-
I put my name forward, lets see where this goes...
-
just saying is all that most of the people here own some bike made in the east,let alone there clothes, its the pleasure of the western lifestyle
legestation in country's is all well and good, were not in them country's so there nothing we can do about it, you can scream and shout as much as you like, won't change a thing
you can ask companys to go all ethical but ethical isn't the norm, hence why even the ethical topshop range looked all mung bean hippy. can they make there entire range ethical, probably, but ethical is a tag they can use to jump up prices so people over here feel better about there shitty t-shirt. if everything is ethical, where is the appeal for the people who love to feel smug?
there isn't any, end of the day nothing will change, to get average joe JD sports to think about ethics is gonna be a long long long long time coming,
the only possible way to maybe make a change is to implement our our rules that ethically sourced products have less tax's on them saving money for us and company's, then perhaps change will happen, but its still far to complex for internet arguments to deal with
as i see it, big company's get it constantly about being good to there workers in factory's. they properly use the best factory's around and make sure their seen to do enough. leveing failing factory's or smiler. its the small company's you need to watch out for in the exploiting stakes. Plus the factorys in the long run only seem bad to our fancy pants western lifestyle,
oh and i applied for this ad, i want £350 and i like adidas,
lol. like a chimpanzee struggling to comprehend fire.
-
Nonsense - governments can impose trade sanctions/bans on imports and exports to other states, it happens all the time with countries involved in gross human rights violations or those breaching international agreements, e.g. Iran and the IAEA. People getting shit money for making shoes obviously isnt in the same league as executions, but states are not powerless to act if they so choose, and their decisions are influenced by the people that elect the governments. Boycotts, for their limited impact, do also cause companies headaches - why would they bother to counter any arguments if it didnt hurt their image or bottom line?
nonsence? i think you've failed at the first hurdle there, govenments can impose trade sanctions yes, but the company using these factory in the east are not braking any international rule of human rights etc, you think if the where it whould still be going on? Now before you start throwing bias videos into the air showing it, having worked for big company's i know they out source there work and that is subsequently outsourced again. this means that at times a facotry can be found that isn't acting responsibility, all big company's have a ''code of practice'' or similer for how the factorys operate, if the factory's fail, they lose the contract. obviously its flawed but company expect people of your persuasion to kick up a fuss regardless. witch brings us onto boycotts, Yes they cause headaches, thats the point but they counter the arguments as more often then not the boycotts are based on evidence from one place X amount of time ago, witch the company's ceased business with. witch reverts us back to my point about the contracts and outsourcing. They argue back as normally the information is whipped out of all proportion. and they argue back to get there side across to give a apposing view. YES i agree things could be better but having visited where theses factory's are. there not as bad as is made out for the most part. For example China. Yes there are good and bad. but having seen how people there work 7 days a week all day building things to sell how is it any diffrent to do it in there small shop making windows all day to a big factory making shoes all day? the standards are the same, and in my experience the factory are perhaps slightly safer (again from what i've seen (i didn't have a government chaperon either before you ask)) i fell perhaps this has gone off on a tangent now.
Dont be such a close-minded Daily Mail dickhead - buying ethical products isnt about "feeling smug", its about making a choice at the point of purchase that somewhere back up the production chain supports less animal or human suffering/exploitation.
There is no need to insult, to insult in an arguments just show's your own argument is week.
But anyway. if its not about feeling smug then why dose your argument come acorss as smug? Yes its about knowing something is better further down the line. but its also a thing to hike up prices, why is faretrade/ethical/freerange stuff so much more expensive if its not? perhaps if you'd made a point or reading what i put properly then you'd have seen this
"the only possible way to maybe make a change is to implement our own rules that ethically sourced products have less tax's on them saving money for us and company's, then perhaps change will happen,"
what i meant here was to remove the need to make a product ethical as a premium product then surely in the long run all products will become eithical as its cheeper. The current trend for ethical things is to target the sell self-satisfying products to people at a premium who think getting it saves the world, its not about the ethics, its about the money.
