nestle on campus?

Riamfada

Look Don when a vote is made it sticks. Should the Irish Government re-vote on every law passed when its original creators retire or when you hit 18 and are able to vote? No

Its the same with us in UCD. It would be a bad idea to piss away college money on a campaign that would be up against a very well informed and active No campaign.

It dosnt matter if you didnt vote on it, either did I. It still stands now take your self obssession and go to Centra

gubbie

Dontico wrote:

what am i too lazy to do?
i put up this thread to see agruements against the lifting of the ban before i try to campaign. i need a group of people to help. which i've found. a posible 400, maybe 70 more soon. but i need 900.


again nobody has addressed my main point. why not all american products? israeli or chinnese? why only nestle?

All you're doing is bitching and moaning, where as you'd be a lot more constructive if you got up and did something more then just go to your computer because these threads come up time and time again, and I ain't even been using these that much

And you campaigning for your Yorkies... now thats something I look forward to. You will need that many supporters, but how many people here have said that they would be against the ban? Ya everyone wants to choose what they want to eat but what you're arguing is different from what your poll wants. You should have asked "are you pro getting Nestle products back in the shops or something". On a topic like this I'd say a 1 man, pro ban could beat a 100 man against the ban team.

And they have banned Coke and not because it has too much sugar in it.
http://www.killercoke.org/

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?

Students did decide to ban the products. It wasn't another Hugh Brady comes in and decided to cut Early Irish and Nestle products.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

I didn't vote on any of the refurendums that dictate how the Irish state is run.
And yet those laws still apply to me.
We don't re-run the divorce refurendum, the abortion refurendum, etc every year when a new batch trun 18.
That's not the way it works.
Similarly with ucd.

there was 2 divorce refurendums in 10 years. both when fine gael in power.

the population doesnt dramatically change like ucd does. we have the ability to change the gov every 4 or 5 years.

ireland is a country that has to govern millions of people. UCD doesnt govern anyone. its rules should only help with proper organising of the college. UCD has to obey the laws of the government, which it doesnt. the SU tries to help people break the la, though not often.

humbert

Dontico wrote:

companies benifit from thier countries going to the war. in ireland(i think, but i'm a lawyer), making money from war is illegal. hence recent trouble over micheal mcdowells company profiting from the iraq war. not know about that though.

Oh dear, some companies benefit some don't some suffer as a result and benefiting from something doesn't make you responsible for it. Also I have no doubt that profiting from war isn't in itself illegal otherwise who could make the equipment, but that's beside the point.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

What you seem to be arguing in favour of is ignoring basic responsibility.
It's actually quite sickening.

if it means anything i dont eat anything from dorena(sp?) allen. nor do i eat fish.

gubbie

Dontico wrote:

if it means anything i dont eat anything from dorena(sp?) allen. nor do i eat fish.

Yet you eat Yorkies!

Dontico

gubbie wrote:

Yet you eat Yorkies!

the nestle thing is a non-ucd, non-irish, non-europe issue, thus doesnt concern me.
but if i do decide it does then i may stop buying yorkies once every two weeks. infact it probably would be easy to convince me to stop buying nestle products. but i still wouldnt make it a law.

however i wouldnt mind the gov banning fish or even just salmon. cause that is an irish issue.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

if shop keeper is suppose to be the students. then the shop keeper dramatically changes every 2 years.
we should the new shop keeper do what the old one tells him?

If he has to pay an awful lot of money just to find out if he wants to do what the old shop keeper told him...

Dontico wrote:

the population doesnt dramatically change like ucd does. we have the ability to change the gov every 4 or 5 years.

UCDSU elects a new officer board every year. Same difference.

Dontico wrote:

ireland is a country that has to govern millions of people. UCD doesnt govern anyone. its rules should only help with proper organising of the college. UCD has to obey the laws of the government, which it doesnt. the SU tries to help people break the la, though not often.

