28 ms·

> If you're trying to paint a picture of justice and the rule of law working all according to plan, I don't buy it. Your original statement was that we, the co

> If you're trying to paint a picture of justice and the rule of law working all according to plan, I don't buy it. Your original statement was that we, the collective west, are confortable buying the product of child labour as long as it happens abroad. This is clearly false. Not only are we uncomfortable doing so, we find the idea so abhorrent that we have made it illegal. > On what basis do you make such "assurances"? The CCP doesn’t take people flaunting Chinese laws kindly. Also while the issue with underage interns was discovered during the probe on the suicides, they are unrelated events. The workers who killed themselves due to overworking and poor working conditions were all of legal age. Under age workers were provided as month long interns from vocational schools. Foxconn wasn’t checking if they were of legal ages which made quite a splash.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> Your original statement was that we, the collective west, are confortable buying the product of child labour as long as it happens abroad. This is clearly false. I don't think it is "clearly false". And you've offered me no contrary evidence - although I cannot imagine what that would realistically be or that we can resolve this difference of opinion by appealing to the stated opinions of other groups. But "we" in this case is undefined. There is the "we" of PR executives, corporate lawyers and politicians, all of whom paint a party line on how "we are uncomfortable" And then there are the tens of millions of people who, knowing the reality of overseas child labour (through, as you say yourself, the widely reported news), still go out and buy an iPhone or Amazon Alexa. As far as I know neither Apple nor Amazon's sales were significantly hit by these revelations. There is a vast difference between the world as we wish it to be, and the world as it really is. I think you speak more to the former.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > I don't think it is "clearly false". And you've offered me no contrary evidence Obviously I have. First I have pointed to you that it is illegal. Secondly I have mentioned Nike to you. After the 1996 Life magazine report and the subsequent protest, they lost millions of dollars of sales and had to work on the issue significantly in the following years to save their image. You keep torpedoing your own argument yourself anyway by bringing up all the articles covering the issue which should show you people care. This conversation is over as far as I’m concerned. I’m impressed by the length you are ready to go to refuse to simply admit you are wrong.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    > This conversation is over as far as I’m concerned. Well thank goodness for that. You've offered nothing of any value except reiterating your own disagreement and sidestepped everything I've offered you with wilful ignorance. I get it, you don't like what I'm saying, but your arguments are pitiable. A most disappointing exchange.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

> Your original statement was that we, the collective west, are confortable buying the product of child labour as long as it happens abroad. This is clearly false. I don't think it is "clearly false". And you've offered me no contrary evidence - although I cannot imagine what that would realistically be or that we can resolve this difference of opinion by appealing to the stated opinions of other groups. But "we" in this case is undefined. There is the "we" of PR executives, corporate lawyers and politicians, all of whom paint a party line on how "we are uncomfortable" And then there are the tens of millions of people who, knowing the reality of overseas child labour (through, as you say yourself, the widely reported news), still go out and buy an iPhone or Amazon Alexa. As far as I know neither Apple nor Amazon's sales were significantly hit by these revelations. There is a vast difference between the world as we wish it to be, and the world as it really is. I think you speak more to the former.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> I don't think it is "clearly false". And you've offered me no contrary evidence Obviously I have. First I have pointed to you that it is illegal. Secondly I have mentioned Nike to you. After the 1996 Life magazine report and the subsequent protest, they lost millions of dollars of sales and had to work on the issue significantly in the following years to save their image. You keep torpedoing your own argument yourself anyway by bringing up all the articles covering the issue which should show you people care. This conversation is over as far as I’m concerned. I’m impressed by the length you are ready to go to refuse to simply admit you are wrong.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > This conversation is over as far as I’m concerned. Well thank goodness for that. You've offered nothing of any value except reiterating your own disagreement and sidestepped everything I've offered you with wilful ignorance. I get it, you don't like what I'm saying, but your arguments are pitiable. A most disappointing exchange.