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

Isn't THAT the point of THIS thread? ;)

(I know, I know, it's just another one of those 'double standards'.)

---

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

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

Isn't THAT the point of THIS thread? ;)

(I know, I know, it's just another one of those 'double standards'.)

Hate to burst your bubble, but there's nothing illegal about providing free formula to health clinics OR advertising to potential new customers.

---

Hate to burst your bubble, but there's nothing illegal about [snip]

And THAT is where we differ... I follow mans laws and moral laws, where as you only follow mans laws... ;)

(BTW - The chances of YOU bursting MY bubble are next to nil. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.)

---

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

Hate to burst your bubble, but there's nothing illegal about [snip]

And THAT is where we differ... I follow mans laws and moral laws, where as you only follow mans laws... ;)

(BTW - The chances of YOU bursting MY bubble are next to nil. But I'm sure you'll keep trying.)

Morals are accepted standards for a community.

Are you proposing a ban on ALL advertising in 3rd world countries, or just a ban on those companies you choose to discriminate against for whatever reason?

I already know the answer, just want to see how you'll spin it...

---

I already know the answer, just want to see how you'll spin it...

People can do whatever they want... But they will never get what they seemingly so desperately desire, my approval... ;)

(How was that spin?)

---

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

I already know the answer, just want to see how you'll spin it...

People can do whatever they want... But they will never get what they seemingly so desperately desire, my approval... ;)

(How was that spin?)

Perhaps your greatest downfall is the belief that Nestle desires your approval...

---

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.

Unless YOU were fully aware of what I was going to do with the gun before YOU sold me the gun...

We, as an educated country, are responsible for our actions in third world countries... ;)

(This is a perfect example of the difference between moral laws and mans laws.)

---

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

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.

Unless YOU were fully aware of what I was going to do with the gun before YOU sold me the gun...

We, as an educated country, are responsible for our actions in third world countries... ;)

(This is a perfect example of the difference between moral laws and mans laws.)

We ARE responsible for our actions.

The product Nestle markets is perfectly safe, it's the water the consumer utilizes that is poisonous.

---

SNIP....

We ARE responsible for our actions.

The product Nestle markets is perfectly safe, it's the water the consumer utilizes that is poisonous.

We are responsible for our actions as individuals but companies who have far more power and ability to know better are far more responsible.

Nestle markets its baby milk products to poor countries knowing that 1 in 4 of the children that use it's product will die.

What Nestle should be doing is using it's resources to offer milk supplements AND clean water technologies.

The use of the term "consumer" when we talk about water is a falsity. Most people in poor countries are not "consumers" in the Western (buyer) sense.

They are either 'subjects' that have no other options or 'victims' of poor water treatment.

Of course 'We ARE responsible for our actions.'

To be gross and unfair: In the Nazi extermination camps and in extreme situations people ate sawdust and wood because that was all they had.

Nestle is a powerfull company.

I suspect one of the reasons that so many babies die in poor countries where Nestle products are used is not simply because of the poor quality of the water but because mothers are persuaded away from breast feeding.

Not every woman can breast feed but if they can then they not only feed their children better than Nestle could ever do but they pass on immunity from or tollerance to local illnesses.

Nestle by the way has already been caught out for selling (dumping) it's out-of-date milk products in Africa.

The poor are individuals by nature of their condition.

Companies like Nestle have far more power to make choices.

Responsibility is a sliding scale when we talk about the things that effect thousands upon thousands.


I hope the water than comes through our taps never turns sour.

We only have one source.

We may be consumers in terms of needing to drink water but we are not consumers who have choice.


.

SNIP....

We ARE responsible for our actions.

The product Nestle markets is perfectly safe, it's the water the consumer utilizes that is poisonous.

We are responsible for our actions as individuals but companies who have far more power and ability to know better are far more responsible.

Have you ever seen a company that was NOT made up of individuals?

The figure of speech you have utilized here is called a personification. Simply put, you have given human qualities to an inanimate object.

Nestle cannot know better, only the people behind the actions can, likewise, Nestle cannot be sent to jail for any alleged crime, only the individuals behind the actions can.