Most of this is irrelevent to the matter at hand, I have ittalicised the only vaguely relevant bit. It's (by with i can only hope you are refering to ucdsu) rules should have to do with what it's membership want it to do.
On ethical grounds it's membership did not want certain products to be sold in its shops. This is their right. And I believe it to be the responsibilty of any business owner to operate ethically.

As I have said you are free to hold a counter refurendum. But I do not understand how you can say that a victory for your cause will be worth the money it costs the union (i.e. students) and the time and efort it will cost your campign team.

Dontico wrote:

if it means anything i dont eat anything from dorena(sp?) allen. nor do i eat fish.

No, that doesn't mean anything.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

the nestle thing is a non-ucd, non-irish, non-europe issue, thus doesnt concern me.

It does concern you. You are part owner of a shop and you would like that shop to sell Nestle products.
How is the practices of a company whoes products you wish to seel not your concern?

humbert

Dontico wrote:

the nestle thing is a non-ucd, non-irish, non-europe issue, thus doesnt concern me.
but if i do decide it does then i may stop buying yorkies once every two weeks. infact it probably would be easy to convince me to stop buying nestle products. but i still wouldnt make it a law.

however i wouldnt mind the gov banning fish or even just salmon. cause that is an irish issue.

your compassion for human suffering is heart warming

Oh and banning it isn't hoped to cripple nestle through the decrease in sales it's a public statement which you not buying a nestle bar every second week is unlikely to make.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

the nestle thing is a non-ucd, non-irish, non-europe issue, thus doesnt concern me.

so it has to directly effect you to be a concern of you? DONICO FOR WELFARE !

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

so it has to directly effect you to be a concern of you? DONICO FOR WELFARE !

no. i implyed above that i only care about irish, ucd, and european issues. also the handicapped. dont know why i just feel sad when they are being mistreated.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

. dont know why i just feel sad when they are being mistreated.

do you see people mistreating disabled people? A sly smack on the head perhaps? Anyway you dont feel sad for dead babies in a far away country?


anyway as Humbert and I have said the ban on selling their products is a statement . UCD SU dosnt hope to bring down the Nestle empire

pretty*monster

It doesn't matter much if you have an emotional responce to if. I don't feel particularly 'sad' about dead babies in far away countries, but I do know that it's wrong and I don't want to be associated with it, and I don't want shops that I own (or part own) to be associated with it.

Dontico, can you tell the difference between right and wrong?

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

anyway as Humbert and I have said the ban on selling their products is a statement . UCD SU dosnt hope to bring down the Nestle empire

what benifit does it have for UCD? nothing.
pretending that we all support an issue that only 1% of the pop (a guess)support is bad. it makes us look like socialists.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

Dontico, can you tell the difference between right and wrong?

i consider the ordinary notion of "right and wrong" to an imaginary human thing that doesnt really exist. like religion.

for me i use the terms lightly to mean "productive and counter productive".

humbert

Dontico wrote:

what benifit does it have for UCD? nothing.
pretending that we all support an issue that only 1% of the pop (a guess)support is bad. it makes us look like socialists.

If this issue hadn't come up in UCD I would never have heard of it, that doesn't make be a bad person. As it has come up I see the justification for it and agree with it. Standing against it because a large percentage of the population don't know about it and may regard us as socialists is stupid enough that it should be considered a ban worthy offence IMO.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

what benifit does it have for UCD? nothing.
pretending that we all support an issue that only 1% of the pop (a guess)support is bad. it makes us look like socialists.

I'll ignore your jab at socialits.
Whethe boycotting Nestle products is of benefit to uc is neither here nor their. If students want it the union does it. That's the way it should be and that's the way the union has to be in order to hold any claim to representing students.

I think the quorum is 10% you can't make people vote and if the majority of students don't care enough to vote why should we default to a position that goes against the wishes of the majority of people who did get out and vote?

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

I'll ignore your jab at socialits.
Whethe boycotting Nestle products is of benefit to uc is neither here nor their. If students want it the union does it. That's the way it should be and that's the way the union has to be in order to hold any claim to representing students.