"end of the day nothing will change" - but you're wrong, things do change, often when people work together to overcome problems and oppression. Slavery was abolished, apartheid fell, Stalinism collapsed, Ireland got its independence from Britain (thought you'd enjoy that one ;-), and so on. People get negative and worn down all the time and accept their lot, but every so often they surprise themselves with the shit they can achieve. No reason why in the future people might stop buying sweatshop shoes - or enough people might do it to warrant a change in legislation. There'll always be people who only give a shit about themselves and getting their hands on the latest fashionable thing, regardless of what had to happen to manufacture it.
no, I'm not wrong, to argue that I'm wrong surely is a bit much. i have a different point of view, your are wrong to assume your correct ;)
and anyway yes things change. i'm aware of that. again i raise my point about company getting a discount for making things ethical then people can only buy ethical. its not about people getting worn down. part of it is about them not identifying. Again to bring up stereotypes, if a typical animal rights activist is doing a bench in town, regular jo doesn't identify with it, as he thinks ''i do care but i don't want to look like that'' as sad as that sounds its true. first you have to engage the person on there own level. then inform and not preach then perhaps they will think differently. otherwise your only preaching to the converted. THEN if you can do that it might implimetn change in govenmnet plans, maybe liek my tax idea, witch in turn changes how company's work. but i stand buy my point, the chances of that happening is slim, for sure give it a go, I'm all for it but unless you do it right it will just come over as preacher and people will ignore it.
before i sign off, change dose happen, the current set of designers coming through the Uk schools are conditioned to make there products as environmentally sound and ethical as possible as otherwise why are you designing, maybe when theses guys reach the top of the companys in 60 years then things will change but its a long road, i know this as i'm one of them.
(dam i wrote a lot)
-
if everything is ethical, where is the appeal for the people who love to feel smug?
there isn't any, end of the day nothing will change, to get average joe JD sports to think about ethics is gonna be a long long long long time coming,
Dont be such a close-minded Daily Mail dickhead - buying ethical products isnt about "feeling smug", its about making a choice at the point of purchase that somewhere back up the production chain supports less animal or human suffering/exploitation.
Kevin, do yourself a favour and read with understanding.
What he means is, there will always be a group of people who want to "feel smug" therefore unethical. Same people who buy ivory products and alligator belts.
As long as there are stupid kids listening to 50 Cent you can't change much.
-
Who the fuck buys that shit to feel smug????? Thats a ridiculous notion.
-
Oops, misread what Greame wrote, I thought he meant people feeling smug about not buying ethical.
-
the current set of designers coming through the Uk schools are conditioned to make there products as environmentally sound and ethical as possible as otherwise why are you designing, maybe when theses guys reach the top of the companys in 60 years then things will change but its a long road, i know this as i'm one of them.
Ahahahahahah!
"designers" jolly good, they will all be retraining as farmers and builders long before that.
-
Balki, you could sell you vegetables in my hand woven organically grown bulrush baskets, theyll go mad for that.
-
Yep. I'll get some baskets too... And hessian things.
There is a sign in the lifts at work as part of some weird internal propaganda campaign which claims that 90% of farmers in developing countries would not have to chane their processes in order to attain organic certification... Which kinda makes sense to me.
-
Yeah, organic is easy.
You water them and don't give a damn. Pick them up, shake off the dirt a bit and send to the customers via dedicated home delivery system.Haha, I saw someone in my street getting one of those Riverford boxes or whatever. It's a shitehole street in Tooting ffs, there's more "organic" matter chucked in the road than there is in the supermarket, it ain't Kensington Gore.
Makes me laugh when people try to be all middle class, some of them have even bought the obligatory black 4x4.
I'll know the fuckwits have won when the Thule roofboxes start to appear on gun-metal grey Audis...
beanpie
31trum
hellomiles
kattiep
mattty
Skülly
Graeme_
EEI
sorethroat
rpm
Balki-
Post a reply
About
I'll make you famous (or Adidas will)
Posted by
@Velocio
Nonsense - governments can impose trade sanctions/bans on imports and exports to other states, it happens all the time with countries involved in gross human rights violations or those breaching international agreements, e.g. Iran and the IAEA. People getting shit money for making shoes obviously isnt in the same league as executions, but states are not powerless to act if they so choose, and their decisions are influenced by the people that elect the governments. Boycotts, for their limited impact, do also cause companies headaches - why would they bother to counter any arguments if it didnt hurt their image or bottom line?
Dont be such a close-minded Daily Mail dickhead - buying ethical products isnt about "feeling smug", its about making a choice at the point of purchase that somewhere back up the production chain supports less animal or human suffering/exploitation.
"end of the day nothing will change" - but you're wrong, things do change, often when people work together to overcome problems and oppression. Slavery was abolished, apartheid fell, Stalinism collapsed, Ireland got its independence from Britain (thought you'd enjoy that one ;-), and so on. People get negative and worn down all the time and accept their lot, but every so often they surprise themselves with the shit they can achieve. No reason why in the future people might stop buying sweatshop shoes - or enough people might do it to warrant a change in legislation. There'll always be people who only give a shit about themselves and getting their hands on the latest fashionable thing, regardless of what had to happen to manufacture it.