Wallmart the Movie! please no flame war..

[tlatosmd]

I kinda flinched when I saw this film seems to be made by an American Church fighting for 'family values' that are supposedly destroyed by Walmart. Can this really be the only public opposition against Walmart? 8O

[mohican]

I read somewhere that Walmart edits the content of the dvd films they carry. However, I don't know if that is a fact.

[Evan Kubota]

"I read somewhere that Walmart edits the content of the dvd films they carry. However, I don't know if that is a fact."

Nope. They do sell music as censored versions without noting that on the album cover, though. DVDs are left alone. It must be too much hassle to go back and re-author them, because I'm sure if any company would be responsible for that kind of crap it would be Wal-Mart.

FWIW I've never been asked for a zip code. I hate stores that do that, or want phone numbers. At Wal-Mart they generally leave you alone ;)

"Again, of course you don't. That's the problem. Educate yourself on the facts and maybe you would consider it "wrong.""

Or maybe I wouldn't. What do you define as "the facts"? "Educating" myself using the same materials that led you to formulate your own opinion of what is "wrong"? Those materials must surely be totally unbiased, since you present them as "the facts".

The problem here is not that you refuse to take your film to Wal-Mart. I have no problem with that, although I think it's an absurd gesture. The problem is that you maintain it as some kind of evidence of moral 'rightness' without acknowledging the inherent relativity of those kinds of judgments.

[etimh]

Can this really be the only public opposition against Walmart?

Of course not. If you are really interested check out these books listed on this page:

http://www.walmartmovie.com/books.php

Definitely read The Case Against Wal-Mart by Al Norman; How Wal-Mart is Destroying America by Bill Quinn; and Selling Women Short by Liza Featherstone. I've read all three and can recommend these highly. I guarantee that if you can get your hands on even one of these books, your opinion of Wal-Mart will change forever.

I respect the right of others to make their own choices according to their own values. I take my film to Walmart. No apologies.

Well that's a very noble gesture monobath. But what values exactly dictate your defiant claim of "taking your film to Walmart. No apologies." Is it purely an economic question? Can you really not afford it? Or maybe you have some real faith in the values and practices of the WalMart organization?

I will never be able to argue against these positions and, like you, I respect your "right" to make your own choice according to your values. But if you're making this choice out of ignorance, or some kind of fear about expanding your knowledge on the subject, I suggest you look into some of the material I cited above.

Even if your opinions about Wal-Mart remain essentially the same, you'll certainlly learn more about the organization you seem to so faithfully support.

Tim

[Angus]

I used to live in the states, and still visit quite frequently...and of course sometimes shop at Walmart. I have NEVER been asked for my zipcode What would the point be anyway when I no longer live in the states? They can hardly refuse to sell me items because I don't actually HAVE a zipcode.

I have relatives (by marriage) who knew Sam Walton, and while they do admit the company has changed somewhat since his death it strikes me that there wasn't anything evil about the man.

And I'd never trust a propaganda film put out by any church group.

[etimh]

The problem here is not that you refuse to take your film to Wal-Mart. The problem is that you maintain it as some kind of evidence of moral 'rightness' without acknowledging the inherent relativity of those kinds of judgments.

This is a fair criticism, Evan, and I agree with you that in the end analysis, moral positions are relative. But there is more logic in arriving at moral positions than you concede, particularly in regards to Wal-Mart.

Outside of political predispositions, emotional attachments, personal feelings, and some vested economic interests, there is, in fact, some legitimate and objective evidence which can help determine one's moral positioning on this issue.

If you have examined the evidence fully and come to a personal moral judgement about this, I accept that and would respect your future decisions. But if you've come to that moral position based on a lack of knowledge, abstract sentiments, or even opportunistic self-interest, then I can suggest to you that you expand your exposure about this and do a little research.

I'm never afraid of exposing myself to the opposing position--I've actually read the one book that I could find supporting the scant evidence of Wal-mart's benefit to communities and the economy. Why would you be afraid to do the same?

Tim

[etimh]

And I'd never trust a propaganda film put out by any church group.

What are you guys talking about! The film is produced by Brave New Films, the same folks who produced Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism; Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election; and Uncovered: The Iraq War--all AMAZING documentaries.

I don't see any affiliation with church-groups except for the call for "faith-based organizations" to hold screenings. Read the "Who We Are" page about the producers before you continue to reiterate bogus slander.

Jesus Fucking Christ!

Tim

[Alex]

The problem here is not that you refuse to take your film to Wal-Mart. The problem is that you maintain it as some kind of evidence of moral 'rightness' without acknowledging the inherent relativity of those kinds of judgments.

Outside of political predispositions, emotional attachments, personal feelings, and some vested economic interests, there is, in fact, some legitimate and objective evidence which can help determine one's moral positioning on this issue.

But if you've come to that moral position based on a lack of knowledge, abstract sentiments, or even opportunistic self-interest, then I can suggest to you that you expand your exposure about this and do a little research.

Tim

The problem with higher learning is everything can be viewed as uncontroversial because it is based on a specific viewpoint.

A classic example told to us in school was from the book Walden, in which Thoreau accidentally starts a fire and then watches as the townspeople try to put it out.

