Shopping at Wal-Mart makes you a murderer!

[Hawkeye]

Sorry, normally I'm not really the spelling/grammar nazi but since you're criticizing the letter based on it's literary merits I'd suggest that while you're asking your English professor of a wife to explain the letter to you, ask her how to spell the word board.

Really, if that is the best criticisom that you can come up with on a web posting, don't bother. I don't run spell checks on these things and from the posts that I've seen on this board, I'm not the only one.

Besides, where did I criticize spelling and grammar? I went to the content and the message.

Get a life.

 

[ViperJock]

I'm not the one that can't get the parallel.... what you don't get is that the majority of anti gun purchasers in the walmart story ARE the government... they are funding the company that is supplying the good that they don't agree with so they are withholding....


Like I said, it's a parallel, not a literal comparison don't blame your lack of literature style recognition on a false theory of assumption based on disagreement.

Literature style recognition? Seriously? Wow. I'm not even gonna argue with your criticism cause wow. On the other hand, once again, I am going to say it is not the same. You guys want to argue semantics but the bottom line is that buying food on government food stamps at a place that also sells guns is not the same as using those food stamps to buy guns. On the other hand, using government funds to support abortions at planned parenthood IS exactly using government funds to fund abortion. So you can call me an ignoramus or literature style idiot or whatever you choose, but the bottom line is that the basic premise of her logic is flawed. I'm not arguing her style or use of sarcasm or anything like that. I'm just saying that she is wrong.

Furthermore, the constitutionality of the concept is irrelevant. The taxpayers are not responsible to fund anyone else's rights. As I said before, the government does not buy me arms to bear, why should they pay for someone else's "right" to an abortion--if it is really even a constitutional right anyway. This may be a case where a "right" is not really a "right" endowed by the Creator (especially since most of the participants probably don't even believe in the Creator) but rather a privelege granted by the government.

I'm sure there is a grammatical inconsistency or mispelled word in my diatribe that can be used to discount my opinion, but there you go.

 

[ViperJock]

Actually, the law she's sarcastically proposing would prevent food stamps (government money) from being used in Wal-Mart, just like Medicaid funds (government money) can't be used to support Planned Parenthood. So the parallel she's drawing makes more sense than she's getting credit for here - especially because her real point is that constitutional liberties should be protected, whether those liberties are politically popular or not.

As gun owners, we make that same argument - and we expect people to respect it.

As above. Except that I will also add this to your argument; No one is saying that people can't get an abortion. Just that if you want one, pay for it yourself. No civil liberties are at stake here. Just a looter losing the opportunity to loot.

 

[GuyRelford]

As above. Except that I will also add this to your argument; No one is saying that people can't get an abortion. Just that if you want one, pay for it yourself. No civil liberties are at stake here. Just a looter losing the opportunity to loot.

With respect, I'm not making any arguments whatsoever for or against abortion. I just tried to put the article in context - and very specifically point out that her article is not actually "anti-gun".

 

[Streck-Fu]

I would expect a professor of English and Linguistics to be a little more precise and concise. Even though I can decipher her point, it is a rambling mess and slightly idiotic.

 

[ViperJock]

With respect, I'm not making any arguments whatsoever for or against abortion. I just tried to put the article in context - and very specifically point out that her article is not actually "anti-gun".

I agree with your assesment in that she only attacks guns in her opening salvo where she states that she does not personally like them. And I am not accusing you of arguing for, or against, abortion. The point that I am trying to make here is that whether or not you agree with abortion or gun ownership, her logic is flawed. Isn't that what this thread has become--an argument about whether or not she presents a valid one?

The points made by some fail to understand that she is trying to argue from a perspective of reason. Others grasp that she is attempting to draw a corollary between a liberal interest and a conservative interest in order to "help" proponents of the withdrawal of medicare understand in their own terms. However, she fails because her basic premise, as I have outlined above is flawed.

Some are arguing that it is lack of ability or intellectual prowess that makes me think so. I think not. I have plenty of academic and "real world" experience with people who make this type of argument and i assure you that while it is regailed in academia by the self-purported intelligensia, in the real world, it is full of fail.

Some posters have recognized that such a poorly written letter would land a poor grade if written in a college course and they are both right and wrong. Unfortunately, a similar piece made with a similar progessive topic would likely grade well. On the other hand, a conservative topic written with such poor literary style (to steal a phrase from IndySSD) would likely be torn apart for the sad logic it contains. Alas, the state of today's higher education.

 

[GuyRelford]

I agree with your assesment in that she only attacks guns in her opening salvo where she states that she does not personally like them. And I am not accusing you of arguing for, or against, abortion. The point that I am trying to make here is that whether or not you agree with abortion or gun ownership, her logic is flawed. Isn't that what this thread has become--an argument about whether or not she presents a valid one?

The points made by some fail to understand that she is trying to argue from a perspective of reason. Others grasp that she is attempting to draw a corollary between a liberal interest and a conservative interest in order to "help" proponents of the withdrawal of medicare understand in their own terms. However, she fails because her basic premise, as I have outlined above is flawed.

Some are arguing that it is lack of ability or intellectual prowess that makes me think so. I think not. I have plenty of academic and "real world" experience with people who make this type of argument and i assure you that while it is regailed in academia by the self-purported intelligensia, in the real world, it is full of fail.

