Lady Not Happy About People Of Walmart Website

[ihsv]

This thread CRACKS ME UP!!!!!

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.

 

[dannno]

But what’s a place like Walmart to do about this trend of publicizing the unpleasant appearance of their customer base? I’m sure they are in a dilemma. While publicizing the pictures does embarrass some of their customers (I’m sure only a teenie tiny percent, since along with not caring how you look goes not caring whether your image is publicized), I’m sure they also realize that it serves as free advertising to millions more who see it as an invitation to “come as you are”. When like minds see everyone else doing it, they feel safe in numbers to leave the house and spend money. In fact, Walmart should start to overtly capitalize on it with slogans such as “WE DON’T CARE THAT YOU DON’T CARE” or “WE CARE ABOUT YOUR MONEY, NOT YOUR APPEARANCE”.

No shirt, no shoes......ehh fuck it, just make sure and bring your wallet

 

[AdamT]

"Frito Layed Out" LOL

 

[idirtify]

This is what happens when people ostracize the eugenics movement.

It’s also what causes people to embrace eugenics. But actually it’s based on misdirected blame. Such devolution is usually blamed on prosperity, but it’s actually a result of the welfare/nanny state and over-regulation.

 

[Texan4Life]

LOL how lame... let me guess, she was cruising on people of walmart laughing at everyone else and then gets pissed.

 

[EndDaFed]

It’s also what causes people to embrace eugenics. But actually it’s based on misdirected blame. Such devolution is usually blamed on prosperity, but it’s actually a result of the welfare/nanny state and over-regulation.

I wasn't serious. There is no such thing as devolution from a scientific perspective.

 

[idirtify]

I wasn't serious. There is no such thing as devolution from a scientific perspective.

OK. Is your second sentence serious? (Please use smilies for sarcasm.)

 

[RyanRSheets]

They are in public place people are free to take pictures of anyone they wish and make comments on them. Im not the one posting the pictures, you would have to ask the owner of the site what they are trying to say.

They're actually in a private place. Wal-Mart would be well within their rights to expel any customer caught photographing other customers, and a sign on the door saying that photography of customers is prohibited might be in order. That's about the only legitimate means I can think of to remedy this.

 

[Krugerrand]

Strictly speaking this is private property and if Walmart wanted to it could ban photography/filming in their store (maybe they already do - I've been in plenty of stores that give such warnings on the front door:

It would be tough to enforce such rules nowadays though b/c cameraphones have become so commonplace. But let's suppose a person went to private property, was told 'no photography' at the door, took pictures anyway, and was asked to leave. If this person went on to post the pictures online, is it within the legal system for the property owner to force those pictures to be taken down?

Could WalMart not add to a sign like this something to the extent - those in violation of this policy agree to surrender ownership of aforementioned photographs to WalMart. Then, they could make a legal ownership claim of the pictures and force their removal.

(that would not do much for the pictures already out there, though.)

 

[acptulsa]

How could Wal Mart possibly develop a dress code when, for most places that have them, the basic dress code is something like 'no clothes that look like they were bought at Wal Mart'?

 

[Danke]

i doubt very much that wal marx gives a shit about this.

Nor do they give a shit about any form of propriety.

I've been in a walmarx with food for sale, with people walking around in bare feet, with animals, saw one woman smoking a cigarette over produce with a three inch ash hanging off.

I have mixed feelings about this...i never would support a law or government having a say in things like this, at the same, maybe shame is a concept that should be re-introduced, to prevent things like this:

mods!!! Please!!

 

[Who girl]

Completely agree with you, Nate. There are three questions that people need to ask themselves about today's news:

1) Does it have any affect upon what my actions are?
2) Does it effect the future generations?
3) Why on earth do I believe it?

 

[acptulsa]

Completely agree with you, Nate. There are three questions that people need to ask themselves about today's news:

1) Why on earth do I believe it?
2) Why on earth do I believe it?
3) Why on earth do I believe it?

Not that all your questions weren't valid. It's just that this is how I'm affected when I hear someone taking the Echo Chamber seriously.

mods!!! Please!!

Did you get caught eating lunch? Poor Danke...

 

[nunaem]

"Frito Layed Out" LOL

" The tragic demise of the “Frito Bandito” "

 

[Anti Federalist]

Did you get caught eating lunch? Poor Danke...

Danke likes to feign outrage at such things, but in reality he's:

 

[Anti Federalist]

Excuse me...Princess Danke. ^^^

 

[Slutter McGee]

I hope no one here defends WalMart's "private property" even if the government had overtly taken possession of a former middle-class neighborhood (more likely a poor neighborhood actually) over the resident's objections and given it to WalMart.

Fuck WalMart. Fuck the "rights" of a corporation (non-human) which is directly and indirectly subsidized by government at every level.

As for this "news story", if this lady doesn't want people to see her mom's picture why the fuck would she contact a television station to run a story on it.

That makes no sense. Believing that it is wrong for the government to take land and give it to another private entity does not necessitate they we must not accept WalMart AS private property.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[LibForestPaul]

Strictly speaking this is private property and if Walmart wanted to it could ban photography/filming in their store (maybe they already do - I've been in plenty of stores that give such warnings on the front door:

It would be tough to enforce such rules nowadays though b/c cameraphones have become so commonplace. But let's suppose a person went to private property, was told 'no photography' at the door, took pictures anyway, and was asked to leave. If this person went on to post the pictures online, is it within the legal system for the property owner to force those pictures to be taken down?

Though the store is open to the public. I would presume a private entity (IBM) would have actual legal recourse.
What would happen to a consultant that takes a picture within IBM or ADM or Microsoft currently?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Stars and Moons