Brain-damaged woman sued by Wal-Mart

Originally Posted by LeHah

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!"

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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!

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by LeHah

Do I think it was terrible? Sure. Do I give a shit about it? Not especially.

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

Originally Posted by LeHah

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.

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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by LeHah

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

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

Quote:

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.

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?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by LeHah

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

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?

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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."

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.

Quote:

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?