Printable View
I'd argue that's laziness though. Sure it may be unusual to research every purchase, but how often does one really buy jeans? Once every year tops? And it's not like the values change that often, so you spend an hour once every five years, and you can actually properly vote with your dollars. We need to expect more from people. It's not the government's job to take care of them in every facet of their damn lives.
Your values don't change, but a company you like gets a new CEO, etc. And with all the research in the world you still don't know exactly. A lot of these clothing companies intentionally offload production to random companies in Asia and let them handle all the ugly business of actually making the stuff. This is so the name on the label can claim innocence when, say, an unsafe factory collapses and kills 1100 people.
And this is fairly straightforward.
How often do you buy food? How do you know where that meat is coming from for sure, or that the animal wasn't mistreated on the way to the plate? A bunch of states in the Midwest have passed laws that make it illegal to go in and record premises under "false pretenses" - certainly a First Amendment violation, but it is what is happening (TN's governor to his credit just vetoed one of these laws). It's kind of hard to make ethical decisions on food sources when companies work hard to hide that information.
I spend long periods of time researching my jean purchases. I researched raw denim, and various brands for a month or so before deciding which pair to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I understand what you're saying though.
P.S. I look good.
That's all true, and I understand that no one can be 100% informed, but people can't stick their head in the sand and be 0% either. There are lots of products that are relatively easy to follow the supply chain. And, hell, even if that's too much work, even the ultimate product seller, the AT&T, Sony, Apple, Hasbro, Toyota, etc. level, has practices that may or may not align with someone's values. That's better than nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
edit: Just read Gaming Discussion and look how many people bitch about something and then throw money at it anyway.
Objection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It is better than nothing but it's still not enough. Ultimately the owners of companies need to be held accountable for the behaviors of the corporations. That's what a corporate governance system is about, and ours is not functional.
I think we can all agree on that. It's like healthcare. We can't agree on how to fix it, but we know it doesn't work as-is.
Yoshi is a funny fellow. Corporations hate the yoshi type capitalist. They do not want informed buyers. They do not want Josh to research his jeans. They want buyers to give money to the flashest ad campaign or buy the jeans in the closest store with the fanciest label ad highest mark up. They want millions of easily influenced impulse purchases.
Corps even know they think like this. This is a big part of why American entertainment has been childized, girlyized, and teenized. Those groups are the easiest to get impulse purchases from, thus all advertising and entertainment are corralled to that end. Adult men and most adult women are hard to trick out of their money. 14 year old girls, not so much.
No doubt, and that's my point that the public can actually keep them honest to a significant extent with a little effort. I've posted before that as a general rule I'll support privately owned companies over publicly traded ones. That's painting with very broad strokes, but if you don't want to do any more research than that, you're still doing more good than harm.
Their priorities are different though. They aren't researching whether the people getting paid to make stuff got paid enough, they are looking for price. Which usually goes hand in hand in a negative correlation, of course.
If price is the only measure you care about, you're a terrible consumer. Those certainly exist in droves though.
Then they are looking for value (for them, not society as a whole). You know what I am saying.
I think there are two groups. Some literally do just buy the lowest priced option, while others try to balance price with other personal priorities to gauge personal value.
Tying this back to games, it's hard to support Ubi Soft after the Désilets fiasco as an informed consumer. It's one thing to fire the guy, but to hold his IP hostage with likely no plan to actually use it is bullshit.
OK, so that's 0.01% percent of customers.
What is? Informed you mean?
Potential customers. 99.9% of the potential buyers for a game are not going to think about that.
Except I don't care about Patrice Desilets. I mean, I am sure he is a good guy, but if Ubisoft makes a good game I'll still buy it. It's not my problem. They're still paying thousands of people very good 1st-world salaries to write games, just like EA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Ubisoft, though, may not want to be thought of as a company that bullies around its talent, because it needs good talent down the road. Or maybe it doesn't care. That's an internal Ubisoft management decision and Ubisoft needs to mind its own shop. I'm not Ubisoft's HR department.
I think people are too retarded to expect them to suddenly become informed consumers. The vast majority of people only care about value for money, which is why shitty business practices are as common as they are. You can't expect everyone to change their nature. These people aren't going to go vegan and stop driving their cars either, because trying to prevent global warming is not convenient or enjoyable. Just like the rest of human history, our fate lies in the few exceptional people who reach a level of influence great enough to affect things on a global level, which in this case would be your CEOs and executives. If they choose to be cruel and take advantage of the 3rd world, nobody will stop them, except maybe government.
I really don't understand liberals or conservatives that think the populace will suddenly become smart or hard working if one or two laws are or are not passed.
