Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News - Page 6

Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News

This is a discussion on Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by DefConGun First of all I apologize if I gave the impression that I'm angry at you because I'm not. I also do ...

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 88 of 88
Like Tree56Likes

Thread: Horrified and Embarrassed Walmart Customer Demands that Store Apologize to Her - News

  1. #76
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post
    First of all I apologize if I gave the impression that I'm angry at you because I'm not. I also do not wish to convey a disrespectful tone to you and if I have done that then I apologize for that as well.

    Not at all...I just wanted to make certain you understand that I respect your right to your opinion on the subject...

    Please allow me to point out that noone has made this out to be a discrimination case against individuals with disabilities. Noone is telling persons with disabilities that they can't shop at said Wal-Mart. To suggest that a person with a disability is "indecent" in the context that we have been talking about is offensive in and of itself. IT IS NOT indecent to be "someone who walks with a jerking movement of the legs and wild swinging of the arms, Or to be a severely retarded child with a wheel chair that is out for a few hours at the store with her care taker" To even suggest that the two are the same is offensive, dishonest and insincere. If I were a burn victim and my face was truly a health hazard then I would do whatever necessary to cover any oozing sores, etc. so that I won't be a health hazard, etc. Indecency implies that there is a lack of judgment and in the execution thereof within the context of social norms. A disability is not a willful assault against society. The two are separate conditions. To be indecent is to be in violation of social norms, persons with disabilities are not a willful assault against society.

    I replied to your reply to my mentioning that a colleague of mine mentioned she may have an action based on the Americans with Disabilities act. I do not condone any disrespect or rudeness towards other patrons of the store and that is not protected. Her disability probably is ( she is on disability according to the story)

    I'm sure according to a legal definition or perspective, corporations don't have rights per se. Rights, however, do not exist in a vacum. Individuals, for example, forego rights all of the time and give these rights up to organizations, institutions and corporations. There are people, for example, that can't place a workshop in their back yard or keep a bass boat in their driveway because this would be in violation of a home owners association standard. When I went to college, I lost my right to keep a firearm in my room, etc. Rights exist within the context of a contract whether it be a legal contractual agreement or a social contract, etc.

    And they forgo those "Rights" by exercising their "Right" to free determination. No one is forcing them to live in a gated community. ( like forcing someone to leave a store) or live in a dormitory... they do this of their own accord.

    When you enter Wal-Mart or any other business, you are agreeing to abide by certain rules that are a contingency per doing business at said market place. I don't make Wal-Mart policy and if I buy something at Wal-Mart then I have to deal according to their policies. If this isn't true then please explain to me how the AT&T kiosks don't have to accept cash when you go in to pay your bill. Isn't that in violation of my rights?

    No...the constitution and it's amendments and addendums do not give you the "Right" to pay in cash...They also do not give Wal-Mart or any other business the right to break the law or violate the constitution ( US or State) in their store policies...Store policies must meet what the law says is a Right...not what one wishes was a Right. ( As a matter of fact all state constitutions are required to meet the requirements of the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land)

    Before we allow our eyes to glaze over with sentimentality as far as rights go, let's examine the consequences and the cost of allowing individuals full unadulterated rights.

    For the sake of argument, let's say that an exposed catheter bag is not a health hazard. I'm willing to go out on limb and say that someone that doesn't appear to be as hygienic as she could possibly be just might not be as hygienic and show due diligence about her leg bag care/maintenance. Now how do you like the thought of her walking past the dress isle where the racks are so close together that you can't help but to brush against them as you pass? Her dirty leg bag rubbing against the dress that you have just bought for your wife. Not a very appealing thought is it? Before you say that you don't have to shop there, what if you don't find out that this happened until after you had bought the dress and had given it to your wife? Are you going to be as understanding and show as much compassion to the cashier that's checking you out if he/she is doing so with an exposed colostomy bag? How would you feel if you found out that the chef at the restaurant that your'e eating at has an exposed colostomy bag when he's cooking your meal? It's not a very appealing thought is it?

    There may very well be a chef doing that very thing! I'll agree it isn't very appealing, but be that as it may, if it is not a violation of the health code, should he not be able to work because we find it unappealing? A colostomy or cathador bag is indicative of a medical problem...nothing more and nothing less...they are using that to better pursue their Right to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the bag rubbing on dresses is another untoward thought...but I hate buying a hat or shoes someone has tried on...I really do...but I do not have the Right to stop people from doing that...if the clothing racks are that close, they are probably breaking the law which requires 36" between clothing racks. My disagreement would be with the store having their racks jammed to close together.

    I am obviously not anti-rights and am not trying to rob anyone of their rights. Let's not, however, turn rights into an idol. Pragmatism is not the solution to preserving rights IMO.
    As you7 know, Pragmatism is an American philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. As I am sure you know It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice.Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: However, knowledge is what we should believe; values are only hypotheses. I believe If you don't stand for what you believe in, you will eventually fall for anything, often without realizing you have... While I believe in some tenets, I am not a Pragmatist, though you sound as if you are. I do not believe values are hypotheses, rather that values are fact, if ones values are based in ones believes as they relate to the Individual. When we decide that anothers rights under the constitution can be co-opted because we disagree with their action, we start down a slippery slope of who's "Rights" are worth protecting and whose are not. If we don't stop "them" from violating someone else's rights...who will be there to stop "them" when they decided ours are not worth protecting.

