1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Would you pay more for chocolate to stop child labour?

Discussion in 'Everything Else' started by lily, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. lily Vay Wilson (31)

    Likes Received:
    304
    In todays poll on msn as of 19.40, 28,329 think that they shouldn't. This is another example of why some are going to hell. I cant believe that people would prefer children being exploited so they can have a cheaper chocolate. I dont think I have ever witnessed a better example of thoughtless and selfish behaviour. These people are ? Someone else finish the sentence.
  2. MrTimms Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    914
    *Hysterical Mrs Lovejoy voice* OMG, wont somebody think of the children.

    How many said they would? I wouldn't mind some context, because I have trouble believing facts on the internet and even more from a site that is the default homepage of people too retarded to change browsers.
    Ruggo and Moses like this.
  3. Gnostic Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    5,117
    The question raises an interesting point. Do you want to remove a valid paying job, no matter how poorly paid by western standards that can help support the families? At least the conditions are better than you find in thoe poor souls recovering lead and tin from the solder in cans and discarded IT equipment. Not saying I support child labour or any sort of exploitive labour but bear in mind the economic condition in those places and what will happen if you boycot such things.
  4. lily Vay Wilson (31)

    Likes Received:
    304
    Instead of taking the piss Mr Timms remember that some of these fools vote. And Gnostic yes there are some positives of globalisation but this isn't one of them. Think about all the jobs that have been moved offshore because of trade deals such as NAFTA. Places such as Detroit that were previously the backbone of US Industry have been turned to ghettos in some districts.
    And finally the employees get screwed with ridiculously long work hours and no benefits. Oh sorry I also forgot that most are minors. I suppose your also fine with child soldiers in Africa.
  5. ChargerWA Mark Loane (55)

    Likes Received:
    3,562
    I watched a Doco on this a few months back. The majority of kids are expolited by relatives, if not working directly for the relatives, they are sold by relatives into child slavery.

    The only way to stamp this out is to make sure the companies you buy your chocolate from, are part of a fair trade agreement with the farmers, so the farmers can do more than eke out a subsistant living and afford to harvest the beans without having to resort to child labour.
  6. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,179
    The best way to stop companies you don't like doing things you don't like is use your power as a consumer and spend your money with their competition.

    I would also add that for a lot of people in third world countries (or second world, like China) these jobs that we would deem pretty shitty by our standards are a lot better than the alternative. For a lot of them, the choice is between working in so-called "sweatshops" and starvation or grinding poverty. Now let me ask the question: if you were in their situation, what would you do?

    Any kind of forced labour is slavery to me, something I am dead against. But not all of these situations are slavery.
  7. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    On the odd occasion I purchase chocolate I already get the best (in terms of social responsibility) I can find. It's usually also pretty good quality. I hardly eat any of it so I've no problem with paying more.

    That said, I'd take web polls with a grain of salt. The Modern Library website published a relatively scholarly (though, as with any arts ranking, hotly debated) list of the top 100 novels of 20th century literature, as a millennium celebration piece in late 1999. Though there were a few surprises, the upper places were as you'd expect - "Ulysses" came first, and things like Catch-22, Brave New World, and The Great Gatsby were in the top ten. A few months after this they published a reader survey of 200,000 people, which named the public's top 100 literary masterpieces of the 20th century. Seven of the top ten places were held by novels written by either Ayn Rand, or L. Ron Hubbard. Now, say what you will about these author's personal lives and beliefs, few with any sense of balance would argue that "Atlas Shrugged" is the best book published in the 20th century, and "Battlefield Earth", which came in at number three, is not even deserving of a place within the top thousand.

    Seriously, you could ask people if we should legalise pedophilia or random murders, and you'd still get at least a measurable vote in favor. That's online polls for you.
  8. MrTimms Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    914
    I just want to clear up, I was more taking the piss out of the website than the topic. They are the ACA of the internet and grind my gears.

    The point I was trying to make (and yes, didn't well at all) is that the questions are usually misleading, for example, would I pay more for fair trade chocolate? No. Why should I? Cadbury dairy milk is doing it now, for the same price as it used to, so why should I? Answering yes to me is giving license for the companies to make it an excuse for the next pay rise.

