's just funny......

 

[ViperJock]

So by your logic withholding funds from one company for the political purpose of stopping the company from providing a certain service is not a valid parallel to boycotting (withholding funds from) another company based on a political stance in hopes that they will stop selling that product.


It would appear as though with a little critical thinking that the parallel is quite similar.

The difference, and it is a big difference, is that in one "business" the tax payers money is supporting the program. In the other example people voluntarily support Walmart. Therefore witholding tax money to pay for a program without the payers consent is not the same thing as an individual boycotting Wally World.

The government isn't preventing people from having abortions, they are allowing for the fact that some tax payers don't feel like they should have to pay for other people to have something to which they are morally against. For this analogy to hold, the taxpayers would have to be paying for people to get free guns from Walmart.

Its not that we don't understand the article, we just don't agree with the premise. I love it when people assume that because you disagree with them, you JUST DON'T GET IT.

 

[IndySSD]

Its not that we don't understand the article, we just don't agree with the premise. I love it when people assume that because you disagree with them, you JUST DON'T GET IT.

I'm not the one that can't get the parallel.... what you don't get is that the majority of anti gun purchasers in the walmart story ARE the government... they are funding the company that is supplying the good that they don't agree with so they are withholding....


Like I said, it's a parallel, not a literal comparison don't blame your lack of literature style recognition on a false theory of assumption based on disagreement.

 

[Hawkeye]

I noted that the Editors at the FWJG make the award for the "most effective letter" or some such standard. My concern is that I can't quite figure out what was effective about the letter. It seemed to mix arguments in a confusing and illogical manner. It did not take a coherent postion. And to me simply made irrational and illogical associations amongst the author's points.

So, if this is an effective letter in the minds of the FWJG Baord of Editors, who is the greater fool.

My wife does some teaching at IPFW and has taught in the English department. I'll have to aks her if she knows this lady.

 

[IndySSD]

I noted that the Editors at the FWJG make the award for the "most effective letter" or some such standard. My concern is that I can't quite figure out what was effective about the letter. It seemed to mix arguments in a confusing and illogical manner. It did not take a coherent postion. And to me simply made irrational and illogical associations amongst the author's points.

So, if this is an effective letter in the minds of the FWJG Baord of Editors, who is the greater fool.

My wife does some teaching at IPFW and has taught in the English department. I'll have to aks her if she knows this lady.

Sorry, normally I'm not really the spelling/grammar nazi but since you're criticizing the letter based on it's literary merits I'd suggest that while you're asking your English professor of a wife to explain the letter to you, ask her how to spell the word board.

 

[Wild Deuce]

It's the responsibility of the author of a persuasive piece of writing to ensure that the readers don't have to jump thru hoops to "get it." If they have a epic fail in their writing, don't blame the readers. Especially when the writing is only a handful of paragraphs.

+1

Reagrdless of your position on the subject, she failed to communicate. Personally, I think her logic fails as well.

 

[GuyRelford]

The difference, and it is a big difference, is that in one "business" the tax payers money is supporting the program. In the other example people voluntarily support Walmart. Therefore witholding tax money to pay for a program without the payers consent is not the same thing as an individual boycotting Wally World.

Actually, the law she's sarcastically proposing would prevent food stamps (government money) from being used in Wal-Mart, just like Medicaid funds (government money) can't be used to support Planned Parenthood. So the parallel she's drawing makes more sense than she's getting credit for here - especially because her real point is that constitutional liberties should be protected, whether those liberties are politically popular or not.

As gun owners, we make that same argument - and we expect people to respect it.

 

[Hawkeye]

Sorry, normally I'm not really the spelling/grammar nazi but since you're criticizing the letter based on it's literary merits I'd suggest that while you're asking your English professor of a wife to explain the letter to you, ask her how to spell the word board.

Byte me! Ever hear of typos?