I think the quorum is 10% you can't make people vote and if the majority of students don't care enough to vote why should we default to a position that goes against the wishes of the majority of people who did get out and vote?

as stated. the majority of students were not able to vote on the issue. me for one.
again. when was the vote?

pro-banners are not addressing the main points.

humbert

pretty*monster wrote:

I think the quorum is 10% you can't make people vote and if the majority of students don't care enough to vote why should we default to a position that goes against the wishes of the majority of people who did get out and vote?

Well I don't actually agree with that. It's an affront to the principle of democracy. If the majority of people don't care then the most representative thing to be done is nothing.

pretty*monster

humbert wrote:

Well I don't actually agree with that. It's an affront to the principle of democracy. If the majority of people don't care then the most representative thing to be done is nothing.

It depends on the siuation doesnt it.

If X number register officially that they have a moral/political/ethical problem with selling Nestle and less than X register officially that they don't have a problem with it but more that X say (b their inaction) leave my alone I don't care what you do with my shop I'm trying to study (I'm paraphrasing here) it makes logical sense to me that the shop should stop selling Nestle products since more people have officially signalled that they'll be pissed off if it doesn't.

humbert

pretty*monster wrote:

It depends on the siuation doesnt it.

If X number register officially that they have a moral/political/ethical problem with selling Nestle and less than X register officially that they don't have a problem with it but more that X say (b their inaction) leave my alone I don't care what you do with my shop I'm trying to study (I'm paraphrasing here) it makes logical sense to me that the shop should stop selling Nestle products since more people have officially signalled that they'll be pissed off if it doesn't.

It's a fair and logical point but I think that if the quorum is too low instead of forcing the proponents of a given motion to inform wider majority and move them from apathy decisions will lie in the hands of a minority of zealots. You have to admit that having many students, like dontico, believing that it was just a bunch of socialists who banned nestle for no good reason isn't ideal.

pretty*monster

humbert wrote:

It's a fair and logical point but I think that if the quorum is too low instead of forcing the proponents of a given motion to inform wider majority and move them from apathy decisions will lie in the hands of a minority of zealots. You have to admit that having many students, like dontico, believing that it was just a bunch of socialists who banned nestle for no good reason isn't ideal.

No of course not. Obviously the best situation is to get a high turn out. But you can't actually force people to vote.

Jonny Arson

Oh God, not this thread again

Spectator#1

All in favour of getting people like Dontico removed from UCD say "aye"!

"Wah wah wah, I can't buy what I want when I want it! Undemocratic! Wah wah wah! Left-wing agendas. Wah wah wah"

There's a mandate in place, by all means petition for another referendum, there probably should be another one in the next year or two to account for the views of new students, but because it was put in place by a vote, which was put to the entire student body of UCD at the time, it's completely democratic.

People need to seriously stop accusing everything they don't like of being 'left-wing agendas', you just sound like spoilt brats.

EDIT: Oh no. I just replied to the OP, now I realise I've posted on the 'that thread' Jonny Arson referred to. I got banned from the Trinity forum for this thread! I'm not getting involved!

dajaffa

Ok, firstly this isn't something that only 1% of the student's support, a refurendum needs a 10% turnout, and obviously over 50% to pass so for it to be passed you need 5% of the students to be infavour of it. Yes turnout is low, but there's plenty of publicity when these things happen and you can't make people vote.

The obvious reason as to why we ban a companies products and not a country's products is simple. Nestle were the ones causing the deaths of African babies, why should other companies linked to the same country be punished?

If you don't like it, go and be the change, not the lazy arsewipe who just moans and does nothing about it. I've said it before, in a way I'd welcome a new refurendum, so a new generation of students is made aware of the reasons behind the ban, and to decide if they want the ban upheld.

singingstranger

Everything that dajaffa said, plus this:

Dontico

Spectator#1 wrote:

All in favour of getting people like Dontico removed from UCD say "aye"!

"Wah wah wah, I can't buy what I want when I want it! Undemocratic! Wah wah wah! Left-wing agendas. Wah wah wah"

There's a mandate in place, by all means petition for another referendum, there probably should be another one in the next year or two to account for the views of new students, but because it was put in place by a vote, which was put to the entire student body of UCD at the time, it's completely democratic.