    Secondly, and you can't argue, most of the people are more knee jerk about the "won't somebody think of the children" argument because they don't want to be seen/thought of as a pedo or something. Similar tack used by conroy and the filter arguments, natuarally devisive and bound to get some people all riled up about it. just stupid.
  9. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Lily's (valid) point is that a part of the population is too stupid and/or lazy and/or disengaged to understand issues. There is an interesting article on point in todays' smh (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/democracy-is-blocking-intelligence-20110420-1dos3.html):

  10. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,179
    The sneering tone of that article is really quite funny. Everything will be OK if only the right people are in charge. You peasants (i.e. the 80% of Australians who have an IQ of 80) aren't smart enough to know what's good for you, so we'll just decide because we have "the freedom to act decisively". I do agree with the concept of voluntary voting, however. But we don't require people to have a license to use the Internet or speak in public, why would we require it to vote?

    It was Churchill, I believe, who said something along the lines of "democracy is the worst form of government, but all the others have been tried". People who don't want democracy can go in live in paradises of renown like Cuba or North Korea.

    EDIT: I read the comments on that article. They weren't kind.
  11. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    I don't think she genuinely believes we should abandon democracy. What she wants to do is challenge our preconceptions. Its a worthwhile exercise but you need to treat it in that way.
  12. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,179
    Oh don't worry, I gave it a fair hearing and tried to open my mind to what she was saying. I just can't agree with much of it. But that's the job of an opinion columnist I suppose: to be provocative.
  13. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Which part don't you agree with?
  14. bryce Darby Loudon (17)

    Likes Received:
    162
    I thought it was a good article - the point being that so many people either don't care at all about politics, or that if and when they do take any interest, it is often shallow and self interested.
    Gooch likes this.
  15. MrTimms Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    914
    Unfortunately, this is truth.

    [video=youtube;PSROlfR7WTo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo[/video]
  16. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,179
    Firstly, the idea that the 80/80 principal is applicable to the voting public. I think that is condescending. The average punter is a lot smarter than they are given credit for and they generally know BS from politicians when they read, hear or see it.

    Secondly, that individuals pursuing their own happiness in aggregate is somehow wrong or damaging. That's a philosophical objection rather than a political one. I think the purpose of life is to be happy and so long as you are not directly harming others by doing it, then you ought to be free to do so. I won't deny that these actions have unintended consequences for places held in common, like the environment, but people also care about that stuff and will make choices to protect or preserve, not just consume until a resource is depleted. Technological development is an example of that.

    Thirdly, the idea that big democracies lack courage in decision making. Were that the case, we wouldn't have seen the great mobilisation against totalitarianism in the 20th century. We also wouldn't have had an explosion in environmental regulation in the last 40 years (I'm making no comment on the effiacy of said legislation, just that it doesn't come from a vacuum). I also got the impression that she was talking about lacking the courage to implement things that she personally is in favour of. Well she just has to accept that not everyone agrees with her. That's not just democracy, it's fundamental social intercourse between humans.

    Fourthly, she stops just short of praising China's political system, probably knowing that a lot of readers would take umbrage at our society being run by a central committee. There is a distinct whiff of it though.

    Fifthly, the whole paternalist argument about "changing behaviours". That implies that our political masters know better than us what is good for each one of us. I totally disagree with that sentiment, other than extreme cases where an individual is materially incapable of looking after themselves.

    Lastly, the concept that we have to somehow demonstrate an understanding of the issues before being allowed to vote. Who would form this central arbitration authority and by whose right do they get to decide how adults in this country vote?
  17. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,179
    Why should people care more about politics? And why shouldn't they vote with their hip pockets?
  18. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,533
    To bring this back slightly towards Lily's issue of "the consumer citizen" (something I have just presented some conference papers on ahem ahem) - let me say that it is not working. The idea is to transfer responsibility from government to the consumer. This means that you have to walk down the supermarket isle with your mobile phone asking companies about their trade regimes, labour laws, and the meaning of variosu ingredients, or what exactly they mean by "tree friendly" or "bred free range" or whatever.

    Last year I emailed, then rang Coles to ask what the difference between their 2 brands of milk was, given that they were about 50c different in price. In each case I was promised that they would respond shortly. They never did. However, a few weeks later, a story appeared in the papers that all their milk was the same.

    Obviously, some ideological decisions should be in the hands of the consumer. But the abdication of regulation that passes as "the consumer citizen" is an utter sham.
  19. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Scarfy isn't Elizabeth Farrelly talking about the same thing albeit that you're looking at it from a micro perspective?
  20. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,533
    I really can't agree with her stance on making voting rights selective. The presumption that the few know what's best for the many doesn't appeal to me. It's the main reason I've never been a socialist.

    But you could compare Scandanavian democracy with Australian / British democracy with American democracy and you see a sliding scale from government responsibility to individual responsibility. As they say in America, we let people go to hell their own way. Personally, I think the Scandanavian model has it about right.

Share This Page