“Their frustration is understandable, but this kind of expectation betrays a misunderstanding of what’s actually driving food prices higher in this country.”
“Their frustration is understandable, but this kind of expectation betrays a misunderstanding of what’s actually driving food prices higher in this country.”
If they aren’t the problem … then the boycott shouldn’t be a problem for them then.
If you’ve done nothing wrong, then nothing bad should happen to you.
I think they have done something wrong but what is going on with this logic?
This is like saying that you are going to drown somebody to see if they are a witch, burning them if they survive, and telling them “if you’ve done nothing wrong, then nothing bad should happen to you”. If they have done nothing wrong, you are still going to murder them. Seems bad.
How is starving their business and trashing their reputation not “bad” for Loblaws regardless of how deserving they are? Again, I think they probably deserve it but the confusion of ideas in this comment makes my head spin.
deleted by creator
If anything on Weston’s part … it’s an admission that they do have something to do with all this. If their profits are so good, a boycott wouldn’t be so threatening to them. But the possibility of a boycott has them scared so they have to make a statement about it all.
And a boycott to his business wouldn’t exactly hurt his wealth or endanger his life any way. A major well organized boycott could probably severely affect his businesses to the point of shutting some of them down … but I don’t see that happening. More than likely, the boycott will be a half-hearted attempt by Canadians and it will just mean a small decrease in the company’s profits.
In the end the boycott will just mean his family wealth will be $8,399,000,000 instead of $8,400,000,000
I don’t think it will cause his family to lose their ability to eat … unlike many Canadians across the country who can’t afford to buy their own food.
“If you’ve done nothing wrong, then the angry mob I’ve riled up by telling them you’re a child murderer won’t hurt you.”
This isn’t a defense of Loblaws. Your thinking is just wildly wrong, and inherently blames victims.
Your example is not at all comparable to a corporation facing music over profiteering.
The angry mob in your example doesn’t see proof and is not the same as a shopper who is able to experience the price-gouging right in front of their eyes.