+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: ACORN (/thread-1528.html)
ACORN - eppie - 10-14-2008
Quote: "We" don't have anything to do with it. Our governments have set environmental, and worker protection laws that prevent us from having anything to do with it. Now, there is supply and demand. If there is a demand for something, then someone("us" who have protections or "them" who do not) will figure out how to supply it. And, those who demand it, will seek to pay the lowest price for it, and if that happens to be from another country without environmental or worker protections, then that is how we get to the situation we have today. If all countries decided to implement the same environmental and worker protections that we do, then the one who have the demands will need to pay higher prices that factor in those costs. "We" as consumer will pay a higher price for whatever the manufacturers needed the stuff for. And, consequently, "they" who have no protections will now lose their jobs to "us" because all costs being equal, the manufacturers will choose the closest source.
This is ethical so wrong. Why don't you give (or sell) home chemical waste (paint, batteries etc.) to a slightly retarded neighbour for his kids to play with.
You know what is going to happen, so you should stop.
This behavior, you and Pete say is simple economics,would never stand up in court were it to be a national thing. I (we) understand how supply and demand work, you don't need to write that down again and again.
I am not a lawyer but am almost sure the people that do this things violate some kind of law.The fact that they will 'never' be prosecuted doesn't make it legal.
I am thinking in an ethical way while you in a pure theoretical way. That is why will never agree on this, so I guess this was my last reaction on the matter.
ACORN - --Pete - 10-14-2008
Hi,
Quote:I am thinking in an ethical way while you in a pure theoretical way. That is why will never agree on this, . . .I think the word you want is 'pragmatic'. Otherwise, I agree that we will never agree.
--Pete
ACORN - Jester - 10-14-2008
Quote:Interesting question. Of course, also a bit misleading.
Very surely, which is why I phrased it as I did. There is much more to the question than just the basic preference.
Quote:One of the precepts of game theory is that the players are aware of the costs of all possible outcomes.
Not necessarily. Game theory works fine if you only work on percieved or believed outcomes. All it really requires is rational decisions on a given set of choices leading to payoffs. It's not strictly necessary that those payoffs be real, only that the player sees them that way when making their decisions.
Quote:Another precept is that the players are the ones to stand to win or lose. Who are the players? Are they the governments of the nations that do the recycling or are they the actual workers? Because it seems to me that the governments are the ones with the information and the recyclers are the ones paying the price.
Game theory can incorporate passive players, who have outcomes, but no choices. That's not an issue in and of itself. But you're right, this is clearly a case where the "player" choosing to accept the money for toxic recycling projects is not the same as the "player" choosing to work in the industry, or the "player" dying of mercury poisoning in a nearby village. However, if, as Zenda implied, the choice was between that and starvation, wouldn't any of the three choose the recycling project? (Not that this actually is the choice, but it's what he said.)
Quote:So, while your game theory question seems simple, I think there are great levels of complexity hidden there, and the answer is not that easy.
Agreed. It just struck me as odd that Zenda was essentially positing that, because people would choose A over B, we should stop them from choosing A. Interrogating that clearly leads to other, more interesting places, and all those issues about player information, risk management, government regulation, and what have you.
-Jester
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-14-2008
Quote:This is ethical so wrong. Why don't you give (or sell) home chemical waste (paint, batteries etc.) to a slightly retarded neighbor for his kids to play with. You know what is going to happen, so you should stop.You are thinking in a messed up ideological way. I'm being a realist (pragmatist), as Pete says. If I give poison to the neighborhood children, then yes, it is unethical. If I go to my local market and buy Nike tennis shoes made in Singapore, how would I ever know what process got them to my locality?
This behavior, you and Pete say is simple economics,would never stand up in court were it to be a national thing. I (we) understand how supply and demand work, you don't need to write that down again and again.
I am not a lawyer but am almost sure the people that do this things violate some kind of law.The fact that they will 'never' be prosecuted doesn't make it legal.
I am thinking in an ethical way while you in a pure theoretical way. That is why will never agree on this, so I guess this was my last reaction on the matter.
I have the choice of a consumer. If some company is exploiting the ignorant poor, child or slave labor, or is in turn buying materials from someone else who is, then my moral responsibility stops at my buying choice and then also at the nations borders. My personal responsibility for land stops at my property, although I have a vote in what happens in my community, State, and Nation. Governments have the responsibility to protect the people and environment of their nations. Companies have a responsibility to follow the laws of their nation, and morally to deliver the product as advertised. You would have each of us take on the burden of all sins committed in this world, and ostensibly then petition our governments to right these wrongs.
