"Its like"? It is.

The opinion is the single element of a person which *should* be attacked. Unlike any other trait, they're something you choose to have -- and they can be horribly wrong. My opinion is that fish can breathe oil! My opinion is that housecats should be crushed by pyramids! My opinion is that Star Wars is real! Those are bad, bad opinions -- and they should certainly be called stupid.

(Similarly, you must have a very low self esteem to complain with a straight face that you feel excluded because someone is smarter than you are. Buck up, pal.)

Re-read my post, I'm all for calling bad opinions stupid. But I'm against limiting the admissibility of opinions based on degree of connection, which you're doing a lot of since it gives you more targets.

Now try again.

I get that my broadening the playing field puts you at a disadvantage as I've own gone out of my way to point out that people are more likely stupid than smart - but asking me to limit the scope doesn't change what is there already. You obviously agree with me that people are commonly stupid - otherwise, you'd be disagreeing with what I'm saying and not the scope of what I'm saying.

(Is this a "we agree to disagree" on the idea of amount, and then agree on the basics? Or...)

No, I'm talking about this whole spiel about "armchair critics". You can basically go into every argument and apply a similar line of reasoning -- and spin it in whatever possible way to give it validity -- but it doesn't contribute a damned thing to the discussion, which means it's irrelevant and disruptive.

Always... always read the fine print.

Haha, what? What's a 'flag of opinion'? How do you 'plant' it? Does it entail making a post on an internet message board?

And what's a 'stupidity quotient'? How do you measure that? Don't make shit up. Stopping discussion on the internet would most certainly increase overall intelligence is a pretty bold statement to make, do you perhaps have something to back that up, other than your personal opinion about the usefulness of MySpace or 4chan? Like, give me something other than I am a smart independent thinker, others are dum. Perhaps some statistics about rapidly falling literacy rates since the introduction of internet?

What of opinions people have that they don't necessarily wish they had? For example, it's my opinion that all wine tastes like shitty vinegar. I don't want to have that opinion, I'd actually like to be able to enjoy some wine, but unfortunately, I have no choice but to think it's about as appetizing as a stiff glass of apple cider vinegar that's been soaking in my sneakers for a week.

I'd agree with that - if people were still posting about the original topic.

(I'll gladly make this my last post in this thread if you really do think that this is disruptive.)

Oh dear. I'm sorry if euphemism confuses you. I'll be sure to avoid them while talking to you in the future.

If I was snarky, it would be 1 LeHah = 50,000,000,000 Aardarks but hey, thats just me and I'm trying to take this seriously.

I wrote something very long and uninteresting here, then deleted it for this lovely quote from Ray Bradbury - "We are multitudinous lemmings driven by wireless voices to hurl ourselves into the Internet seas where tides of mediocrity surge, pretending at wit and will but signifying nothing."

And I'm the bold one? The basic that either of them are useful at all is awful, considering that they're both based on people being willfully ignorant. The "shorthand" writing, the memes, the surveys... you're attempting to glob intelligence to something that has nothing like that at all.

Prove your intellect like Blah has in the past and I can respond to this with a straight face.

I think the very idea that someone can have an opinion "forced on them" in that sense is a sign of serious ignorance. I don't particularly care for white wine - but I can see why some people would.

Do you... even know what an euphemism is? Regardless, you didn't answer my question. How exactly do you plant a flag of opinion and how is it different from simply having an opinion?

Another personal attack and avoidance of the question? Why, I never.

You were the one who just said that people ought to think for themselves. So why don't you use your own words instead of throwing out some vague quote by another person? Just because a writer said it doesn't make it an axiom.

I didn't say they are useful, but that's not the point. What you're saying is akin to declaring that books should be banned because Mein Kampf was a bad one.

I signed up for awordaday by email from urban dictionary. Today's word seem to pertain to this thread quite well.

Walmart isn't going to notice if 100 people stop shopping at their store. They won't be like 'oh geez, we should have let that women keep that money'. It's just not going to happen, and mindlessly blurting out sentiments to that effect aren't going to do anything either. Unless you are that family, or you are an official of Walmart, I don't see any reason to care all too much. Yah, fine. Express your opinion that you think it sucks, but what is all this 'oh i'm not shoping there anymore' nonsense. We all know you'll still shop there. Why bother telling the internet? Aardvark, I think what Lehah's trying to say(besides just trolling), is 'Why the fuck do people care so much about something that has nothing to do with them?'

I know what LeHah is saying, I just don't entirely agree with him. He seems to think that it's a binary thing: either you absolutely don't give a shit, or you go out and sign up for the fucking Peace Corps, and everything in-between is a waste of time.

Now, it is a waste of time in the sense that we're certainly not helping the woman by posting in this thread (Bigblah mentioned that bringing attention to the case might cause some people to donate, but that's kind of vague, and unless you're the one doing the donating, it's in fact just 'slacktivism'), but is it a waste of time in a broader sense? The woman doesn't benefit, but the people who discuss this case might. I believe in dialectic reasoning, i.e. that 'the truth is born in disputes'. People aren't born with beliefs implanted in their brain. No one is going to just wake up one day and decide to join the Peace Corps or donate money to a mentally disabled woman. However, the very fact that this case is being discussed and its morality and legality argued or defended is bringing the people closer to truth.

Of course, all that is irrelevant if one thinks that discussions don't matter and the truth is just something that you come up with in your own head (by 'thinking for yourself'). In that case, arguing about anything on the internet is indeed pretty pointless. I personally think believing something like that is not a mark of strong character, but rather of mental laziness and close-mindedness. The internet can be a pretty scary place if you approach it that way. Just imagine, you post something on the internet, and it's open to criticism for literally millions of people, who all have the potential to make you question your beliefs. Of course it's always easier to dismiss all those millions as brainless lemmings (as per the quote of Mr. Bradbury) in fell swoop, and keep believing that your personal truth is the ultimately correct one.

Did you choose to not care for white wine, or does that opinion stem from some innate feeling within you?

We really need a Freud emoticon.

Freud emoticon must be snorting coke, this is essential.

As president, I will ensure that this poor woman benefits from my American Health Choices Plan. I will also provide tax credits to help Wal-Mart pay for health care.

I don't know if I like this gimmick account.

Good point.

I also feel Wal-Mart is being a bit of a dick, but on the other hand, they did write it in the small print. Ignorance is not bliss in a court of law.

Well it's not very funny.

I assure you that I am a very humorous person. During my mission to Bosnia I was accompanied by the famous comedian Sinbad, and received his personal tutelage while dodging sniper bullets.

Give her more than two posts to see if she'll be any good. Like, this second post made me chortle a little.

There is something that bothers me. What IS the small print, anyway? Does it say, "In the event damages are collected, Wal-Mart will sue for the return of monies paid?" Or does it say, "In the event damages are collected, Wal-Mart retains the right to sue for monies paid?"

The first phrasing warns the person that it will happen, and the second that it might. With the second phrasing, Wal-Mart would still be upholding the contract even if they didn't sue.

I wish I had a copy of the contract....

UPDATE: Wal-Mart, apparently caving to pressures from outraged consumers, has reversed its decision in the Shank's case - and is modifying its policy to prevent both similar cases and future abuses.

Wal-Mart: Brain-damaged former employee can keep money - CNN.com

Perhaps there is such thing as bad publicity after all.

Yeah, LeHah, "raising awareness."