What's even the point here? You can't force people to give a shit. The best you can do is hope a celebrity or someone with a high profile brings some problems to light to an issue and raises the .01 to 1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The way we live in North America is not sustainable for everyone else on the planet to do too.
No one thinks they suddenly will, but it's not the government's job to pick up their slack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Also and mostly unrelated, here's the corporate equivalent of offshore accounts. We need to stop dicking around with tax rates and make sure people and companies are paying the rates we have.
Set corporate tax = 0%
Tax capital gains and dividends as income.
Problem solved.
Can anyone explain to me why absolutely ANYONE would oppose Obama's advocacy for repealing AUMF? Aside from the conservative mission to paint every decision the president makes as disastrous, I mean.
That's a bitch move.
I have a feeling that won't work as planned.
Instead of dying in the street like the 'horrible violent criminal' they are, they will probably go out and forcible take someone's food.
I really wish the fascists would just come out and shoot the people they don't like. Go ahead and do the deed and done with it. None of this round about shit. Stop trying to put shit into place where people slowly starve to death. Just pass some law, round all the 'evil' people up, and shoot them down.
It would be a lot more honest, and save us all a lot of money in the end.
Nothing makes people law-abiding more than being hungry!
Maybe they watched this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
whats sad is that we even teach business majors that this doesn't work. It's widely known that morals break down as people's basic needs crumble awayQuote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
When you read shit like this, it's like... are politicians actively trying to corrode the country? Like is it the mandate, not just poor governance?
Of course it is the mandate. We have a large segment of the population that simply does not believe in the country as it is. They imagine it has some far-right militaristic white-dominated state and anything that runs afoul of that is just not legitimate.
wait. wat?
He means the tea party
And lots of them are in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
There's a difference between advocating and moving for change and not believing in the legitimacy of other factions. I do not like a lot of these right wing groups, but I do not question their right to exist and participate in the system. On the other hand, a lot of these groups seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with them are not "real Americans" as they are. We saw this with Clinton and we see it now. We see it every time a Democrat is in the White House, like the people who voted for them are not legitimately American.
As opposed to the IRS targeting right wing groups? Obama is the most divisive, partisan president we have ever had.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's not the president, it's the electorate. My vote for Gary Johnson was one of the most rewarding things I've done.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/us...gewanted=print
Yea, why should the IRS examine an organization that claimed to be non-political while campaigning for Romney in 2012?Quote:
Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, another Tea Party group that has complained about the scrutiny it received from the I.R.S., sent out regular e-mails to members about Romney campaign events and organized protests around the state to “demand the truth about Benghazi” when Mr. Obama visited before the 2012 election. The coalition also canvassed neighborhoods, handing out Romney campaign “door hangers,” Mr. Zawistowski said.
The I.R.S. usually considers such activities to be partisan. But when Mr. Zawistowski consulted his group’s lawyers, he said, he came away understanding that the I.R.S. was most concerned with radio or television advertising. He said he believed that other activities, like distributing literature for the Romney campaign, would not raise concerns.
More smoke than fire here. The big scandal here is that Congress directed the IRS to determine whether or not these organizations were political.
Oh I'm not picking on the Republicans. Obama and the Supremes just handed Monsanto the most dangerous back door escape they could have ever dreamed of. It's borderline if not outright illegal to buy and plant seeds now without them suing you. It's mind boggling people still get caught up in the 2 party circus so fervently. To be fair stuff like this "no food for criminals" idea being proposed make it hard not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Living in a liberal town under a conservative mayor I can say with utmost certainty this is true from both sides of the spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
So they got one right? Are you in favor of racial profiling too? I'm sure they get one right when they cast a wide net too.
You should read the article. It's not just one organization. And it wasn't just right-wing organizations that got flagged.
Quote:
Emerge America, which trained women to run for office, was granted 501(c)(4) recognition in 2006, but its status was revoked in 2012. Training people how to run for office is not in itself partisan activity, but the I.R.S. determined that the group trained only Democratic women and was operated to benefit one party.
The IRS, by law, has to determine whether or not these groups are engaged in political activity. To do that, they ask questions and look at finances. Some of the questions were inappropriate and some of the methods they used to look at finances went too far. But overall there's a good reason why a lot of these orgs warranted further examination.
Eh. I don't like Monsanto either and that case was pretty straight forward. The guy bought patented seeds he knew were patented from a grain elevator and used them in violation of the contract he signed with Monsanto. In fact he bought them explicitly to get around the contract. The real problem is seed patents but nobody has any will to fix it. The real interesting case on patents is the one on gene tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
would he have been legally in the clear had he never signed their contract and had always planted from the grain elevator?
IMO, the problem with the seeds story is that the rest of society has ignored seed tech for 70 years. Seeds are just seeds to them and they don't see why an old man should be sued for putting some in some dirt.
Probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I think the bigger issue is that consumers don't have the power they used to have. The America we all grew up with was one that you could go buy just about anything and so long as you were doing something with it on your own property, no one cared.
But companies want to get away from that. They assert power over the product after it enters your property via user agreements. In some cases they don't even release ownership over the material product. They just sell a license to use it.
So how do I know if the food I buy is not contributing to Monsanto?
It won't be easy, because part of this is that no one has to tell you. Supposedly some retailers, like Whole Foods, will voluntarily label stuff as GMO.
I don't know how I feel about GMO, but I do not like Monsanto's practices, nor the idea of turning the agricultural market into the greedy clusterfuck the pharmaceutical market is. Which, is exactly what this kind of lawsuit paves the way for.
Circling back to this, I'll use the left's favorite source to demonstrate another partisan attack from this administration:Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
So explain to me again how voters on the right allegedly wanting to silence the opposition is different, let alone worse, than this administration trying to do the same in completely illegal and unconstitutional ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYTimes
they're all horrible. Kill them all.
I've been speaking out against the government's "war on leakers" for years. Including just a few pages ago in this thread when the AP story broke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yeah, but you sweep up targeted attacks into broader issues. It's no coincidence that the guy named is a Fox News employee, as opposed to any other member of the media, just like the IRS targeting. These are government sponsored intimidation and not just happenstance of bad policy.
I missed this, but buttplant hit on the key point in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Other than continuing to misuse "fascist," he has the right idea. If these scum were executed the way they should be, food stamps wouldn't be an issue. Murderers don't deserve to eat no matter who is paying the check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by me, in response to Yoshi in another thread
They have to be convicted to be denied food stamps, so the legal system has already done its part.
Who gets to define "murder"? You?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Speaking of which:
How did he misuse "fascist"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Where are you getting this shit? We have legal definitions in every state.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeve
He uses it as a synonym for "right wing," which it isn't even remotely.Quote:
How did he misuse "fascist"?
The AP was targeted too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Which of their names were released publicly?
This is the exact opposite of our justice system. We don't summarily kill criminals left and right for a reason. The list of people getting off of false murder charges due to DNA alone ought to give even the most hardened arm chair vigilantes pause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's a safe bet the president that led us to into Civil War was a tad more divisive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Maybe we could use this Government thing to tell them they have to label it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I can't help it if your opinion of what the right is lines up with historical examples of fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You're talking about old crimes. All of the DNA evidence should be long presented by the time the appeals are over for anything recent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Rather than argue, I'll settle for "most divisive in 150 years," since it changes the point not at all.Quote:
It's a safe bet the president that led us to into Civil War was a tad more divisive.
Since it was the government who made it so they didn't have to, I'd say not. Maybe you should read up on what the guy you voted for signs. Now, not only do they not have to tell us what we're eating, but we can't sue them if it gives us cancer.Quote:
Maybe we could use this Government thing to tell them they have to label it.
It doesn't. And neither does anyone else's who is paying attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
I refuse to believe you actually feel that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Whatever yoshi. I'm not going to argue war history with an autist.
You're as bad as college liberals that want to ignore historic communism in favor of the textbook definition.
"Cuba just didn't do it right. Communism is great!"
The personal attack is worth it if you keep your word and STFU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Its really sad that you can't see the similarities. They're as big as a barn. If I was wrong, everyone would have dog piled pages ago. But no one comes to your defense.
You mean about right wing philosophy equating to fascism? It doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
So he's not a man of his words, even when he can't spell and/or doesn't understand them.
Don't think you're off the hook suddenly.
Yoshi's version of it sure as shit sounds like it. He's awfully keen on legislation that will translate into 'undesirable' adults, dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1369785914Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Please go on with equating the death penalty to the holocaust.
oh don't even pretend like you've only talked about the death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
New evidence comes to light quite often as do other legalities that would make it a horrible idea to dispense capital punishment as you see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Swing and a miss. Pretty sure FDR and the new deal pissed off a ton of people too. I'm sure 'Nam and the presidents who perpetuated it were more divisive than Obama.Quote:
Rather than argue, I'll settle for "most divisive in 150 years," since it changes the point not at all.
I'm not the Obama cheerleader you make me out to be.Quote:
Since it was the government who made it so they didn't have to, I'd say not. Maybe you should read up on what the guy you voted for signs. Now, not only do they not have to tell us what we're eating, but we can't sue them if it gives us cancer.
It was congress and the senate getting blown by the lobbyists to write the law. We could also maybe use our representive government to perhaps change it.... but your side seems to be hell bent on attempting Obama care repeal for the 28734923875th time while issues like this fly quite under the radar. Course the Dems were prolly blown just as hard as the Repubs in this case. I just know this is an instance where the company has no incentive to label their shit unless doddering ol' useless government makes them and your side is far less likely to stop it than Dems.