People need to seriously stop accusing everything they don't like of being 'left-wing agendas', you just sound like spoilt brats.

EDIT: Oh no. I just replied to the OP, now I realise I've posted on the 'that thread' Jonny Arson referred to. I got banned from the Trinity forum for this thread! I'm not getting involved!

no it still is a left-wing agenda. how about go look up the meaning of the term left-wing?

Dontico

singingstranger wrote:

Everything that dajaffa said, plus this:

how am i being a troll? i have raised points that no one here has addressed. read OP.

singingstranger

Dontico wrote:

i have raised points that no one here has addressed. read OP.

Right then...

Dontico wrote:

as many of us know, one cannot buy nestle products in the SU shops.

Acknowledged. Next?

Dontico wrote:

is annyone else annoyed as adults we are being told what we can or cannot buy?

Clarification: you are not being told what you can't buy. You are being told what is unavailable to buy in certain outlets. You're not being stopped from buying the items in question.

Dontico wrote:

i know the arguements for banning nestle products, but why only the one? why not coke, american products, israeli products, chinnese producs, and the use of shell oil for services cars?

One at a time:

Why not coke: Coca-Cola is boycotted by all Union outlets. Still doesn't make it unavailable, btw, nor are you being told what you want to buy.

american products: unless you're going to be specific about the products themselves I don't think anyone's going to even attempt to humour you with that one. Why America, because of their War On Terror™? Then why not their accomplices Britain? Do you want to ban Cadbury's and all MasterFoods/Mars products because they're British owned too? Would you be happy if the shops only sold Ballygowan water and the Irish Times and Independent? (Provided of course that they're printed on paper cut from Irish trees?)

israeli products: same as the American one but the motives would be a little more obvious. Still, though, point me towards anything of Israeli origin on sale in the SU shops and I'll be the first to sign the petition.

chinese products: Care to explain your logic here? Should we boycott them on the basis of being from a country where democracy isn't a feature? That's not the fault of any Chinese company exporting goods for sale in the SU shops (not that I know of any goods in the SU shops of Chinese origin either). Likewise with any American or Israeli goods. Should we ban goods that originate in the US just because their Government chooses to act in ways that others don't support?

the use of shell oil for services cars: The SU doesn't own the cars used by Services and can't make them use any specific petrol. However that wouldn't stop the SU from hypothetically campaigning for Services not to buy Shell's products. The SU previously had a mandate in support of the Rossport Five but this was overturned earlier in the year.

Dontico wrote:

ireland is mostly a free market. none of this socialist controling non-sense. stalin and hitler believed in controled markets.

You beat yourself there: Ireland is mostly a free market. And Ireland is a free market. That means that Ireland reserves the right to have all these products available. But the Union isn't banning the sale of these goods outright; it would never even consider doing so. And what's more, boycotting the products of two corporations isn't political, it's humanitarian. Because of the actions of Nestlé, hundreds of thousands of babies have died from malnourishment in Africa (read Grimes's posts earlier). Because of the actions of Coca-Cola, trade union activists in Columbia - looking for nothing more than a fair wage and decent working conditions - have been shot dead. It's not politics, it's humanitarian.

Dontico wrote:

i think its time to remove the socialist control over campus. anyone else infavour of bringing back from the chose what we eat?

It's not socialist control, it's democracy that you happen to personally feel is of a socialist persuasion. You might alternatively personally feel that the sale of pornography is offensive and immoral and shouldn't happen, but that's your personal opinion, and yours is the minority. There's only one way for it to be - either the stuff is sold or it isn't - and the last time we checked, the majority wanted it in. If you want to have opinion remeasured, feel free to petition for a referendum overturning the boycott mandate. Nobody will have objections is democracy shows the decision is no longer popular to the majority.

If you disagree with any of these points, then fine. But please have the maturity to realise that you're vastly outnumbered - at least in terms of the previous posters on this thread - and acknowledge you're in the minority.