Nestle markets its baby milk products to poor countries knowing that 1 in 4 of the children that use it's product will die.

1 out of every 4 people that drink gasoline, or any other substance deemed harmful for human consumption, will probably die too.

What Nestle should be doing is using it's resources to offer milk supplements AND clean water technologies.

One could easily suggest that YOU should be doing the same with your income. Every little bit helps, right?

The use of the term "consumer" when we talk about water is a falsity. Most people in poor countries are not "consumers" in the Western (buyer) sense.

They are either 'subjects' that have no other options or 'victims' of poor water treatment.

That's absolutely false. In the first place, they are patients entering a medical facility of their own free will. Human beings have been giving birth for thousands and thousands of years without professional medical assistance, more so in the jungles and deserts of 3rd world countries than anywhere else!! In the second place, just like the patient had a choice in seeking medical help, they also have a choice when it comes to following the doctor's prescribed course of treatment. It takes several days for a woman to stop lactating, so the implication that they have no alternative after leaving said facility is just bogus.

Of course 'We ARE responsible for our actions.'

To be gross and unfair: In the Nazi extermination camps and in extreme situations people ate sawdust and wood because that was all they had.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't mix it with contaminated water first??

Nestle is a powerfull company.

I suspect one of the reasons that so many babies die in poor countries where Nestle products are used is not simply because of the poor quality of the water but because mothers are persuaded away from breast feeding.

Well that IS the appeal of baby formula...you don't have to breastfeed.

Not every woman can breast feed but if they can then they not only feed their children better than Nestle could ever do but they pass on immunity from or tollerance to local illnesses.

No argument, but that doesn't make breast milk alternatives dangerous.

Nestle by the way has already been caught out for selling (dumping) it's out-of-date milk products in Africa.

Well I'm not sure how FDA regulations apply to goods sold in foreign countries, but again, the term "selling" implies that the consumer had a choice.

The poor are individuals by nature of their condition.

Companies like Nestle have far more power to make choices.

Responsibility is a sliding scale when we talk about the things that effect thousands upon thousands.

I agreed that Nestle's actions could easily be deemed unethical, but that does not constitute intent to do harm.

I hope the water than comes through our taps never turns sour.

We only have one source.

We may be consumers in terms of needing to drink water but we are not consumers who have choice.

It's really sad that you know how to use a computer but seemingly don't know how to boil water.

---

Oxfam International.

Get involved:
Oxfam offers you ways to positively make a difference, no matter where you are in the world, all over the world. Everyone can help to create a world without poverty.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Nestle cannot know better, only the people behind the actions can, likewise, Nestle cannot be sent to jail for any alleged crime, only the individuals behind the actions can.

Actually..because Nestle is a corporation the individuals are not liable and cannot be taken to court. In other words...no one is accountable for the crimes Nestle commits.

Nestle markets its baby milk products to poor countries knowing that 1 in 4 of the children that use it's product will die.

1 out of every 4 people that drink gasoline, or any other substance deemed harmful for human consumption, will probably die too.

Who is marketing gasoline as good for human consumption?

One could easily suggest that YOU should be doing the same with your income. Every little bit helps, right?

see my Oxfam post. We all can help in various ways.

That's absolutely false. In the first place, they are patients entering a medical facility of their own free will. Human beings have been giving birth for thousands and thousands of years without professional medical assistance, more so in the jungles and deserts of 3rd world countries than anywhere else!! In the second place, just like the patient had a choice in seeking medical help, they also have a choice when it comes to following the doctor's prescribed course of treatment. It takes several days for a woman to stop lactating, so the implication that they have no alternative after leaving said facility is just bogus.

1) Women have been dying through childbirth for thousands of years. Child birth is NOT safe.
2) Women cannot get a baby to breast feed once that baby has been bottle fed for even a short while. Even if her milk has not dried up..the establishment of breast feeding has been interfered with.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't mix it with contaminated water first??

If they were desperate enough they would have

Well that IS the appeal of baby formula...you don't have to breastfeed.

It is only an 'appeal' because of marketing telling us that it is an 'appeal'. In reality breast feeding is a far superior way of feeding your baby than formula.

No argument, but that doesn't make breast milk alternatives dangerous.

It does if they cannot safely make up the formula.

Well I'm not sure how FDA regulations apply to goods sold in foreign countries, but again, the term "selling" implies that the consumer had a choice.

Choice implies understanding of the choice they are making and full disclosure. If you go to a store and by a bad product you will return it. I think you would be very surprised if you went back with your faulty goods and were told that you had a choice to buy it and you couldn't have your money back.

I agreed that Nestle's actions could easily be deemed unethical, but that does not constitute intent to do harm.

Knowingly continuing with an action that you are aware causes harm could be considered intent.

It's really sad that you know how to use a computer but seemingly don't know how to boil water.

Then let's hope that unlike those in poorer countries you actually have fuel to light the fire..and not only enough water to boil to drink, but enough to boil your bottles and teats in too..and also enough bottles and teats to use. (a formula fed baby will use 6 to 10 bottles a day. Each one has to be boiled for 10 minutes totally covered in water in order to sterilise it sufficiently for safe use..in the west your dishwasher will do the job and we will probably be able to easily afford 6 to 10 bottles. Aren't we lucky?)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Then let's hope that unlike those in poorer countries you actually have fuel to light the fire..and not only enough water to boil to drink, but enough to boil your bottles and teats in too..and also enough bottles and teats to use. (a formula fed baby will use 6 to 10 bottles a day. Each one has to be boiled for 10 minutes totally covered in water in order to sterilise it sufficiently for safe use..in the west your dishwasher will do the job and we will probably be able to easily afford 6 to 10 bottles. Aren't we lucky?)

And so the circle continues.

The people that run Nestle don't care what any of the hand-wringers think. The company isn't charged with any crimes because baby formula is safe and the cause of death is contaminants in unsafe water.

If you actually want to save them, the quickest and easiest method would be to sell them clean water, or decontamination paraphernalia at prices they can afford, just like Nestle does. Hell, give it away if you want. What are you waiting for? No one is stopping you. You could have been doing that since a few weeks after baby formula was introduced. Nestle would be thrilled--they'd sell more formula. You'd be thrilled--you'd actually save some babies.

But since no one that thinks like you do can actually be bothered to do the simplest solution, what now? More hand-wringing? Some more threads?

It's too bad those babies can't eat hand-wringing or threads to survive--they'd be the best fed babies on earth.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Then let's hope that unlike those in poorer countries you actually have fuel to light the fire..and not only enough water to boil to drink, but enough to boil your bottles and teats in too..and also enough bottles and teats to use. (a formula fed baby will use 6 to 10 bottles a day. Each one has to be boiled for 10 minutes totally covered in water in order to sterilise it sufficiently for safe use..in the west your dishwasher will do the job and we will probably be able to easily afford 6 to 10 bottles. Aren't we lucky?)

And so the circle continues.

The people that run Nestle don't care what any of the hand-wringers think. The company isn't charged with any crimes because baby formula is safe and the cause of death is contaminants in unsafe water.

If you actually want to save them, the quickest and easiest method would be to sell them clean water, or decontamination paraphernalia at prices they can afford, just like Nestle does. Hell, give it away if you want. What are you waiting for? No one is stopping you. You could have been doing that since a few weeks after baby formula was introduced. Nestle would be thrilled--they'd sell more formula. You'd be thrilled--you'd actually save some babies.

But since no one that thinks like you do can actually be bothered to do the simplest solution, what now? More hand-wringing? Some more threads?

It's too bad those babies can't eat hand-wringing or threads to survive--they'd be the best fed babies on earth.

1) Nestle does not sell them anything at prices they can afford.
2) Sell them? Is everything a business opportunity to you? How about we find out why their water is so dirty in the first place..probably because some company like Nestle is dumping effluent in it. Wouldn't surprise me.
3) Most of these corporations have been charged with crimes..and they are fined..and they pay up because they make more money from the crime than they pay in fines. Hence this thread.
4) Oh..and to all you who live in Florida..look what Nestle is doing to your water supply. Nestle Paying $230 To Suck Millions Of Gallons Of Water From Florida Until 2018

---

Reality Internet Personality

More fun with Nestle:

21. In late 2001 and early 2002 managers at the Nestlé plant in Valledupar permitted AUC paramilitary forces to freely enter the plant and set up camp for "public security". During that time frame managers at the Nestlé plant met openly with paramilitaries inside the plant on several occasions.

22. On August 1,2002, members of SINALTRAINAL members discovered that Nestlé was using expired milk formula in the production of Milo (...). Shortly after SINALTRAINAL's exposé. the Colombian government confirmed the allegations. On November 22, 2002, a group of Colombian senators issued a report detailing how a confiscated shipment of milk formula to be used by Nestlé in the production of Milo was expired. The report also detailed how Nestlé agents marked the expired milk as "recently made," so that it could pass inspections and be used for human consumption.

23. Shortly after SINALTRAINAL exposed the fraud perpetrated by Nestlé, SINALTRAINAL members, including decedent, Mr. Romero, began experiencing numerous acts of intimidation, threats and violence directly at the hands of Nestlé through its agent, the AUC paramilitary forces. Such acts included, (...):

a) the torture and murder of numerous family members of SINALTRAINAL;

b) frequent threats towards SINALTRAINAL members during negotiations of their collective bargaining agreements with Nestlé;

c) termination of SINALTRAINAL members on a weekply basis for no reason; and,

d) subjectio of SINALTRAINAL leaders and members to a smear campaign.

(...) 26. Because of Mr. Romeo's outspokenness against the relationship between Nestlé and the paramilitaries and the events that took place at the Nestlé plants set forth herein, he received death threats on numerous occasions. (...)

27. In late 2004, Mr. Romeo was forced to retreat to Spain. (...)

In Spain, he continued his union and public safety activism. Even though it was risky, he returned to Colombia to reunite with his family and SINALTRAINAL colleagues in early 2005.

28. Shortly after his return to Colombia, Mr. Romero initiated a lawsuit in the Labor Court of Valledupar against Nestlé of Colombia S.A. for wrongful discharge and for reinstatement of his job.

29. On September 11, 2005, approximately one month after filing the lawsuit against Nestlé of Colombia S.A., Mr. Romero was found murdered in Las Palmas, (...). His body was found tied up, tortured, and cut up with approximately forty stab wounds.

(...) 31. To this day, Plaintiff Gladys Francisca Mendoza Mejia [his wife] continues to receive phone threats.

32. (...) He is remembered as a martyr and hero for his tireless work and passion for workers' rights in Colombia.

"

For the whole report go to LaborRights.Org (.pdf).

---

Reality Internet Personality

And so the circle continues.

The people that run Nestle don't care what any of the hand-wringers think. The company isn't charged with any crimes because baby formula is safe and the cause of death is contaminants in unsafe water.

If you actually want to save them, the quickest and easiest method would be to sell them clean water, or decontamination paraphernalia at prices they can afford, just like Nestle does. Hell, give it away if you want. What are you waiting for? No one is stopping you. You could have been doing that since a few weeks after baby formula was introduced. Nestle would be thrilled--they'd sell more formula. You'd be thrilled--you'd actually save some babies.

But since no one that thinks like you do can actually be bothered to do the simplest solution, what now? More hand-wringing? Some more threads?

It's too bad those babies can't eat hand-wringing or threads to survive--they'd be the best fed babies on earth.

1) Nestle does not sell them anything at prices they can afford.

So what, that doesn't change the point OR prevent you from doing so. What are you waiting for?

2) Sell them? Is everything a business opportunity to you? How about we find out why their water is so dirty in the first place..probably because some company like Nestle is dumping effluent in it. Wouldn't surprise me.