Instead of participating, Thoreau basically just stood by and watched and wrote about the futility of trying to put the fire out. If that telling of the story in our class is accurate, then imagine the irony, not only does Thoreau start the fire, but then doesn't help when others try to put the fire out, yet then he writes about the whole experience, from his point of view and in the process avoids any direct involvement even though he actually started the fire.

That is a case of classic "higher learning" finding a way to not be bothered by minimizing the importance of the event in question.

[Evan Kubota]

"there is, in fact, some legitimate and objective evidence which can help determine one's moral positioning on this issue."

Instead of just saying that it exists, why not show us? If you've read three books on the subject, and their evidence is really "objective," why not post some examples? I fail to see how you can obtain "objective" evidence when it's inherently altered by passing through the book's author and then your reading of the text.

The gist of it is that your opinion is just that - an opinion - and has no more validity than anyone else's, regardless of how many books you've read about the subject.

[etimh]

"there is, in fact, some legitimate and objective evidence which can help determine one's moral positioning on this issue."

Instead of just saying that it exists, why not show us? If you've read three books on the subject, and their evidence is really "objective," why not post some examples?

Sighhhhhh.

Why not do the reading and research yourself, instead of relying on me? You obviously think that my "opinion" has no legitimacy so why not look into it yourself and you can come to your own conclusions? Then you can have an opinion of your very own!

Tim

[Evan Kubota]

Because frankly it's not an issue I feel strongly enough about to purchase a few books relating to the subject. I'm not "relying" on you, merely asking for some "evidence" to support your assertion that objective morality *does* exist in this case.

[monobath]

I respect the right of others to make their own choices according to their own values. I take my film to Walmart. No apologies.

Well that's a very noble gesture monobath. But what values exactly dictate your defiant claim of "taking your film to Walmart. No apologies." Is it purely an economic question? Can you really not afford it? Or maybe you have some real faith in the values and practices of the WalMart organization?

I will never be able to argue against these positions and, like you, I respect your "right" to make your own choice according to your values. But if you're making this choice out of ignorance, or some kind of fear about expanding your knowledge on the subject, I suggest you look into some of the material I cited above.

Even if your opinions about Wal-Mart remain essentially the same, you'll certainlly learn more about the organization you seem to so faithfully support.

Tim

I take my film to Walmart because it is economical and because it is easier for me to drop my film off there than at the post office. Sure I could pay more for something than I have to, but I generally go with the low cost supplier, as long as they provide me the level of service, quality, and convenience that I desire. There are no service or quality advantages to sending my film directly to Dwayne's, so I see no point in paying twice what Walmart charges me.

I'm not ignorant of the complaints about Walmart. I simply don't agree that Walmart is The Great Satan, or that doing business with Walmart is evil. It doesn't trouble me to shop there.

You know, Walmart's outlab processor is the Fujicolor Processing Lab. It's actually Fuji that sends your K40 to Dwayne's for processing. Do you eschew Fuji products because they do business with Walmart? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't. That's up to you.

[MovieStuff]

If you have examined the evidence fully and come to a personal moral judgement about this, I accept that and would respect your future decisions. But if you've come to that moral position based on a lack of knowledge, abstract sentiments, or even opportunistic self-interest, then I can suggest to you that you expand your exposure about this and do a little research.

You say that you would respect his judgement on this subject if Evan had examined the evidence fully but, for all you know, he may be more informed than YOU, Tim. Your only basis that he isn't relies on the simple fact that he doesn't agree with you. Thus, the fundamental and obvious problem with your position is that it mandates a level of examination on the subject that only you get to judge as being adequate; i.e. if Evan agrees with you then he has examined the evidence fully and if he doesn't agree with you then he obviously has not examined the evidence to your satisfaction.

I would hardly call that kind of moral judgement of someone else's moral judgement "relative". Sounds didactic to me. ;)

Roger

[etimh]

You say that you would respect his judgement on this subject if Evan had examined the evidence fully but, for all you know, he may be more informed than YOU, Tim. Your only basis that he isn't relies on the simple fact that he doesn't agree with you. Thus, the fundamental and obvious problem with your position is that it mandates a level of examination on the subject that only you get to judge as being adequate; i.e. if Evan agrees with you then he has examined the evidence fully and if he doesn't agree with you then he obviously has not examined the evidence to your satisfaction.

Well, all he has to do is say, "I've examined the evidence." Simple as that. But by his own admission he doesn't really "feel strongly" about the issue, so I assumed he hasn't.

But if he has, great. Like I've said a million times, I have no authority to dictate other's actions in any way, shape, or form. But I'll continue to argue positions and try to get people to look at alternative viewpoints.

BTW, you're positing some odd arguments here Roger--what's your interest in this discussion? Is it just to counter the position that I take, whatever it is? What beef do you have with me?

Tim

[audadvnc]

It's perhaps not so much that Roger has a beef with Tim personally as he has a problem with the way this has become a religious issue. How can you have a discussion with anyone who is convinced that God has given them unique insight into the ways of the universe, and anyone who disagrees must therefore be against God? Fundamentalism comes in all sorts of stripes. "For us or against us", indeed.

By the way, I never shop there. Target's closer.