Wal-Mart and more

[Curtis Burisch]

Dan M: wrote:

>3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote:

>" The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do)
>agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_
>worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those
>lives."

>Yes or no answers will suffice.  Elaboration would be appreciated.

This is a question that is enormously complex to answer.

First, the trival bit: 

>"if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer
>among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal"

I think there are very few who would admit to not thinking this an admirable
goal.

Second, the hard bit. " ... done more to aid or more to harm ... ". This is
the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on
poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly
impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an
opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much.

Your response to the response to the response to this message confused me
also. 

You were ranting on about the EU pandering to Green Party pressure, accusing
them of sacrificing children to malaria for some political agenda. If you'd
bothered to learn a little about DDT, you'd have seen that it is VERY nasty
stuff. Most of the (extensive) Wikipedia article on DDT is about how nasty
it is.

Then I remembered Charlie's reference to the 'Gish Gallop' (to which you
were responding), and this made me wonder if your abrupt change of topic
might just be a hint suggesting that the whole Wal-mart argument was simply
a cunning troll, rolled up in several layers of misdirection!?

Regards
Curtis

The herring is not red Maru.