I have misunderstood you for which I apologise. We are clearly in broad agreement. I'm happy to continue the conversation on or off slashdot if you consider it worthwhile.
Thanks for correcting my grammar. Would you like me to tell you about capital letters?
And? I'm certain it is cheaper for them to move operations than effect real change, that still does not justify their current actions. I'm talking about ethics, not finances. I never said I was a supporter of boycotts or negative publicity campaingns. In fact I agree 100% with your sentiment that a holistic long-term approach is needed. Please do not assume you know me, you don't.
The "we" was not a mistake, I was speaking for me and the people who like what I say. You seem to understand that concept judging from your sig.
Your reply has not added anything to your original statement, other than to condesend me. I don't mind that, I'm simply confused about your opinions as you seem to be advocating change at the same time as condoning the current situation. What am I missing?
-- I know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income. --
Well good for him, but that hardly justifies the conditions sweatshop workers are forced endure so that Nike and friends can continue to make obscene amounts of cash. Sensible people who oppose sweatshops realise they give people chances they would not otherwise have had. We're campaigning to make Nike and friends stop abusing people (seem reasonable?), not to close them down or move all operations elswhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Abuse, well, arguably not, But exploitation? Profitering?
Kicking someone in the ass is slightly nicer than kicking someone in the face. Doesn't make it okay.
I have misunderstood you for which I apologise. We are clearly in broad agreement. I'm happy to continue the conversation on or off slashdot if you consider it worthwhile.
Thanks for correcting my grammar. Would you like me to tell you about capital letters?
And? I'm certain it is cheaper for them to move operations than effect real change, that still does not justify their current actions. I'm talking about ethics, not finances. I never said I was a supporter of boycotts or negative publicity campaingns. In fact I agree 100% with your sentiment that a holistic long-term approach is needed. Please do not assume you know me, you don't.
The "we" was not a mistake, I was speaking for me and the people who like what I say. You seem to understand that concept judging from your sig.
Your reply has not added anything to your original statement, other than to condesend me. I don't mind that, I'm simply confused about your opinions as you seem to be advocating change at the same time as condoning the current situation. What am I missing?
--
I know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income.
--
Well good for him, but that hardly justifies the conditions sweatshop workers are forced endure so that Nike and friends can continue to make obscene amounts of cash. Sensible people who oppose sweatshops realise they give people chances they would not otherwise have had. We're campaigning to make Nike and friends stop abusing people (seem reasonable?), not to close them down or move all operations elswhere.