Boycotting nestle

kitten_caboodle · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:49

Aren't the government at fault for allowing this to happen?

Dave M · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:52

Cobra said:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaat. As long as my popcorn chicken tastes good, I really couldn't care what happened to the poultry.
What do you want? Entirely free-range chickens?

Two words for you -
"Food"
"Chain"

That said, I entirely support the view that what Nestle does is wrong.

Yes but KFC are also in trouble for using hydrogenated oils for all their cooking. These oils are not natural, they are produced in a chemical plant and are thought to be the main cause for the rise in heart disease in the western world.

They last virtually forever though and can be filtered and re-used again and again - obviously saving the company millions.

DingleBerry · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:54

Telescopi said:
Now that is pretty rough - reminds me of the stories you hear of drug dealers giving kids free samples to get them hooked.

Thats what Vicky thought, as much as I berated her about it at the time.

squiffy · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:57

Few more you can boycott

http://www.saigon.com/~nike/
http://hrw.org/campaigns/gaza/cat/

ok not a business
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...lt&cd=1&q=catholic+church+aids+africa&spell=1

_PD_ · 22 Sep 2006 at 14:59

Telescopi said:
Yes but KFC are also in trouble for using hydrogenated oils for all their cooking. These oils are not natural, they are produced in a chemical plant and are thought to be the main cause for the rise in heart disease in the western world.

They last virtually forever though and can be filtered and re-used again and again - obviously saving the company millions.

OK, fair enough. Wasn't in the video though.

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:02

Bunch of bloody whining, psuedo-hippy, limp-wristed, proto-leftist onanists.

I blame Naomi Klein.

*n

[DOD]Asprilla · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:05

penski said:
Bunch of bloody whining, psuedo-hippy, limp-wristed, proto-leftist onanists.

I blame Naomi Klein.

*n

Yawn.

And your point would be? Not giving a toss is better because?

squiffy · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:06

Unilever are another huge conglomerate.

A5H · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:08

A company making money unethically? Who'd a thunk it...

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:13

[DOD]Asprilla said:
And your point would be? Not giving a toss is better because?

I refuse to indulge in the rhetoric spouted by pretentious, hypocritical little oiks who whinge about Nike, Nestle, P&G et cetera whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of their commercial indulgences, sipping their coffee, reading the Guardian, professing that they care so much about so many causes (after all, they filled out that anti-Starbucks petition online didn't they?) and heaving neither the wherewithall nor the testicular fortitude to actually do something for the causes they purport to support.

Bunch of ****ing scum.

*n

Rosbif · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:14

tbs said:
nestle supports aids in third world countries, they send out powdered milk that ppl in third world countries cant use with clean water, which then resolves them back to breast feeding, alas giving aids to babies

you what?

wouldnt they have breast fed anyway had nestle not supplied them with powdered milk?

Rathanes · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:14

penski said:
I refuse to indulge in the rhetoric spouted by pretentious, hypocritical little oiks who whinge about Nike, Nestle, P&G et cetera whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of their commercial indulgences, sipping their coffee, reading the Guardian, professing that they care so much about so many causes (after all, they filled out that anti-Starbucks petition online didn't they?) and heaving neither the wherewithall nor the testicular fortitude to actually do something for the causes they purport to support.

Bunch of ****ing scum.

*n

You do realize you're a whopping great hypocrite and sound far more self-righteous than anyone else this thread... right?

You also assume anyone who boycott's Nestlé is a hypocrite. What psychic faculty do you have to know this?

A5H · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:15

penski said:
I refuse to indulge in the rhetoric spouted by pretentious, hypocritical little oiks who whinge about Nike, Nestle, P&G et cetera whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of their commercial indulgences, sipping their coffee, reading the Guardian, professing that they care so much about so many causes (after all, they filled out that anti-Starbucks petition online didn't they?) and heaving neither the wherewithall nor the testicular fortitude to actually do something for the causes they purport to support.

Bunch of ****ing scum.

*n

Is this meant to be ironic yo?

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:16

Rathanes said:
You do realize you're a whopping great hypocrite and sound far more self-righteous than anyone else this thread... right?

I am self-righteous, yes. I have reason to be.

How is my post hypocritical? Please do explain.

*n

[DOD]Asprilla · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:17

Also, isn't there a very strong chance that if the mother has AIDS then the baby is going to have it anyway?

I know that transmission during pregnacy isn't 100% and that infant immune system does a much better job of fighting AIDS that in adults but I'd love to see the statistical evidence to support baby powder preventing AIDS infection.

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:18

Rathanes said:
You also assume who anyone that boycott's Nestlé is a hypocrite. What psychic faculty do you have to know this?

No I didn't - you're making assumptions about my post.

That said, Show me a single person in this thread who has complained about Nestlé or similar and has never used a product made by a company with less-than-ethical business practices...

*n

Chuckie · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:20

penski said:
I refuse to indulge in the rhetoric spouted by pretentious, hypocritical little oiks who whinge about Nike, Nestle, P&G et cetera whilst simultaneously reaping the benefits of their commercial indulgences, sipping their coffee, reading the Guardian, professing that they care so much about so many causes (after all, they filled out that anti-Starbucks petition online didn't they?) and heaving neither the wherewithall nor the testicular fortitude to actually do something for the causes they purport to support.

Bunch of ****ing scum.

*n

So you don't deny that these companies do immoral things, but you act like the people who boycott one brand and buy the next are worse than the companies themselves?

Also, suggest something that they could do if they did have the "testicular fortitude". And why isn't boycotting a company doing something?

[DOD]Asprilla · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:21

penski said:
No I didn't - you're making assumptions about my post.

That said, Show me a single person in this thread who has complained about Nestlé or similar and has never used a product made by a company with less-than-ethical business practices...

*n

So you have a perfect record on this front to you? Staying in at night to knit your own clothes from tofu?

I doubt it, so why the derrision for people who are willing to do something even though they are probably not doing everything they can?

penski · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:24

[DOD]Asprilla said:
So you have a perfect record on this front to you? Staying in at night to knit your own clothes from tofu?

Hell, no. Another great assumption on your part.

I just had a Fudge bar and a can of Coke. I have no moral qualms; I will consume as I wish. If I find a pair of Nikes I like, I'll buy them.

I have no pretentions.

I doubt it, so why the derrision for people who are willing to do something even though they are probably not doing everything they can?

Because 99% of the time they could either do a lot more or they have fallen into the trend of anticapitalism which, going back to my earlier post, was thrust into the mainstream psyche by the launch of miss Klein's book.

*n

alexakasloth · 22 Sep 2006 at 15:26

penski said:
the trend of anticapitalism which, going back to my earlier post, was thrust into the mainstream psyche by the launch of miss Klein's book.

*n

And what is so damaging to the world about anticampitalism?