Frankly, I have no idea how "ethical" the chain of materials and labor are for the products I buy. Many are made in SE Asia. I just know that I need them, and so I buy them. Did the metal come from a strip mine? Were the tailings properly handled? Did the wood come from a old growth forest or rain forest? Was the product built by prisoners or children? Are the workers crammed into tiny stalls for 14 hours a day? I don't know. Not much has changed in this regard since nations have been trading goods. Do people in your nation acknowledge their continuing role in the blood diamond trade?
If some nation does not regulate their industries to protect its people or environment, then it's that nation's government that is irresponsible or immoral.
ACORN - Zenda - 10-14-2008
Pete "The way you phrase it, we're right back to the 'big bad industrial nations' conspiracy theory."
Funny, to me it looks as if you are putting words in my mouth, Pete. Apparantly you're not above cheap tricks like the ever-useful 'conspiracy thinking' accusation. Anyway, normally you don't mind blaming human selfishness and stupidity for just about everything, so why make the exception now?
Pete "Because we gave them, and continue to give them, the modern medicine that reduces the infant mortality rate by more than an order of magnitude."
According to Wikipedia, child mortality rate dropped about 25% (on average) in the developing countries, from 1990 to 2006. That's a rather small order of magnitude. Btw, in that same period the industrial nations were able to drop their own child mortality by 40%.
"In 2006, there were 41 countries in which at least 10% of children under five died. All but three were in Africa. Ten of the 41 had higher rates of child mortality than in 1990, and four were exactly the same."
So, if I get this right, by your logic these 10 or 14 countries should have the least problems, because they had the smallest reduction in their infant mortality rate.
Nope, I'm not convinced that our giving them modern medicine is (even partly) cause to the current situation. Btw, are you sure we are giving it away? Got proof, Pete? From what I heard, our own pharmaceutical companies tried to stop (cheap) production of malaria and aids cures in developing countries, because they held the patents, and argued that only they had the right to make money of it (no need to tell me you agree with that, but don't let that stop you).
Pete "Who is this *we*?"
C'mon, it's not so hard to guess. Me, you, all members of this forum... all consumers in the industrial nations, generally speaking. Perhaps some of us are a little more to blame then others, but that hardly matters. It's what we do as a group, that makes this happen, not some individual or organisation.
Pete "It's not a conspiracy, it's economics... We agree on the facts. It's your socialist world view I deplore."
So, you merely don't agree with my explanation that human greed (on all sides) and the need for self-protection (on our side) are to blame. Let me guess, in your view they have only themselves to blame? Or did you just want to disagree with a 'socialist'?
Pete "I think the word you want is 'pragmatic'."
Let me tell you what's really pragmatic: Not killing 90% of all humans to ensure a high standard of living for a few, like you suggested some time ago, but to kill only a selected 10% to give the many survivers a *higher* standard. Pray that not everyone will realize this. Go ahead and call it socialistic, when all I want is to make the world around myself a little safer and nicer to live in. Not having a new car or TV is only a small price for that, and it certainly has nothing to do with *your* views on socialism.
Kandrathe "I have the choice of a consumer. If some company is exploiting the ignorant poor, child or slave labor, or is in turn buying materials from someone else who is, then my moral responsibility stops at my buying choice... Frankly, I have no idea how 'ethical' the chain of materials and labor are for the products I buy."
That's how the average consumer thinks, allright. They know they'd be held responsible if the goods were in violation of the law, but there is no risk of being arrested for buying clothes, is it?
ACORN - --Pete - 10-14-2008
Hi,
Quote:. . . Game theory works fine if you only work on percieved or believed outcomes. . . .Thank you. It has been many years (~40) since I read von Neumann and Morgenstern, and I've only skimmed a few GT books since. Your remarks caused me to check out the Wiki entries. Apparently GT has mutated a fair bit from the primitive form I knew. Have to add some refresher reading to my list. Any suggestions?
. . . Game theory can incorporate passive players, who have outcomes, but no choices. . . .
Aside from that, I think we agree on the salient points.
--Pete
ACORN - Taem - 10-14-2008
Quote:Democrats (or anyone) engaging people in Democracy by Registering them to Vote.
FRAUD.
Maybe after work I'll count up all the words in that tripe that have no discernible meaning, and are only there to stir up emotion.
