by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:44 am
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by HH3 » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:48 am
by The Ash Man » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:51 am
by Pseudo » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:12 am
The Ash Man wrote:FFS there are way too many do-gooders in society
He obviously didnt do too much research before making this stupid decision
by Q. » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:17 am
by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:28 am
Quichey wrote:It's awareness. Awareness of your social and ecological footprints. Think about your childhood - would you have rather been stitching brand name clothes for twelve hours a day and all for a dollar, just so some first world prat can keep up with the latest fashion?
And then we'll complain when more and more of these companies shift their manufacturing divisions to the third world. The idea is not to boycott these companies, but rather push for unionised working conditions such that there cannot be exploitation.
HOWEVER,
Regarding the specific matter of Ivory Coast cocoa (which does not have operate under the same dynamic as offshore clothing manufacturers), there is a heap of unsubstantiated Western hype pushed by the 'noble' Western reporter. The facts on the ground are that the farms are mostly family operated and yes, the children of those families don't have a say on whether they work on these farms. It is not slave labour though. Yes, it is hard work, and yes, the children miss out on a little bit of school, but the work that they do on their family farms helps pay for the school fees!!! A boycott of Ivory Coast cocoa would be catastrophic for the country's economy and for the livelihoods of these families - which would ultimately force children to be sold into actual slave labour!
The problem is not necessarily with the chocolate manufacturers, but with the government of the Ivory Coast who imposes heavy levies and taxes on the farmers, almost as much as what they get from the chocolate manufacturers. It is not the chocolate manufacturers (who are still essentially bound by world prices) living off the people, but the all too common corrupt Government.
I find it funny that they would boycott Ivory Coast chocolate, but be happy to wear clothes that are actually made under slave labour conditions
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by Dirko » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:53 pm
smac wrote:More for me.
by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:58 pm
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by Dogwatcher » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:05 pm
by Q. » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:28 pm
whatcha got there? wrote:makes you wonder though, that soon they will all have to be nude, as to not wear clothing coming from factories that pay below the minimum wage and exploit their workers, cant wear deodorant as it is ruining the ozone layer, wont be able to use pens and have to write with charcoal as pens cant be recycled, and *gasp* only have one ply toilet paper!
by amber_fluid » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:31 pm
Quichey wrote:whatcha got there? wrote:makes you wonder though, that soon they will all have to be nude, as to not wear clothing coming from factories that pay below the minimum wage and exploit their workers, cant wear deodorant as it is ruining the ozone layer, wont be able to use pens and have to write with charcoal as pens cant be recycled, and *gasp* only have one ply toilet paper!
Well, if you wanna be a hippy...
I'm not saying there are absolutes, just that everything we do or don't do has consequences for others (and I'm sure there's a deep tangent in there about our unhealthy reliance on our current capitalist model). This is no different to us being careful about our water usage.
by Q. » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:37 pm
by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:03 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:I'm sure you really doooo want to be nude WGT....
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by HH3 » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:17 pm
whatcha got there? wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:I'm sure you really doooo want to be nude WGT....
would beat the somewhat uncomfortable work uniform, but sadly no. i'm not a closet nudist, or any type of nudist for that matter.
by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:26 pm
hackham_hawk_3 wrote:whatcha got there? wrote:Dogwatcher wrote:I'm sure you really doooo want to be nude WGT....
would beat the somewhat uncomfortable work uniform, but sadly no. i'm not a closet nudist, or any type of nudist for that matter.
Now you've just ruined the mental image i had of you...thanks a lot haha![]()
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by Psyber » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:42 pm
by whatcha got there? » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:08 pm
Psyber wrote:A better reason to ban them would be because of the tartrazine in them - still there last time I looked at a packet.
There is support for the allergy reports scattered in the medical literature, though I can't recall specifics as I haven't read it recently.
Asthma attacks, and hyperactivity in children, have been reported in that literature.
I gave up Tim Tams because of my own reactions to them in the late 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartrazine
Libertine wrote:Have to agree with Blink even though he is a fool
by JAS » Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:58 pm
by Bully » Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:31 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |