Complaining about a heartless company abiding by a contract? Just how stupid are you?

I take it you were one of those people who were horrified about those pictures of American soldiers sexually abusing muslim prisoners a few years ago. "Hey, I pay soldiers to murder people, not sexually harass them!"

You're talking about Wal-Mart like it's a single person making the decision. Look at it this way, you really want to be the one exec that recommends to all the shareholders that you give away 200k of their money just to be nice?

Say goodbye to your job. Say goodbye to your career. Say hello to a nice big lawsuit because you, as a director or officer, are personally liable for mismanagement of the company.

A sound moral equivalency if I ever saw one. :rolleyes:

Oh but remember, as a corporation they have personhood.

The day anyone looks for you for a moral standing is hopefully the day they reply to your advice with a gun in their mouth.

(Obama supporter. Fucking JOKE.)

If you consider a valid person having a board in their head, determining things for them.

I think those sorts are called "schizophrenics."

I'm not sure what pictures you're talking about, but are you saying that abuse of prisoners is okay? And what on earth does that have to do with this case anyway?

Am I the only one who noticed that Wal-Mart waited three years before suing them? They were notified by the attorney about the decision, and didn't take immediate action. Isn't there a statute of limitations on something like that?

You talk like situations like this are the only reason that people avoid Wal-Mart. From what I understand most people avoid Wal-Mart because they see it as a threat to their community. Since Wal-Mart has a reputation of putting smaller businesses out of business. Which in turn causes people to be unemployed with going to work at the place that cost them their job as basicly their only option. Then they get paid less and get treated poorly.

Situations like this is more throwing salt on the wounds then anything else for people who already hate Wal-Mart.

No. He talks like this because of responses like:

I think it's been said several times in this thread already but, hey, Wal-Mart is not the only corporation to act in, what a lot of us would otherwise perceive to be, morally devoid actions in order to protect their interests. Why are we all surprised about this?

I'm really glad that Walmart was able to protect their interests in this case. If the contract said that they get their money back if a settlement is made, then by golly, they should get their money back. I mean, if a poor man was suing the Shank's for that same money because of a contract they had with him, but they weren't giving it to him, would you still side with the Shanks?

If walmart goes under, where will I get my Little Debbie cakes?

Of course I am.

If you're expecting to find humanity in war, you need to come to your senses.

If you're giving a shit about people that you'll never meet who live on the other side of the world doing things that do not directly affect you, you need to rethink your life.

What it has to do with this case is that its the same stupid reaction. Someone is offended that a company sticks to its contract? How dare they! Someone strips a prisoner of war and sexually molests them instead of shooting them in the face? How awful they are!

Yeah and we should also euthanize brain damaged people because they're a drain on our resources, I mean nobody really gives a shit about them anyway

Yes, they are awful, and the cases are absolutely not the same. In this case, what Wal-Mart did was morally shitty, but within their legal rights. Unlike torture of prisoners of war. The treatment of POWs is covered by international treaties, and I'm pretty sure they don't say that prisoner rape is ok. I mean, what. I need to 'rethink my life' if I care about something I perceive as injustice? See no evil, hear no evil? Do you actually believe what you're saying, or are you just trying to earn cynical hardass points?

What's your opinion on the Nanking Massacre?

Yeah, she's braindead, what would she have done with the money anyway, bought season boxes of Family Guy?

Just stop posting because nobody actually cares about your opinion and you're just wasting your time

Everyone on the internet is probably laughing at you too

I certainly don't.

I mean - what does a brain damaged person give back to society?

Yes, yes, yes thats all nice. Meanwhile, things like Attica happen and now prisoners have all these needless rights to cable television and therapy - but no one does anything about prison rape, do they?


The important word in that sentence is "perceive".

Using this is a cheap ploy - like that stupid rape question given to Michael Dukakis. Obviously, you aren't bothered by the Rape Of Nanking if you so easily cite it; its a stone's throw from Goodwin's Law.

Do I think it was terrible? Sure. Do I give a shit about it? Not especially. I mean, how many countless millions were killed, burned, maimed and raped through the Crusades. I don't care about that either - and anyone here who says they do is lying. The only difference between Nanking and the Crusades is the number of people dead and the time involved.

Burroughs once said something to the effect of "We now live in a nation where we are not allowed to mind our own business". We're seen as callous or bitter people if we don't care about some plight on the other side of the world or people starving or mass murder. Yeah, that shit is terrible - but I don't see the news media anchors giving up their salary to help starving people in Africa and I don't see people on GFF sending donations to needy families.

The difference here is that I don't put on airs to any of that. I don't give a shit about people I don't know. Why? Because this world would be a hell of a lot better off if we cared about people we knew instead of pretending to care about people we don't.

What I'm saying is that if people here are so moved by these terrible things - go join the Peace Corps and actually do something about these horrors. Otherwise, you're just a joke.

What exactly is the difference between thinking that something is terrible and giving a shit about it?

Don't act like you're better than everyone. The world would be better if people actually went out and did something about things, instead of complaining about them on the internet; I see the point and agree with it. Regardless, does that mean all message boards on the internet should be closed down? Do you also think there's no point in discussing politics if you aren't actively involved in a party?

Not to sound heartless, but I think the real fault is in the original lawsuit. If her condition cost $470k to treat, then they should have been able to sue - successfully - for $470k, PLUS some additional amount to cover Debbie's living expenses in the future, pain and suffering, etc. etc. How can you win less than the "reasonal treatment cost"?

Interesting "tactic" divorcing the wife so she can claim extra aid, there.

Thinking can be a passing thought, giving a shit about it means you actually care and plant a flag of opinion on the subject.

As anyone can tell you from the last two meets - I'm not acting. I am most assuredly better than the majority of everyone you have ever met.

It would most certainly lower the stupidity quotient. No more MySpace, no more memes, no more Political Palace. These things make people think together instead of thinking for themselves.

I believe the proof is in the pudding. If you have a political slant, go out and soapbox it and do something with your ideas. I have no respect for armchair warriors and people who sit there dreaming about things. Complaining about an administration doesn't do shit, protesting doesn't do shit, writing songs and "raising awareness" doesn't do shit. These are things people do to make them feel like they're involved without actually doing anything.

I dunno, maybe they can stock shelves in Wal-Mart.... ?


Oh yeah, now you're being all "real", huh? People can comment on concepts as they see fit. I certainly don't give a shit about you*, but I can damn well post about how you're a douchebag because you're trying to one-up everyone on e-cynicism. Or rather, instead of just condemning people for their opinion, you've assumed a lofty position from which you can condemn people for the very act of offering an opinion.

It's like going into a filesharing forum and telling them that filesharing is bad, and acting like some internet hero because you've reported someone to the RIAA.

*in the sense that I wouldn't be donning a black avatar to mourn an untimely demise

Of all the things to hate Wal-Mart for, collecting on a half-million, interest-free loan (which they would never have to repay unless they actually had that money) so that she could pay her medical bills is pretty low on the list.