Bottom line (unless there is a bottomer line): Voter registration drives are not responsible for what the registrants put on their forms, and that author does not believe in suffrage.
How about this: LINK
Quote:Mickey Mouse Tries to Register to Vote
The cartoon character's application, which included a stamped logo of ACORN, was rejected by Florida elections officials over the summer.
Mickey Mouse is as American as apple pie, and he has starred in films, TV shows and video games. But apparently he can't vote.
Florida elections officials rejected Mickey's application this summer. It is unclear whether Mickey tried to register as a Democrat or a Republican. But the application included a stamped logo of ACORN, the community organizing group that is facing accusations of voter registration fraud.
ACORN -- which has a history of voter fraud allegations -- acknowledged its logo was on the application but said its workers routinely scan all suspicious applications.
"We don't think this card came through our system," Brian Kettenring, ACORN's head organizer in Florida, told the St. Petersburg Times.
The group says it has signed up to 1.3 million poor and working-class voters this year in a mass registration drive in 18 states. Some of those registration cards have become the focus of fraud investigations in Ohio, Nevada, Connecticut, Missouri, and other states.
Other fraudulent registrations included forms for the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.
I found this hilarious; I just took my kids to Disneyland yesterday - had a blast. Very tired today!
ACORN - --Pete - 10-14-2008
Hi,
Quote:Anyway, normally you don't mind blaming human selfishness and stupidity for just about everything, so why make the exception now?I never said that it wasn't selfishness or stupidity. Indeed, I very much think it is. I said it wasn't *organized* selfishness. "Organized stupidity", I suspect, is an oxymoron.
Quote:According to Wikipedia, child mortality rate dropped about 25% (on average) in the developing countries, from 1990 to 2006. That's a rather small order of magnitude.How old are you? Because 1990 may seem like a long time ago to you, but it is not. Go back a little further, say to the mid 1800s. That is when European medicine was first intentionally brought to developing countries. It actually started even before that as a side effect of colonization. It goes on still through today, with organizations such as Doctors Without Borders.
Quote:Btw, are you sure we are giving it away? Got proof, Pete?In addition to the Doctors Without Borders, try doing a search on medical assistance "third world". You'll find everything from Red Cross to UNICEF to religious organizations. Hell, you'll even find that some governments contribute. Add drug to the search terms to see what the drug companies are doing. I didn't think common knowledge needed proof, but I guess I underestimated your ignorance (and ability to research things for yourself).
Quote:From what I heard, . . .From what I heard, you're a jackass. Doesn't make it true -- I'd assume you're not until proven otherwise. But then again, I'm rational.
Quote: . . . our own pharmaceutical companies tried to stop (cheap) production of malaria and aids cures in developing countries, because they held the patents, and argued that only they had the right to make money of it . . .If a company does not protect a patent in one case, it loses it in all cases. So, yeah, I suspect the companies that held the patents did protect them. And I suspect that some jackass reporter spun the story to make the drug companies look evil, because that plays well with people like you. Still doesn't make it true. And, by the way, there IS NO CURE FOR AIDS, cheap or otherwise. But don't let facts get in the way of believing the propaganda you so dearly seem to love.
Quote:It's what we do as a group, that makes this happen, not some individual or organisation.See kandrathe's post on this point.
Quote:So, you merely don't agree with my explanation that human greed (on all sides) and the need for self-protection (on our side) are to blame.I've said it just about every way I know how. I agree with you about the greed, etc. It's your implication that somehow there's a conspiracy, an organization, a movement that is to blame that I find ludicrous. Now, if you can't wrap your mind around that distinction, then you are too stupid to have a meaningful discussion with because you are arguing about what we agree on an ignoring the actual points of difference.
Quote:Let me tell you what's really pragmatic: Not killing 90% of all humans to ensure a high standard of living for a few, like you suggested some time ago,You know, this time you will really have to prove it. Show me where, other than in jest, I've ever said this or shut the hell up. What I have said, many times, is that the world population should be between 1% and 10% of what it is now. When asked, I point out that we got into this mess over time by over-breeding and that we can get out of it by restricting our birthrate. Unlike imbeciles and politicians (that may be redundant), I'm willing to contemplate long term solutions. At a 2% per year reduction rate, it would take about 115 years to get to the 10% level, but the improvement would be felt long before then. It is only when dealing with people like you that I consider mass extermination a viable alternative.