Modern plant breeding is like programming. Instead of 1's and 0's, geneticists, breeders, and molecular biologists use A, C, T, and Gs. There are "open source" heirloom varieties, which can be used without restriction, and patented varieties, which have consistent yield and disease/pest resistance qualities. Patent protection is the only real incentive for companies/universities to develop new varieties, and patent protection is only as good as the legal might used to enforce the patent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
yeah, yeah. I still don't know if I'm comfortable with it.
Then vote with your money: shop at the farmer's market and don't buy processed food. It's less convenient, but probably a good long-term decision for your health.
some places don't have a farmers market. Some farmers markets are 30 minutes to an hour away, making me put more money into big oil. Some farmers markets have cheats that go up to Memphis and buy produce off the same distro trucks for grocery store chains and you still end up eating MSO stuff. Some farmers markets are only open from 6-9 am, which is when I'm at work.
there is a certain point where things are too difficult and the gov should just step in.
This is infuriating. I guess it's not surprising that Illinois of all places would act a lot like the Feds though.
That seems to be an increasingly safe bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tones
Yeah that web page also has an article about the evils of fluoride in the water. Not a site I would take seriously
You can still buy non-processed foods at the grocery store. I'm fine with GMOs. Also your bee story is just another Monsanto hate site. Guy was told his bees were contaminated with American Foul Brood and instructed to destroy his colonies. He didn't do anything about it because he is a kook.
http://www.beesource.com/forums/show...he-IDofA/page6
Ah, ok. Someone linked it on Facebook. I haven't had a chance to look further.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I don't know what you want the government to do, force farmer's markets to open in every neighborhood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
At this time, Monsanto items only cover commodity crops for processing, such as corn, wheat, and soybean, but not horticultural crops distributed as fresh produce. While Monsanto seeds are both patented and GMO, the presence of a patent does not automatically indicate that a product is also GMO. If you are worried about GMOs, purchase Organic products. As part of the production guidelines, they cannot use any GMO ingredients.
This is one of those situations where you can only get what you want or how you want it. Grocery stores answer the question, "how can I get everything I want, at any time of day, any day of the week?" The answer to that question with just produce items is thousands of plant varieties from all over the world and a very complex distribution network.
This is also old as balls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
something along the lines of NOT passing things where I can't sue them if they make Swamp Thing and he burns my house downQuote:
Originally Posted by Tones
I just heard on the radio today that an Oregon farmer found unapproved Monstanto wheat in his field. It's curious because Monsanto stopped working on the wheat years ago and never submitted it for approval.
That's the problem with this stuff. Excel source code can't inadvertently drift into LibreOffice the way these GMO foods can go where they are not wanted.
I also found it funny that the USADA said that eating the wheat (because, for all we know, this stuff is in the food supply and has been for years) poses no safety risks. Umm, isn't that what the approval process is for?
Really good posting at The American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ois-bohemians/
I also recommend the comments.
I'm often annoyed by the "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" viewpoint. The Dems in Congress are mostly of this stripe and they are terrible for average working folk. Andrew Cuomo is widely popular amongst 'liberals' even though he is exactly the same (I repeat, exactly the same) as Chris Christie on economic matters, and Chris Christie is terrible.
I have Chris Hayes' book on the meritocracy but have not read it yet.
That's a great article.
That is an article worth reading
is it worth reading?
Upon completion of a quick skim, I saw no mention of tanks or trannys, so no.
I read it days ago, actually.
Its ok. Nothing we didn't already know. And simple wealth distribution isn't going to fix those problems.
The issue is much bigger than that. We're not at the stage where we go to rehab and work on our problem. We don't truly, as a country, know we have a problem. We're still at denial. Everything is the conservatives fault. Or the lazy poor's fault. Or a dozen other people's fault
IMO, the bigger issue is that the problem isn't in the lives of the people that can fix it. People don't 'think' about the other people. We all have so much wealth, if everyone that had time and money went out a put an hour and a little money into just one of our problems, we' probably have them licked in a generation. Everyone could eat. Kids with bad parents could be loved and taught something. People could get houses fixed or new houses. People could teach other people job skills.
The idea of redistribution of wealth or 'gov fix it' is just part of the problem. This continuation of not wanting to think about the real problem and wanting someone else to deal with it.
Whats sad is that we've known this for a very long time. You see traces of this in stuff like a Christmas Carol when Scrooge asks "are there not Poor Houses." We know this stuff doesn't work. We know we shouldn't be like this. But here we are, waiting for some ghosts to scare the shit out of us before we'll change.
TLDR
That has nothing to do with the article's contents.
then it isn't about anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan