The difference is pushing a product into an area where it cannot be used correctly bacause of an environmental problem. There are some places where the drinking water is unsafe, and there is not enough fuel available to boil all of the water. There are places where one or more family members have to spend their entire day gathering fuel to cook the meals. Some of these places also have limited sanitation, and nasty drinking water. Baby formula in these areas cannot be made safe. Nestle has been pushing its products as a safe alternative to breast milk in these areas.

That's because, when used correctly, baby formula is a safe alternative to breast milk in these areas. That making the formula with poison isn't safe doesn't mean the product isn't.

What bit of it CAN'T be used safely in these areas aren't you getting?

The part where that's Nestle's fault.

Alcholol and cars can both be used safely - just not together. Anybody in the US that has access to both has been warned many times that drinking and driving don't go together.

Anybody in Oogabooga Land or Whereverwe'retalkingaboutsville has been warned many times that the water is poisonous and dangerous--they cannot then make Kool-Aid, baby formula, or frankly, anything else with poisonous water and consider it safe.

I mean, what did they make the formula with before their bodies stopped producing breast milk?

Champagne?

No..they made it in safe water in the hospital..probably unaware that they would be stuck with that method of feeding and probably unaware that the water isn't safe for the their babies even if it is ok for them.
Unaware about having to boil bottles..and so on. (after all..I doubt they had access to the Brixton Health Service mother and baby classes like I did)...these women are mixing the formula up incorrectly in the first place because they do not know how to use it and have not been told. Oddly enough..women aren't born with an instinctive knowledge on how to look after a baby and mix up formula. This may be a strange concept to you..but looking after a baby is something you have LEARN.

Sounds to me like the parent failed to LEARN how to utilize the product correctly, absolving Nestle of any wrong doing

(oh...alcohol is actually a poison...using it safely is a strange concept anyway)

So is radiation, but we use it to treat cancer patients everyday.

---

I can't fathom then why anyone would feed it to their kids in the first place, given that they know full well they don't have access to safe water.

You can't fathom it because you can't seem to put yourself in anyone else's shoes.

More accurately, I can't fathom it because the responsibility for the life of a child that one brings into the world falls squarely on their shoulders, regardless of what I may happen to think about it, or how well their shoes are made, or what choices are available to them.

All of this stuff they are unaware of, and yet, somehow, instead of asking around or finding out for themselves, they figure they should be feeding the stuff to their kids.

I guess because people dressed as nurses (ie pretending to be nurses) told them it was best for their babies. Tell me what other source they were meant to use? Libraries? The internet? TV? Have you any idea what it is like to be poor in a developing country? They don't have access to anyone to ask around. They are poor people in a developing country.

What source?? The rest of the people in that country. The rest of the people they know. Family members. Their friends. WHO. Relatives. Whoever they trust. All the Rachel Corrie types that live for this stuff. How did these people manage to raise children for hundreds or thousands of years without marketing people in nurses' uniforms? Were they reading minds, or did they learn from those around them?

it's a bit late by then..and how long do you think it would take to work out that is what is killing the babies? Remember..they do not have family doctor, they do not have easy access to hospitals, they do not have libraries, TV or the internet...

I thought that website noted this has been going on for 20 years. I would think that a few weeks of feeding children dangerous water would have been sufficient to figure it out. They aren't stupid.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

More accurately, I can't fathom it because the responsibility for the life of a child that one brings into the world falls squarely on their shoulders, regardless of what I may happen to think about it, or how well their shoes are made, or what choices are available to them.

exactly...so if you are told by someone in a position you would assume knew better than you, you would listen to their advice.

What source?? The rest of the people in that country. The rest of the people they know. Family members. Their friends. WHO. Relatives. Whoever they trust. All the Rachel Corrie types that live for this stuff. How did these people manage to raise children for hundreds or thousands of years without marketing people in nurses' uniforms? Were they reading minds, or did they learn from those around them?

They....breast...fed....their....babies. Duh.

I thought that website noted this has been going on for 20 years. I would think that a few weeks of feeding children dangerous water would have been sufficient to figure it out. They aren't stupid.

They aren't stupid..they just don't have access to the information they need to make an informed choice. Babies die a lot in these countries. It's not like here. So how would they suddenly know that their babies are dying of something else? I am sure WHO and other health professionals are trying their best to undo the harm Nestle has done..but I doubt they have the resources behind them that Nestle do.

---

Reality Internet Personality

More accurately, I can't fathom it because the responsibility for the life of a child that one brings into the world falls squarely on their shoulders, regardless of what I may happen to think about it, or how well their shoes are made, or what choices are available to them.

exactly...so if you are told by someone in a position you would assume knew better than you, you would listen to their advice.

And if I did so, even if they were wrong, the responsibility for doing so lies squarely on my shoulders.

What source?? The rest of the people in that country. The rest of the people they know. Family members. Their friends. WHO. Relatives. Whoever they trust. All the Rachel Corrie types that live for this stuff. How did these people manage to raise children for hundreds or thousands of years without marketing people in nurses' uniforms? Were they reading minds, or did they learn from those around them?

They....breast...fed....their....babies. Duh.

That...wasn't...the...point. Duh. The point was that they do manage to learn from others around them, as they have since time immemorial. Even without "Libraries, the internet, [and] TV."

I thought that website noted this has been going on for 20 years. I would think that a few weeks of feeding children dangerous water would have been sufficient to figure it out. They aren't stupid.

They aren't stupid..they just don't have access to the information they need to make an informed choice.

That is a terrible way to live.

"The mind is a terrible thing to taste." --Skinny Puppy.

Babies die a lot in these countries. It's not like here. So how would they suddenly know that their babies are dying of something else?

The same way they learn anything and everything else?

I am sure WHO and other health professionals are trying their best to undo the harm Nestle has done..but I doubt they have the resources behind them that Nestle do.

I have no idea. A few posters like "FEEDING POWDERED STUFF TO YOUR KID WILL KILL IT," should do it. WHO and the breastnetwork could put a stick figure of a nurse, stabbing babies to death on them.

I mean, that stuff works wonders for cigarettes.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

The difference is pushing a product into an area where it cannot be used correctly bacause of an environmental problem. There are some places where the drinking water is unsafe, and there is not enough fuel available to boil all of the water. There are places where one or more family members have to spend their entire day gathering fuel to cook the meals. Some of these places also have limited sanitation, and nasty drinking water. Baby formula in these areas cannot be made safe. Nestle has been pushing its products as a safe alternative to breast milk in these areas.

That's because, when used correctly, baby formula is a safe alternative to breast milk in these areas. That making the formula with poison isn't safe doesn't mean the product isn't.

Alcholol and cars can both be used safely - just not together. Anybody in the US that has access to both has been warned many times that drinking and driving don't go together.

Anybody in Oogabooga Land or Whereverwe'retalkingaboutsville has been warned many times that the water is poisonous and dangerous--they cannot then make Kool-Aid, baby formula, or frankly, anything else with poisonous water and consider it safe.

I mean, what did they make the formula with before their bodies stopped producing breast milk?

Champagne?

Goats and cows, and maybe squirrels like Scary Capitalist tries.

---

More accurately, I can't fathom it because the responsibility for the life of a child that one brings into the world falls squarely on their shoulders, regardless of what I may happen to think about it, or how well their shoes are made, or what choices are available to them.

exactly...so if you are told by someone in a position you would assume knew better than you, you would listen to their advice.

And if I did so, even if they were wrong, the responsibility for doing so lies squarely on my shoulders.

What source?? The rest of the people in that country. The rest of the people they know. Family members. Their friends. WHO. Relatives. Whoever they trust. All the Rachel Corrie types that live for this stuff. How did these people manage to raise children for hundreds or thousands of years without marketing people in nurses' uniforms? Were they reading minds, or did they learn from those around them?

They....breast...fed....their....babies. Duh.

That...wasn't...the...point. Duh. The point was that they do manage to learn from others around them, as they have since time immemorial. Even without "Libraries, the internet, [and] TV."

I thought that website noted this has been going on for 20 years. I would think that a few weeks of feeding children dangerous water would have been sufficient to figure it out. They aren't stupid.

They aren't stupid..they just don't have access to the information they need to make an informed choice.

That is a terrible way to live.

"The mind is a terrible thing to taste." --Skinny Puppy.

Babies die a lot in these countries. It's not like here. So how would they suddenly know that their babies are dying of something else?

The same way they learn anything and everything else?

I am sure WHO and other health professionals are trying their best to undo the harm Nestle has done..but I doubt they have the resources behind them that Nestle do.

I have no idea. A few posters like "FEEDING POWDERED STUFF TO YOUR KID WILL KILL IT," should do it. WHO and the breastnetwork could put a stick figure of a nurse, stabbing babies to death on them.

I mean, that stuff works wonders for cigarettes.

Rush..if you knew anything about scientific progress you would realise that the obvious isn't actually so obvious. You are expecting too much from people from your standpoint of (compared to them) extreme privilege. You can make these judgements because of the advantages you have in life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

I disagree with you on one major fundamental principle. We are responsible for others.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Rush..if you knew anything about scientific progress you would realise that the obvious isn't actually so obvious.

I get that.

You are expecting too much from people from your standpoint of (compared to them) extreme privilege. You can make these judgements because of the advantages you have in life. Not everyone is so fortunate.

You are right, they are not. The choices they make in life have significantly higher consequences. The universe and reality is a harsh mistress--it simply doesn't care.

I disagree with you on one major fundamental principle. We are responsible for others.

You are welcome to be as responsible for others as you wish. Go nuts. No one is stopping you. But if you are responsible for them as you claim, well, then you are failing them, terribly.

We do disagree on fundamental principles--that has long been part of the point. I will never think as you do, nor reach the same conclusions because the principles I operate from differ from yours.

What then? Would you then try to use force to make me think as you do?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush..if you knew anything about scientific progress you would realise that the obvious isn't actually so obvious.

I get that.

Phew.

You are right, they are not. The choices they make in life have significantly higher consequences. The universe and reality is a harsh mistress--it simply doesn't care.

No. But I do...what with me being a sentient being with empathy and all.

You are welcome to be as responsible for others as you wish. Go nuts. No one is stopping you. But if you are responsible for them as you claim, well, then you are failing them, terribly.

Yes. We could all do more. But saying that it's not our problem and there is nothing i could do is not the first step on the right path.

We do disagree on fundamental principles--that has long been part of the point. I will never think as you do, nor reach the same conclusions because the principles I operate from differ from yours.

What then? Would you then try to use force to make me think as you do?

I was just thinking of having you bumped off TBH.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You are right, they are not. The choices they make in life have significantly higher consequences. The universe and reality is a harsh mistress--it simply doesn't care.

No. But I do...what with me being a sentient being with empathy and all.

I "care" as well. That has no meaning, doesn't keep one child alive, nor makes anything better at all.

You are welcome to be as responsible for others as you wish. Go nuts. No one is stopping you. But if you are responsible for them as you claim, well, then you are failing them, terribly.

Yes. We could all do more. But saying that it's not our problem and there is nothing i could do is not the first step on the right path.

Of course, I said no such thing. I said that other people (such as those that run Nestle) don't care what you think, and never will.

We do disagree on fundamental principles--that has long been part of the point. I will never think as you do, nor reach the same conclusions because the principles I operate from differ from yours.

What then? Would you then try to use force to make me think as you do?

I was just thinking of having you bumped off TBH.

TBH? To Be Honest?

Meh, then you'd be worse that Nestle.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I "care" as well. That has no meaning, doesn't keep one child alive, nor makes anything better at all.

No..but telling people what is going on does help.

Of course, I said no such thing. I said that other people (such as those that run Nestle) don't care what you think, and never will.

Obviously. I think that was my point all along?

TBH? To Be Honest?

Meh, then you'd be worse that Nestle.

Well it's your responsibility not to drink the poisoned pint. If you are silly enough to drink it then you get what you deserve.

---

Reality Internet Personality

You are expecting too much from people from your standpoint of (compared to them) extreme privilege.

Yeah, my 'old man' never understood that either... ;)

(Talking to him was kinda like talking to to a wall.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I "care" as well. That has no meaning, doesn't keep one child alive, nor makes anything better at all.

No..but telling people what is going on does help.

No, it does nothing of the sort because it's not help at all. That's been my point previously when I've said that many people post something here that they cut and pasted from another website, do nothing else at all, bask in the glory of showing that they care, and nearly break their own arms, patting themselves on the back for the good deeds that they've done. "Look at me! I'm better than everyone else because I kinda care and showed everyone that I care! Watch me sit at home and wring my hands, and then Feel Great Sorrow for the poor poor people of OogaBooga Land. Hey, it's dinner time!"

They are entitled to think that, of course--but they are just deluding themselves because commenting on a problem in the aggregate or collective isn't help at all.

The individual mother that has to watch her individual child die doesn't consider that help. Neither should anyone else. She doesn't care that some back patter posted some comments on a BBS as the dingos tear into whatever is left of her child.

Of course, I said no such thing. I said that other people (such as those that run Nestle) don't care what you think, and never will.

Obviously. I think that was my point all along?

Wow. If your point all along was "I dislike that Nestle runs their business the way they do," you could have made that point in one sentence. I dislike it too. There, we agree. That was easy enough.

Meh, then you'd be worse that Nestle.

Well it's your responsibility not to drink the poisoned pint. If you are silly enough to drink it then you get what you deserve.

I watch you like a hawk. I expect someday that a bit of some vegetable will actually be something poisonous...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

No, it does nothing of the sort because it's not help at all. That's been my point previously when I've said that many people post something here that they cut and pasted from another website, do nothing else at all, bask in the glory of showing that they care, and nearly break their own arms, patting themselves on the back for the good deeds that they've done. "Look at me! I'm better than everyone else because I kinda care and showed everyone that I care! Watch me sit at home and wring my hands, and then Feel Great Sorrow for the poor poor people of OogaBooga Land. Hey, it's dinner time!"

They are entitled to think that, of course--but they are just deluding themselves because commenting on a problem in the aggregate or collective isn't help at all.

The individual mother that has to watch her individual child die doesn't consider that help. Neither should anyone else. She doesn't care that some back patter posted some comments on a BBS as the dingos tear into whatever is left of her child.

It helps because then people can make choices whether to buy Nestle or not with ALL the information. There are a lot of people that boycott them over this. The more that do the more likely they are to change their business practices. The more people that complain the more likely the government will use their government force to do something.

..and you know i don't cut a paste...I just write about what's in my head. If I cut and paste my spelling would be better.

Wow. If your point all along was "I dislike that Nestle runs their business the way they do," you could have made that point in one sentence. I dislike it too. There, we agree. That was easy enough.

Ahhh..so you admit that you don't agree with what they do? Was that so hard to say?

I watch you like a hawk. I expect someday that a bit of some vegetable will actually be something poisonous...

You still think the Vindaloo incident was an accident?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Ahhh..so you admit that you don't agree with what they do? Was that so hard to say?

Fairly early in the conversation most of us agreed that it was unethical...THAT, however, does not make their actions malicious.

---

No, it does nothing of the sort because it's not help at all. That's been my point previously when I've said that many people post something here that they cut and pasted from another website, do nothing else at all, bask in the glory of showing that they care, and nearly break their own arms, patting themselves on the back for the good deeds that they've done. "Look at me! I'm better than everyone else because I kinda care and showed everyone that I care! Watch me sit at home and wring my hands, and then Feel Great Sorrow for the poor poor people of OogaBooga Land. Hey, it's dinner time!"

They are entitled to think that, of course--but they are just deluding themselves because commenting on a problem in the aggregate or collective isn't help at all.

The individual mother that has to watch her individual child die doesn't consider that help. Neither should anyone else. She doesn't care that some back patter posted some comments on a BBS as the dingos tear into whatever is left of her child.

It helps because then people can make choices whether to buy Nestle or not with ALL the information. There are a lot of people that boycott them over this. The more that do the more likely they are to change their business practices. The more people that complain the more likely the government will use their government force to do something.

There may be a lot of people that boycott them--certainly not enough to matter if it has been going on for 20+ years. Especially with the advent of the internet; people's filters for clutter have gone up exponentially.

Needless to say, that still doesn't actually help even one child stay alive. And of course, if you are advocating the use of gov't force, then as usual you should be perfectly happy when it is used against you.

..and you know i don't cut a paste...I just write about what's in my head. If I cut and paste my spelling would be better.

Present company excluded, of course.

Wow. If your point all along was "I dislike that Nestle runs their business the way they do," you could have made that point in one sentence. I dislike it too. There, we agree. That was easy enough.

Ahhh..so you admit that you don't agree with what they do? Was that so hard to say?

No, of course not. It just has no bearing. I wouldn't hesitate to buy Nestle products.

I watch you like a hawk. I expect someday that a bit of some vegetable will actually be something poisonous...

You still think the Vindaloo incident was an accident?

Ah, the Frightening Incident with the Vindaloo, dear jeebus I have to watch you even more carefully...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ahhh..so you admit that you don't agree with what they do? Was that so hard to say?

Fairly early in the conversation most of us agreed that it was unethical...THAT, however, does not make their actions malicious.

It does. any action that hurts others by intention or thoughtlessness, and any unethical action are malicious.

malicious, from malice:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date:
14th century

1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

By providing their powdered baby food in undeveloped countries despite knowing that the people there have almost NO access to clean water and are uneducated enough to believe everyone who claims to be a doctor or a nurse, Nestle does intend to cause harm or distress to the babies. At least they don't do anything to avoid the harm - like providing more information, and ways to clean the water...

I think, Nestle and other companies like them may rather consider the situation they cause as a cheap, prolonged field test on humans...

---

Account frozen...

Fairly early in the conversation most of us agreed that it was unethical...THAT, however, does not make their actions malicious.

It does.

It does not, see below.

any action that hurts others by intention or thoughtlessness, and any unethical action are malicious.

malicious, from malice:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date:
14th century

1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

The definition your provided includes "intention," "desire" in definition 1, and "intent" in definition 2.

However, neither of those definitions you provided include "thoughtlessness" or even any implication that "any unethical action" is malicious. Most notably, neither definition would include that because people disagree on what is or is not ethical.

That you wish to expand or water down the words you use until they have almost no meaning whatsoever does not serve to make your point.

By providing their powdered baby food in undeveloped countries despite knowing that the people there have almost NO access to clean water and are uneducated enough to believe everyone who claims to be a doctor or a nurse, Nestle does intend to cause harm or distress to the babies. At least they don't do anything to avoid the harm - like providing more information, and ways to clean the water...

Nope, they intend to sell baby formula to those who decide it is in their best interests to use it, regardless of their sources of information.

I think, Nestle and other companies like them may rather consider the situation they cause as a cheap, prolonged field test on humans...

That's inane because they know the product is safe. They don't need a 20 year test.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Ahhh..so you admit that you don't agree with what they do? Was that so hard to say?

Fairly early in the conversation most of us agreed that it was unethical...THAT, however, does not make their actions malicious.

It does. any action that hurts others by intention or thoughtlessness, and any unethical action are malicious.

malicious, from malice:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin malitia, from malus bad
Date:
14th century

1 : desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
2 : intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse

By providing their powdered baby food in undeveloped countries despite knowing that the people there have almost NO access to clean water and are uneducated enough to believe everyone who claims to be a doctor or a nurse, Nestle does intend to cause harm or distress to the babies. At least they don't do anything to avoid the harm - like providing more information, and ways to clean the water...

I think, Nestle and other companies like them may rather consider the situation they cause as a cheap, prolonged field test on humans...

Excuse me, but avoiding a situation IS NOT the same as intentionally causing harm. Just like if I sell you a gun and you turn around and murder someone, neither I nor the gun manufacturer can be held liable for YOUR actions. Notice the LACK of Nestle employees serving time over this incident.

Furthermore, it's not Nestle's responsibility to provide YOU with more information before YOU give a product to YOUR baby. Caring for YOUR child falls squarely on YOUR shoulders regardless of who YOU try to blame for YOUR mistakes.

Now obviously I don't mean "you", Thorin, I'm merely using that pronoun for emphasis.

---

Caring for YOUR child falls squarely on YOUR shoulders regardless of who YOU try to blame for YOUR mistakes.

Remind me again of why YOU blame God for all of YOUR mistakes... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Caring for YOUR child falls squarely on YOUR shoulders regardless of who YOU try to blame for YOUR mistakes.

Remind me again of why YOU blame God for all of YOUR mistakes... ;)

I don't blame figments of your imagination for my problems just like I don't blame manufacturers when I don't use their product correctly.

It's commonly referred to as taking responsibility for your actions.

---