nestle on campus?

the evil lime

This thread became too long and too circular for me to continue reading about four pages back, plus this lecture's nearly over, but just in case the point hasn't been made...

If it has, feel free to ignore the below.

The SU owns the shops. Thus, the students of UCD own the shops.

If I happend to own a shop, and decided that due to some human rights abuses on the part of one of my suppliers, I would cease stocking their products, I would be fully entitled to do so Further, it would be a moral, not a political act, as shop owners tend not to have political agendas.

So, the students own the shops and decide to ban these products from sale there. A referendum is held and passed. There is now legitimate mandate for the shops to refuse to stock these products. They do so. The introduction of the ban was through a political method (referendum), but moraly motivated.

The fact that no present students of UCD were involved is irrelevant. Almost every political entity on Earth is in some way governed by the will of those long departed. Should we now review every referendum and motion ever passed, and then do it agian next year so the freshers can have their say on ten and twenty year old motions?

Now, the union is obviously a political body, elected to serve a large group, in certain areas (referenda for example) still requred to defer to that group, and not a commercial, profit-seeking entity, but that does not mean that all its actions must be politically motivated.

Dontico

the evil lime wrote:

This thread became too long and too circular for me to continue reading about four pages back, plus this lecture's nearly over, but just in case the point hasn't been made...

If it has, feel free to ignore the below.

The SU owns the shops. Thus, the students of UCD own the shops.

If I happend to own a shop, and decided that due to some human rights abuses on the part of one of my suppliers, I would cease stocking their products, I would be fully entitled to do so Further, it would be a moral, not a political act, as shop owners tend not to have political agendas.

So, the students own the shops and decide to ban these products from sale there. A referendum is held and passed. There is now legitimate mandate for the shops to refuse to stock these products. They do so. The introduction of the ban was through a political method (referendum), but moraly motivated.

The fact that no present students of UCD were involved is irrelevant. Almost every political entity on Earth is in some way governed by the will of those long departed. Should we now review every referendum and motion ever passed, and then do it agian next year so the freshers can have their say on ten and twenty year old motions?

Now, the union is obviously a political body, elected to serve a large group, in certain areas (referenda for example) still requred to defer to that group, and not a commercial, profit-seeking entity, but that does not mean that all its actions must be politically motivated.

governments are different. people who voted for various laws, parties or referendums are usuallly still around for another 20+ years. in ucd the population is radically different.
also every 4 or 5 years we have a chance to vote in new parties in to change laws that we dont like. the bans were a long time ago. not all do i think they should be lifted, but a referendum should be held to vote in that no products should be banned in the shops, unless for enviromental reasons. i'm not against banning things for enviromental reasons cause protecting ucds enviroment directly involves ucd. however i cannot think at this time of any product that i think should be banned for such. reasons. if a large group of students in ucd wanted to boycott yorkies and then yorkies stoped selling enough to be worth selling the shops. then i would consider it ok to stop selling them for practical and economic reasons. the natural economic food chain if you will.

panda100

Basically the only way to solve this problem is to hold another referendum. I would defiantly help out/manage lifting the nestle one. Though Id only run a referendum about the nestle ban If a coke referendum was held at the same time. Dontico..the ball is in your court

Chakar

Well it would be interesting to see how the Coke referendum goes in Trinity.If it is repealed then there should be a referendum in UCD too.

It certainly would be easier after this year as the bastion of the UCD left will be graduating.

cast_iron

Chaker wrote:

Well it would be interesting to see how the Coke referendum goes in Trinity.If it is repealed then there should be a referendum in UCD too.

The logic of this thread knows no bounds.

panda100 wrote:

Dontico..the ball is in your court

That's actually a frightful thought.

Dontico wrote:

not all do i think they should be lifted, but a referendum should be held to vote in that no products should be banned in the shops, unless for enviromental reasons. i'm not against banning things for enviromental reasons cause protecting ucds enviroment directly involves ucd. however i cannot think at this time of any product that i think should be banned for such. reasons. if a large group of students in ucd wanted to boycott yorkies and then yorkies stoped selling enough to be worth selling the shops. then i would consider it ok to stop selling them for practical and economic reasons. the natural economic food chain if you will.

Maybe if I keep re-reading that I might understand it, but frankly, after a quick glance, I can tell enough that it wouldn't be worth it and it's undoubtedly just more incoherent rubbish.

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

the natural economic food chain if you will.

Have you considered how the Yorkies might feel about this?

How would you like it people wanted to eat you, you'd support the SU then wouldn't you? Hypopotocrite.

GusherING

Dontico wrote:

governments are different. people who voted for various laws, parties or referendums are usuallly still around for another 20+ years. in ucd the population is radically different.
also every 4 or 5 years we have a chance to vote in new parties in to change laws that we dont like. the bans were a long time ago. not all do i think they should be lifted, but a referendum should be held to vote in that no products should be banned in the shops, unless for enviromental reasons. i'm not against banning things for enviromental reasons cause protecting ucds enviroment directly involves ucd. however i cannot think at this time of any product that i think should be banned for such. reasons. if a large group of students in ucd wanted to boycott yorkies and then yorkies stoped selling enough to be worth selling the shops. then i would consider it ok to stop selling them for practical and economic reasons. the natural economic food chain if you will.

Does it matter if those students decided ten years ago to do so? I think you've just conceded defeat.

So you're not against banning things for environmental reasons then? But banning things for ethical reasons is not ok? Anybody else see whats confused about this?

As for your argument regarding the fact that referenda passed 10 years ago are still in effect, the only way past this is by taking positive action to overturn it. Get a referendum going. As the evil lime said, almost every part of the world around us is governed by laws, the vast majority of them being made by those who are long dead. Bunreacht na hEireann was passed in 1937, and while a lot of it has been changed since, most of it hasn't been reviewed since. I don't hear anything about how illegitimate it is? And even if it did, you know and I know that the only way to amend the matter is by holding a referendum and not moaning about 'rule by the dead', which is pretty much all you have done here..

hullaballoo

Dontico wrote:

governments are different. people who voted for various laws, parties or referendums are usuallly still around for another 20+ years. in ucd the population is radically different.

Are you trying to suggest that every generational cycle (i.e., whenver the population is completely replenished from a certain point in time), we should repeal all of our enacted laws and start from scratch?

You would seem to be working along the logic that once the people who enacted the laws (or policies) are no longer around, they are no longer relevant. That's pure poppycock of course, law and policy aren't that discrete. See how long it took to get the divorce referendum passed. See how backward the country is on abortion.

Dontico

hullaballoo wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that every generational cycle (i.e., whenver the population is completely replenished from a certain point in time), we should repeal all of our enacted laws and start from scratch?

You would seem to be working along the logic that once the people who enacted the laws (or policies) are no longer around, they are no longer relevant. That's pure poppycock of course, law and policy aren't that discrete. See how long it took to get the divorce referendum passed. See how backward the country is on abortion.

again read what i have been saying.
we get to change the gov every 5 years. as for abortion, that was voted on very recently in the 80's. judging by how people vote. if one tried to legalise it, i dont think it would be.

hullaballoo

If you ask people to read what you've been saying one more time, I'm going to ban you from this thread.

I've read as much of your posts as I can handle, and they're still gibberish to me. I'm not trying to be overly harsh, I just don't see your angle. Not at all, to any extent.

I even quoted the relevant part of your post to show you the spiralling logic you were using.

Here, I'll clarify again: UCD students get to change their "government" every one year. Insofar as referenda go, we can set one up at our whim in UCD. That's even more permissive than the Irish state where, although there is provision for it, no private person (or group of people) has (have) ever proposed a referendum. We rely on the government to put them forward at their whim, when they feel it's an issue.

By saying "judging by how people vote. if one tried to legalise it, i dont think it would be (sic)", you are just proving my point: that archaic and potentially hurtful laws are not irrelevant just because the people who initially enacted them are no longer around.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

again read what i have been saying.
we get to change the gov every 5 years.

Changing the government is not the same as changing the laws.
If you did not already know this then you would be happy enough knowing that ucdsu elect a new crop of sabats, exec, and class reps every year, no?

Spectator#1

DEMOCRACY is undemocratic. I hear ya Dontico. Tell them all to shut up and we'll just go on whatever you think in the future, that's much more democratic. Forget ethics, once there's an environment to keep us alive we'll do what we want!

Heil Dontico.

cast_iron

hullaballoo wrote:

Are you trying to suggest that every generational cycle (i.e., whenver the population is completely replenished from a certain point in time), we should repeal all of our enacted laws and start from scratch?

You would seem to be working along the logic that once the people who enacted the laws (or policies) are no longer around, they are no longer relevant. That's pure poppycock of course, law and policy aren't that discrete. See how long it took to get the divorce referendum passed. See how backward the country is on abortion.

I agree, that applied as a rule, he appears to be talking more nonsense. I actually thought that's what me meant (and I wouldn't be shocked if he did), but decided he said it in the context of the current case.

In fairness, in the given case (nestle ban), his point is valid if it was made in that context. 10 years is along time in UCD and I'm not sure he's suggesting every decision must be re-ratified and all that. In certain contentious issues (abortion ref in Irish Govt, Nestle ref in UCDSU), opinions do change over a relatively short time.

What I think we can all agree on is that his/her opinions probably don't deserve the attention they are getting, and trying to decipher what he/she means is a bit of a fruitless exercise.

Dontico

last post on the issue.
i'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. since i've been threaten with a ban if i post "read my posts" again, which i think is a very immature responce. also i got far less imput from the 'against' side.

opinion one last time in point form. for detail read over previous posts.

1-UCD is a college not some political entity. one joins ucd for educational purposes and not to support someones agenda from 10 years ago. ucd should not be sopporting or be against anything that doesnt involve college matters. i am not a socialist, being apart of ucd should not make me look like a socialist.

2-the student body is radically different from 10 years ago and they should not impose on students of today.

Chakar

Dontico wrote:

last post on the issue.
i'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. since i've been threaten with a ban if i post "read my posts" again, which i think is a very immature responce. also i got far less imput from the 'against' side.

opinion one last time in point form. for detail read over previous posts.

1-UCD is a college not some political entity. one joins ucd for educational purposes and not to support someones agenda from 10 years ago. ucd should not be sopporting or be against anything that doesnt involve college matters. i am not a socialist, being apart of ucd should not make me look like a socialist.

2-the student body is radically different from 10 years ago and they should not impose on students of today.

Although I don't support the ban, your first point is not correct.The body enforcing the 'ban' is UCD SU not UCD.

The student body would change with a few exceptions!

All policies can be changed by the students of today whether through motions to the Council and referenda run by students.

dajaffa

Dontico wrote:

the student body is radically different from 10 years ago and they should not impose on students of today.

If you feel strongly enough about that then go collect signatures + run a referendum.

AngelofFire

The body enforcing the 'ban' is UCD SU not UCD.

The ''Boycott'' is not enforced its in place by legitamite measures, It was not introduced by any union administration but by a bunch of individuals who collected signatures, the students in turn voted TWICE to adopt a boycott of Coca Cola products. In Trinity 3 referenda (where a greater perecentage of people people voted in favour of the boycott each time, they beat them by a margin of 800 votes in the most recent referendum) was enough for people to get the message, i dont see how we need a 3rd one in UCD.

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

last post on the issue.
i'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. since i've been threaten with a ban if i post "read my posts" again, which i think is a very immature responce. also i got far less imput from the 'against' side.

You could do with a taste of your own medicine. You've been lucky enough to have had some reasonable, sensible, intelligent and level responses to your immature and uninformed replies on this thread.

Read their posts again, take on board what they're saying and realise that you either have a severe problem with expressing whatever radical viewpoint it is that you hold in an intelligible way or else your viewpoint isn't that well formed at all and you're just repeating yourself over and over again and avoiding any kind of in-depth discussion of the issue you brought up.

opinion one last time in point form. for detail read over previous posts.

Opinion wasn't necessary. That's the thing, we all got your point the first time around, we just either don't agree with some of it, don't agree with all of it, or agree with it, depending on who you're reading. So stop repeating yourself.

A discussion is about moving past the simple statement and re-formulation of your opinion, you haven't been doing that, everyone has tried to engage you on that, you don't seem to be interested in it. I'd question why you're bothering to come onto a DISCUSSION forum at all if all you want to do it repeat yourself and just tell people to 'read your posts'. We've tried, there's not that much there, deal with it.

1-UCD is a college not some political entity. one joins ucd for educational purposes and not to support someones agenda from 10 years ago. ucd should not be sopporting or be against anything that doesnt involve college matters. i am not a socialist, being apart of ucd should not make me look like a socialist.

2-the student body is radically different from 10 years ago and they should not impose on students of today.

First off, the referendum was THREE years ago, not ten. So, again, "educate yourself". Thus, the student body has changed considerably - no doubt - but not absolutely. I was there then, I'm still here now, I can point out plenty of other people in the same position.

Second, as a reference point, TCD just had another referendum on the same issue - last week - to update student opinion, and the boycott is to remain in place. I would suggest the same is likely to happen here were there to be another referendum but that's beside the point.

UCD is a political entity in that it comprises staff and student who make up a certain proportion of the electorate body. The UCD STUDENTS UNION - who made the decision, by vote - to boycott Coke and Nestlé products, made that decision as a political body in order to demonstrate their objections to the suspicious circumstances in Colombia.

Because that boycott was put in place democratically, and until there is another referendum that sees it removed, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to the idea that the SU boycotts certain products in your name.

One more thing, somebody already said this but you're not getting it, the boycott isn't a 'socialist' one. You could argue that it is because it supports a union movement in Colombia, but that would be missing the point. People have been murdered in Colombia; it's a humanist boycott, a boycott that demonstrates solidarity with democracy and with basic human rights, not some heady socialist ideal. You're just being trite by trying to tar it with the old 'left wing' brush.

Stop being such a baby.

Chakar

AngelofFire wrote:

The ''Boycott'' is not enforced its in place by legitamite measures, It was not introduced by any union administration but by a bunch of individuals who collected signatures, the students in turn voted TWICE to adopt a boycott of Coca Cola products.

Do you actually think I don't know that Chris? UCD SU is the body acting on behalf of the students who voted democratically to ban Coca Cola from the Union shops albeit ineffectively.

panda100

Spectator#1 wrote:

First off, the referendum was THREE years ago, not ten. So, again, "educate yourself". Thus, the student body has changed considerably - no doubt - but not absolutely. I was there then, I'm still here now, I can point out plenty of other people in the same position. .

I think Dontico was talking about the Nestle ban. He is correct in saying It was held 10 years ago and not three years ago. I was here three years ago and my viewpoint is still the same,I think It should be banned. However the majority of my friends has completly changed their opinion on the ban from the first referendum.

Spectator#1

Point taken, apologies, you're right, he was giving out that he couldn't buy a Yorkie wasn't he, not Coke. Thanks for that!

I still think he's being ridiculously petulant. "Read my posts", as if the only reason we'd disagree with him is because we didn't pay enough attention to his moaning and oversimplifications and misappropriations of political theories.