Some posters have recognized that such a poorly written letter would land a poor grade if written in a college course and they are both right and wrong. Unfortunately, a similar piece made with a similar progessive topic would likely grade well. On the other hand, a conservative topic written with such poor literary style (to steal a phrase from IndySSD) would likely be torn apart for the sad logic it contains. Alas, the state of today's higher education.

I respect your opinion completely, but it goes well beyond any point I was trying to make.

Carry on!

Guy

 

[jon159753]

I don't like guns, so I don't have to buy one, and I can choose not to patronize businesses that sell them. Hurray for the USA! (Letter of the month | The Journal Gazette | Fort Wayne, IN)

Hurray for the USA that is protected with GUNS and not dead babies. The hypothetical walmart food stamp law and the one deciding to not fund just one particular non profit business are not even similar. JUst because you run a non profit and have been getting funds does not mean you will and should always get the money. And i have read the Constitution and I do not recall where it even mentions abortions.
2nd Amendment= the RIGHT to bare arms
the right to free choice is in there also, but not the right to allocate my tax dollars to the choices.

 

[emst52]

I dont like people who dont like guns. I dont go to peoples houses who dont like guns. I dont spend my at establishments who dont like guns. Damn I think i may just be good enough to earn a sport in the newspaper!

 

[teejay422]

Folks - I'm not defending this article, but if she had posted it here, her comments about "give them a sad look and call them a murderer" would have been in purple. She's making a sarcastic comparison to people calling the patients at Planned Parenthood clinics "murderers." In a strange way, she's promoting gun rights, notwithstanding her comment about not liking guns. She's saying that the right to have an abortion is constitutionally protected (Roe v. Wade) - just like keeping and bearing arms - yet politics have allowed the funding to Planned Parenthood to be cut. So, by comparison, we should all stop shopping at Wal-Mart, to stop the "funding" of guns and ammo to American citizens - even though the right to keep and bear arms is also constitutionally protected.

IOW, people who don't like abortions (like she doesn't like guns) shouldn't have the ability to deprive other citizens of their constitutional rights. Thus the sarcasm.

that's kinda what i picked up. she's saying that if you don't like guns, you don't have to support them. if you don't like abortions or other services offered by PPH, same thing goes. although she definitely contradicts herself - difficult to do when every three line paragraph you write focuses on something unrelated - she seems to be saying that although a person has a right not to support such things, that doesn't mean that person then has the power to infringe on someone else's rights. in the same sense that food and baby formula should not be made unavailable to people receiving government assistance simply based on non-related items that may be sold in the same store, services offered by PPH should not be made unavailable to those same people based on other services that may be offered by PPH. i think we all agree, the golden pen award for such an opinionated and loosely guided letter seems more humorous than anything. but, why not pick the letter that leaves enough room between the lines for any reader to interpret any way they're so inclined? i might see if i can track down an email address for Ms. Hile and ask for a better attempt to fill in the gaps with some tru logic. i'll post if i get any response.

 

[ATM]

2nd Amendment= the RIGHT to bare arms

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

I wonder if she avoids all things which result in death. Cars, Doctors, Food, Kitchen Utensils, Electricity. By her argument, she should avoid using all metal because they end up in firearms or projectiles.

 

[Walt_Jabsco]

I really need to stop looking at this thread, because it makes me both angry and depressed every time I see new posts here.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

I really need to stop looking at this thread, because it makes me both angry and depressed every time I see new posts here.

@Walt_Jabsco, I think many of us understand the purpose and message of the article. The writer effectively used another polarizing issue to which most of us have strong opinions for or against to criticize the governors stance on the issue of abortion. In effect she is belittling her own stance on shopping at Walmart in an effort to criticize the law. Being a firearm loving people, we love to criticize anyone who may even show a hint of being an activist against our pass time. Thusly, nearly any article on the subject is likely to quickly veer from the intended point toward "ha ha, look at that idiot who doesn't believe what we believe." Such is human nature.

 

[GuyRelford]

@Walt_Jabsco, I think many of us understand the purpose and message of the article. The writer effectively used another polarizing issue to which most of us have strong opinions for or against to criticize the governors stance on the issue of abortion. In effect she is belittling her own stance on shopping at Walmart in an effort to criticize the law. Being a firearm loving people, we love to criticize anyone who may even show a hint of being an activist against our pass time. Thusly, nearly any article on the subject is likely to quickly veer from the intended point toward "ha ha, look at that idiot who doesn't believe what we believe." Such is human nature.

Tru dat.

 

[silentvoice71]

That paper blows bunch of liberal and to top it off racist crap. One person the feature in their paper Eugene Watson is a liberal anti white everything racist.

 

[.45 Dave]

Looks to like we need to be concerned about what kind of funding IPFW is receiving. If they can't turn out any better writers than this from their Assistant Professors, then there is definitely a problem! I am fine with opposing view points, but I do demand that if the writer claims to be a professor then I expect it to be well written and coherent.

 

[Airborne33]

Liberals lack the true courage to stand up and fight for what is right. They don't necessarily lack morals.. just balls. Liberals do understand that for the most part what they write about or say out loud wont really change anything, but they can sort of tell themselves that they did something to change how ****ty the world is, without actually getting their hands dirty.

 

[J_Wales]

I think I need to go to walmart

Well said.

 

[J_Wales]

Ya' think?

Do you think the original letter was written in cursive?