    Okay! I must run now..my wife is saying "time for bed, we are getting up early"...we are leaving on vacation early tomorrow morning, and I promise you I will not wear my cath bag if I chose to wear shorts...I'll just suffer!


  2. #77
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by kaboomkaboom View Post
    As you7 know, Pragmatism is an American philosophical tradition centered on the linking of practice and theory. As I am sure you know It describes a process where theory is extracted from practice, and applied back to practice to form what is called intelligent practice.Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: However, knowledge is what we should believe; values are only hypotheses. I believe If you don't stand for what you believe in, you will eventually fall for anything, often without realizing you have... While I believe in some tenets, I am not a Pragmatist, though you sound as if you are. I do not believe values are hypotheses, rather that values are fact, if ones values are based in ones believes as they relate to the Individual. When we decide that anothers rights under the constitution can be co-opted because we disagree with their action, we start down a slippery slope of who's "Rights" are worth protecting and whose are not. If we don't stop "them" from violating someone else's rights...who will be there to stop "them" when they decided ours are not worth protecting.

    Okay! I must run now..my wife is saying "time for bed, we are getting up early"...we are leaving on vacation early tomorrow morning, and I promise you I will not wear my cath bag if I chose to wear shorts...I'll just suffer!
    LOL! Okay, fair enough.

    Thank you for the dialogue, you have given me a lot to think about and have taught me some things as well.

    I hope you have a nice and safe trip with your wife.

    God bless,
    DCG

    P.S,
    Why did you quote Wikipedia in the biggest part of your response in regards to pragmatism? I am the furthest thing from a pragmatist but that is another discussion for another day.

    Good debate.

  3. #78
    Member Array kaboomkaboom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post

    God bless,
    DCG

    P.S,
    Why did you quote Wikipedia in the biggest part of your response in regards to pragmatism? I am the furthest thing from a pragmatist but that is another discussion for another day.

    Good debate.
    Why did you check wikipedia...LOL....I quoted a good part because it was easy LOL...Best to you and God Bless... now I REALLY better go...she just said " You get to bed...you are driving and I want you rested!..

  4. #79
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by kaboomkaboom View Post
    Why did you check wikipedia...LOL....I quoted a good part because it was easy LOL...Best to you and God Bless... now I REALLY better go...she just said " You get to bed...you are driving and I want you rested!..
    I didn't check Wikipedia per se, I copied your definition & Googled it b/c you sounded like a dictionary and I wanted to see who you were quoting...busted!....ha-ha.

    Now get to bed & have a safe trip!

  5. #80
    Member Array RockBottom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    349
    If you want to debate the rights of the minority as opposed to the rights of the majority, this might be a better case.

    Police to man: Stop wearing that bunny suit - US news - Weird news - msnbc.com

    Apparently, the police in a town in Idaho have told a man he can't wear a bunny suit in public because it scares children.

  6. #81
    Member Array tommy62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    chattanooga,tn
    Posts
    58
    What a HAG!!

  7. #82
    Member Array localgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by RRizzo View Post
    So she looks scary beyond all belief (To Quote Emperor's New Groove) But still. She's not dressed indecently. If it were a hot chick in a bikini, no one would've complained. The manager should've told the people complaining to pound sand. No different from someone open carrying.... They are not breaking any laws... they just happen to scare some people... Same principle....
    I got asked to leave a mall wearing a sarong and bikini top. I don't know that I was a "hot chick" at the time, but I certainly looked better than Sandy. I think the general public just doesn't really want to see hooters hanging out.

  8. #83
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    Quote Originally Posted by localgirl View Post
    I got asked to leave a mall wearing a sarong and bikini top. I don't know that I was a "hot chick" at the time, but I certainly looked better than Sandy. I think the general public just doesn't really want to see hooters hanging out.
    It's not that dear. Sadly, the women who are most willing to display their hooters aren't showing us the hooters that we really want to see.

  9. #84
    Member Array bigjason6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Toledo, OH
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by msgt/ret View Post
    What ever happened to “We reserve the right to refuse service”?
    That went away years ago... Now you can get sued or labeled as a racist for refusing service to someone. What a wonderful society we live in...

  10. #85
    Senior Member Array Barbary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    749
    Wow, Brittney Spears has really let herself go.

  11. #86
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,874
    Well, you know if she looked like Barbie, no one would have been complaining, although some women may have been cussing their husbands for staring.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  12. #87
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,687
    I don't want to see Barbie's urine bag either.

  13. #88
    Member Array Steve666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    47
    Looks like a typical Wally World shopper. However the clerk was right, it is a health issue... looking at her is nauseating!!!
    Steve
    An armed society is a polite society

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

disgusting people
,

disgusting walmart shoppers

,
ignore keep out
,
missouri woman embarrassed at walmart
,

nuts with guns

,
page all american guns
,
people of walmart catheter bag
,
political gun fail
,
united states concept weapons
,
walmart customer removed because of dress
,
walmart customers dress
,
walmart shopper with catheter
Click on a term to search for related topics.