Unless you provide proof of the crap you've spouted till now, and learn to use the quote function so that I don't have to wade through your garbage, this is my last reply to you on this topic. Feel free to take full advantage of that -- expose the full extent of your stupidity.
--Pete
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-14-2008
Quote:Kandrathe "I have the choice of a consumer. If some company is exploiting the ignorant poor, child or slave labor, or is in turn buying materials from someone else who is, then my moral responsibility stops at my buying choice... Frankly, I have no idea how 'ethical' the chain of materials and labor are for the products I buy."Yup, let's do the moral thing and have Primark stop getting their product from New Delhi, and those kids can go back to begging or sifting through garbage. Once you and I are aware of a problem we can make a choice, but can we assume all products made in India are tainted? Maybe the cotton was also picked by children. How would you know? Is the source of the problem that Brits want cheap clothing, or is is that India has lax laws and poor enforcement?
That's how the average consumer thinks, allright. They know they'd be held responsible if the goods were in violation of the law, but there is no risk of being arrested for buying clothes, is it?
In the story the author states, "Whilst carrying out an undercover investigation for the Observer last year I was badly beaten in a sweatshop in the lawless Haryana State border area of northern India pursuing the story."
Shall we ban trade with India because they are unable to enforce their own laws?
I think you and eppie are naive. I've traveled all over the world, and to many jungles and primitive areas where I have no feeling of immorality when I shell out dollars for the crafted pieces of art that they specifically make to sell to outsiders like me. With that money they will be able to go buy stuff like medicine and tools that will enable their whole community to live a better life style. Maybe some of the pieces I own were made by children, but in these places the work is handed out as soon as one is able to walk. There are certainly places where people are abused by corporations for money, but often the families who benefit from the income are grateful for the work. I believe you are trying to "westernize" their world view.
The US does take action against this practice, such as the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1993. And, has amended the laws at least five times in the last decade.
ACORN - ShadowHM - 10-14-2008
Quote:Frankly, I have no idea how "ethical" the chain of materials and labor are for the products I buy. Many are made in SE Asia. I just know that I need them, and so I buy them. Did the metal come from a strip mine? Were the tailings properly handled? Did the wood come from a old growth forest or rain forest? Was the product built by prisoners or children? Are the workers crammed into tiny stalls for 14 hours a day? I don't know. Not much has changed in this regard since nations have been trading goods. Do people in your nation acknowledge their continuing role in the blood diamond trade?
If some nation does not regulate their industries to protect its people or environment, then it's that nation's government that is irresponsible or immoral.
So, if I understand you correctly, you feel that your moral rectitude is perfectly safe because bad things are being done somewhere else by someone else to provide the goods that you purchase. You are allowed to scrunch your eyes tightly shut and cover your ears as you hand over your money. <_<
Where is the messed up thinking? :angry: You could buy items made in America because then you would have a reasonably certain answer to all those questions. You could even bestir yourself to follow the provenance of the goods you purchase.
But you cannot claim that because somebody else somewhere else does bad things, you are absolved because it didn't happen to your neighbours.
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-14-2008
Quote:So, if I understand you correctly, you feel that your moral rectitude is perfectly safe because bad things are being done somewhere else by someone else to provide the goods that you purchase. You are allowed to scrunch your eyes tightly shut and cover your ears as you hand over your money. <_<No. I can't possibly know the morality of the supply chain for all the goods I purchase. There are laws in place, including fair trade, that are meant to discourage or stop illegal, unethical or immoral practices. I depend on the suppliers of goods, and on the governments overseeing them to insure they are following the rules.
Where is the messed up thinking? :angry: You could buy items made in America because then you would have a reasonably certain answer to all those questions. You could even bestir yourself to follow the provenance of the goods you purchase.
But you cannot claim that because somebody else somewhere else does bad things, you are absolved because it didn't happen to your neighbours.
How many products do you buy in a month, and how many of them are made in your nation? Including food, I buy many dozens of products in a month. Much of it is made here in the USA. If, however, I learn that someone like Gap, or Primark are breaking the rules, then I can choose differently. But, unless consumers happen to catch something on the news, how would they know any differently? The US has an active ban on Child Labor Product usage (maintains the list), and does the work for us stopping its importation. As far as I know, Canada and the EU do not have such a ban.