Sell them, give them, do whatever you want. I would sell to them. You are free to give to them. Why isn't WHO just giving them the water or the tools they need? Why aren't you? No one is stopping you. If you actually want to save babies, that would have an instant and immediate effect. Unlike a 20 year hand-wringing campaign that has had nearly none.

3) Most of these corporations have been charged with crimes..and they are fined..and they pay up because they make more money from the crime than they pay in fines. Hence this thread.

This was already explained to you, whether you happen to like it, or agree with it, or not. The good that these corporations do in making lives immeasurably more pleasant, longer, healthier, and happier by the nearly infinite multitude of products and services that are made available to them cheaply and affordably, vastly outweighs your opinion about the possible harm caused by them.

The net effect of destroying x company harms consumers because it lessens competition, and removes some of the downward pressure on prices.

4) Oh..and to all you who live in Florida..look what Nestle is doing to your water supply.

This quote was funny: "The St. Petersburg Times has a rich, infuriating history of the Nestle fiasco and how they've conned Floridians out of their own water with the help of state politicians."

Wow. What a surprise. The gov't made it possible. That's just shocking, eh? Because rest assured, no one who owned that land privately would ever have done something so stupid. And yet, you claim that more gov't solves the problems that gov't causes in the first place.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

More fun with Nestle

And yet, you or everyone who thinks like you do could just go in there and provide the products that Nestle does, safely, without any of this list of eeeevils.

You could just give them the formula, the water, whatever they need, and almost instantly put Nestle out of business there. You could do it as a non-profit corporation like Sesame Workshop or Paul Newman/Newman's Own.

Yet you don't. What are you waiting for?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

BIG SNIP...

Nestle by the way has already been caught out for selling (dumping) it's out-of-date milk products in Africa.

Well I'm not sure how FDA regulations apply to goods sold in foreign countries, but again, the term "selling" implies that the consumer had a choice.

FDA has no relevance here as it is an American (USA) agency.

Nestle is a European company. It has had a long imperial history in the same way companies like Cadburies have.

I can not help you if you believe that the water you get through your pipes come from different companies.

You may pay an agent company at different rates but the water you get comes from one source.

Pay who you like but unless you can afford bottled water to drink, bath in, cook your food in, wash any cuts you might have with, wash your hair in at 100 to 1000 times the cost of simple tap water you will always get the same source of water.

The only choice you have over water is to pay more or less or not drink at all.

Poor people have zero choice over the water they get.

They may be buyers but they have no choice.

If their water is contaminated they pay the same.

If for some odd reason your tap water became contaminated you too would have no choice...


(Does anyone remember the early advertisements by Nestle?)
.

More fun with Nestle

And yet, you or everyone who thinks like you do could just go in there and provide the products that Nestle does, safely, without any of this list of eeeevils.

You could just give them the formula, the water, whatever they need, and almost instantly put Nestle out of business there. You could do it as a non-profit corporation like Sesame Workshop or Paul Newman/Newman's Own.

Yet you don't. What are you waiting for?

That's a stupid arguement.

Nestle has been going since 1867.

Do you really expect an individual to be able to create a company with such power in a day on your whim?

I thought you understood bussiness and it's development?

SNIPs...

We are responsible for our actions as individuals but companies who have far more power and ability to know better are far more responsible.

Have you ever seen a company that was NOT made up of individuals?

The figure of speech you have utilized here is called a personification. Simply put, you have given human qualities to an inanimate object.


SNIP.

All I can tell you is that a company under British law is not a collection of individuals but is a legal entity / body in itself. This is why we use the terms company or corporation.

The activities of a corporation or company may well be the collective actions of all it's workers, directors, members but there is a very real and legal difference to the actions of individual people.

If you can not understand this concept just ask yourself if you as an individual person have the same power or control that your government does...

A challenge:

Just for fun and to prove your point that poor people have choices why not switch off your water-main to your house (your piped tap water) and go see if you can find some other company to provide you with a new supply (that can supply ALL your normal needs) that does not use your original pipeline...


There is nothing like personal experience to prove what we say.

Switch off your water-main for a week and let us know how it works.

You up for the challenge?


.