ACORN - --Pete - 10-14-2008
Hi,
Quote:You could buy items made in America because then you would have a reasonably certain answer to all those questions.Two things wrong with this. The first is assuming that there is even a non-Asian source for many items. In quite a few cases, that happens not to be true. Items of apparel come to mind, for example. So the choice may not be between American made and imported but rather between buying or not buying. Until the global warming (and repeal of public obscenity laws) makes nudity practical, I'll continue to buy.
The second thing wrong is that even if the end product is made in America, how can we know where the components come from? At what point would you hold me blameless? I have a KitchenAid mixer. Among its components is a motor with copper wire windings. Now, it could be that that wire is made in whole or part from recycled copper. So, lets say that a set of cymbals was thrown into the pot. That set of cymbals was made in the orient from copper scavenged from a derelict ship by child labor. Is it your contention that the ethical thing to do is to not purchase that appliance? If so, is there *anything* that it is safe to purchase?
Whoops, edit to add a third thing. In the '50s there were sweat shops in the garment district in New York City that used child labor under unhealthy conditions. I don't know that that has changed. All the items made there were 'Made in the USA'.
Quote:You could even bestir yourself to follow the provenance of the goods you purchase.Right. Because it is so easy to determine where the leather, glue, thread, cloth, metal, etc., on a pair of shoes at Costco or WalMart came from.
Quote:But you cannot claim that because somebody else somewhere else does bad things, you are absolved because it didn't happen to your neighbours.No. What we can claim is that there is no absolution required because we committed no sin in the first place. And we refuse to let you put that guilt on us.
--Pete
ACORN - eppie - 10-14-2008
Quote:You are thinking in a messed up ideological way. I'm being a realist (pragmatist), as Pete says. If I give poison to the neighborhood children, then yes, it is unethical. If I go to my local market and buy Nike tennis shoes made in Singapore, how would I ever know what process got them to my locality?
I have the choice of a consumer. If some company is exploiting the ignorant poor, child or slave labor, or is in turn buying materials from someone else who is, then my moral responsibility stops at my buying choice and then also at the nations borders. My personal responsibility for land stops at my property, although I have a vote in what happens in my community, State, and Nation. Governments have the responsibility to protect the people and environment of their nations. Companies have a responsibility to follow the laws of their nation, and morally to deliver the product as advertised. You would have each of us take on the burden of all sins committed in this world, and ostensibly then petition our governments to right these wrongs.
Frankly, I have no idea how "ethical" the chain of materials and labor are for the products I buy. Many are made in SE Asia. I just know that I need them, and so I buy them. Did the metal come from a strip mine? Were the tailings properly handled? Did the wood come from a old growth forest or rain forest? Was the product built by prisoners or children? Are the workers crammed into tiny stalls for 14 hours a day? I don't know. Not much has changed in this regard since nations have been trading goods. Do people in your nation acknowledge their continuing role in the blood diamond trade?
If some nation does not regulate their industries to protect its people or environment, then it's that nation's government that is irresponsible or immoral.
I am not saying that you are responsible for anything. I of course understand the difficulty for a consumer to get a full idea about how 'good or bad' are the products he or she buys. I have problems with the fact that in a discussion about the right or wrong of people (or companies or government) to willingly and while knowing the consequences send chemical waste to a development country to have it sorted out there. It is the same for selling poison gas to a dictator (for which people are actually trialed), you know what the idea of the stuff is.
So sending ships full of chemical waste, or batteries or whatever to one of these countries is criminal in my view. I am not saying it is your or my fault.
ACORN - eppie - 10-14-2008
Quote:I think you and eppie are naive. I've traveled all over the world, and to many jungles and primitive areas where I have no feeling of immorality when I shell out dollars for the crafted pieces of art that they specifically make to sell to outsiders like me. With that money they will be able to go buy stuff like medicine and tools that will enable their whole community to live a better life style. Maybe some of the pieces I own were made by children, but in these places the work is handed out as soon as one is able to walk. There are certainly places where people are abused by corporations for money, but often the families who benefit from the income are grateful for the work. I believe you are trying to "westernize" their world view.
The US does take action against this practice, such as the Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1993. And, has amended the laws at least five times in the last decade.
Kandrathe, you are talking about completely different things here.
Zenda is not talking about children doing handicrafts for tourist. So when you reply to this point you indeed do make zenda and me look naive. However I think it is better not to use this tactic here.
Somehow suggesting that we don't know how these economic issues work is not very fair, and doesn't help the discussion.
ACORN - eppie - 10-14-2008
Quote:How many products do you buy in a month, and how many of them are made in your nation? Including food, I buy many dozens of products in a month. Much of it is made here in the USA. If, however, I learn that someone like Gap, or Primark are breaking the rules, then I can choose differently. But, unless consumers happen to catch something on the news, how would they know any differently?
Well indeed but nobody is blaming you for that.
But I guess you see the difference between the things you are talking about and children opening and heating used batteries on open fires to get some usable metals out of them?
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-14-2008
Quote:Well indeed but nobody is blaming you for that. But I guess you see the difference between the things you are talking about and children opening and heating used batteries on open fires to get some usable metals out of them?You should check out the Basel Action Network. They don't have answers either, but get very worked up about India and China's disregard for their environments and people.
Environmental Threats to the Health of Children: The Asian Perspective
There are very many problems in this world involving waste. My view is that we've become too reliant on consumerism and disposable goods. The manufacturer of a cheap disposable product does not suffer the costs of disposing the product after usage. I would like to see more things designed to be reusable and repairable.
ACORN - Occhidiangela - 10-14-2008
Quote:This has absolutely nothing to do with socialist world view. Take the example of the ships.Uh, yes it does. See class struggle and class warfare, and "enlightened" despotism of the state, which requires an evil "they" to oppose in order to have a rallying common point of reference.
Socialism is a child of the Marxian, Communist, and thus Utopian, world view, which was based on class warfare as an assumption. The "they" who are evil were depicted as entrepeneurs and capitalists, or anyone not a true believer in the struggle. Note who Zenda posits as evil incarnate during the discussion.
The references to that archetypical model of social conflict arises from his posts like the smell from manure rises to your nose -- if your sense of smell isn't already deadened by the manure you consider perfume on a daily basis.
My biggest objection to NAFTA, when it passed, was that it did NOT hold all parties to equally stringent environmental standards. Hence the dodges pursued in the usual attempts to accrue competitive advantage. (Ever heard of Adam Smith?)
Occhi
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-14-2008
Quote:Kandrathe, you are talking about completely different things here. Zenda is not talking about children doing handicrafts for tourist. So when you reply to this point you indeed do make zenda and me look naive. However I think it is better not to use this tactic here. Somehow suggesting that we don't know how these economic issues work is not very fair, and doesn't help the discussion.Again, I'm not sure what we can do about someone buying a ship load of waste and hauling it off to Lagos, when we cannot stop sweat shops from being set up in the heart of Los Angeles.
ACORN - eppie - 10-15-2008
Quote:Socialism is a child of the Marxian, Communist, and thus Utopian, world view, which was based on class warfare as an assumption. The "they" who are evil were depicted as entrepeneurs and capitalists, or anyone not a true believer in the struggle. Note who Zenda posits as evil incarnate during the discussion.
Occhi
A company(or person) that willingly brings dangerous waste to development countries to have people danger their life over there (because they know this) is criminal in my point of view. This has absolutely nothing to do with socialism or other companies.
You, Pete and Kandrathe keep bringing up other examples and reacting to things that were not said by Zenda and me.
If a mexican commits a murder do you say all mexicans are murderers? If a CEO gives wrong info and gets a huge bonus does that mean all CEOs are bad? No of course not and nobody is saying that.
You can make a nice story, maybe you can even use some Mark Twain quotes, also telling people are stupid is a nice tactic, but giving chemical waste to people that have no idea how ugly the stuff is or have no other choice but to handle it is the same as giving a child a chocolate covered cyanide pill. Yes you didn't tell him to eat it, it was his choice......but when you give him the pil you could have expected he would eat it.
ACORN - kandrathe - 10-15-2008
Quote:You, Pete and Kandrathe keep bringing up other examples and reacting to things that were not said by Zenda and me.Um, not true. Zenda linked the article of the children doing embroidery in India. Are we talking about exploiting the poor in developing countries, or the unethical use of ignorant labor to recycle waste? The scope of child exploitation as labor is not the same as recycling batteries, or scavenging garbage dumps.
So who is at fault and not at fault then? The person who buys the battery, then at end of life turns it into the recycling center. The recycling center who sells it to the waste exporter? The waste exporter who sells it to the importer from Lagos? The business in Lagos who buys it from the importer and uses poor people (some of whom may be children) and primitive technology to unsafely recycle the battery? The company who then buys the recycled materials from the business in Lagos? Ad infinitum into making the next product...