Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member.

Messages - avromie7

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 414
Deals/Deal Requests / Re: $3 polos at old navy
« on: July 13, 2018, 11:03:51 AM »
Limit 5 must use old navy credit card
The credit card requirement should be in the subject.

Just Shmooze / Re: Ben Shapiro
« on: July 12, 2018, 05:17:48 PM »
Wow, at 12 years old: "his goal is to become the first orthodox rabbi to sit on the supreme court"
Nothing changed

Just Shmooze / Re: Ben Shapiro
« on: July 12, 2018, 04:51:28 PM »
Fun Fact:

I read in the Mishpacha magazine that he played Violin on one of Shlomo and Eitan Katz's earlier albums, don't remember which one.

So lets create them!
If you get rid of the sweat shops, you won't have the opportunity.

There already is an institution to do that. It is called a union.
Not in Bangladesh where the problems exist.

Deals/Deal Requests / Re: Free Sample Products Master Thread
« on: July 10, 2018, 12:25:00 PM »
Anyone know where you can find a single bottle of lipton tea for sale in lakewood area?
was in shoprite, stop & shop and CVS - all didnt have...
+1 and because the limit is $1.59, it won't help me to go to a gas station, and buy one for $2.49 and have to pay the difference.

+1. The bottom line is that 'the alternative is worse' is clearly not a long-term answer, both in this discussion of sweatshops and for most problems in general. The fact that in a particular scenario the immediate alternative is worse does not absolve us of responsibility to address a current wrong.
OK so lets work together to help the treatment of workers, but banning/boycotting sweatshops is not a good way to get it done.

To save their life, of course.
And as a self hating Jew you are for concentration camps.
Nice asinine logic you have or does it come from your deep rooted racism?
I'm done.
What seems to have happened there was more of an issue of going from 0 to 100 in one shot rather than an issue with what was done. Within 2 years it was all worked out. A bit of forethought would have left everyone better off and accomplished the goal without the shortcomings. The issue there was the implementation.
@ChaimMoskowitz would still do it all in 1 day because exploitation of children is terrible. I'm not convinced that they really solved much, they now have to turn away any child who wants to work, leaving them in the same situation as the 50,000 referenced in that report, the only difference is that it's impossible to know what happened to the children who would have gone to work in the factories.

You are avoiding what really happened. You are for concentration camps. Does not get any worse than that!!!
And you are for cutting up children.

You would rather see Jews go to a concentration camp than to their death in the gas chamber
Don't force them to do anything, and they won't have to pick either of your options.

Can you give any examples of where what you are saying actually happened?
Here is an example of where stopping child labor in sweatshops made them worse off Page 60
An Agreement In Bangledesh
An important initiative to protect child workers is unfolding in Bangladesh. The country’s powerful garment industry is committing itself to some dramatic new measures by an agreement signed in 1995. The country is one of the world’s major garment exporters, and the industry, which employs over a million workers, most of them women, also employed child labour. In 1992, between 50,000 and 75,000 of its workforce were children under 14, mainly girls. The children were illegally employed according to national law, but the situation captured little attention, in Bangladesh or elsewhere, until the garment factories began to hide the children from United States buyers or lay off the children, following the introduction of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in 1992 by US Senator Tom Harkin. The Bill would have prohibited the importation into the US of goods made using child labour. Then, when Senator Harkin reintroduced the Bill the following year, the impact was far more devastating:garment employers dismissed an estimated 50,000 children from their factories, approximately 75 per cent of all children in the industry. The consequences for the dismissedchildren and their parents were not anticipated. The children may have been freed, but at the same time they were trapped in a harsh environment with no skills, little or no education, and precious few alternatives. Schools were either inaccessible, useless or costly. A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production. In several cases, the mothers of dismissed children had to leave their jobs in order to look after their children. Out of this unhappy situation and after two years of difficult negotiations, a formal Memorandum of Understanding was signed in July 1995 by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), and the UNICEF and ILO offices in Bangladesh. The resulting programme was to be funded by these three organizations. BGMEA alone has committed about $1 million towards the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding. Under the terms of the agreement, four key provisions were formulated:
• the removal of all under-age workers — those below 14 — within a period of four months;
• no further hiring of under-age children;
• the placement of those children removed from the garment factories in appropriate educational programmes with a monthly stipend;
• the offer of the children’s jobs to qualified adult family members.
The Memorandum of Understanding explicitly directed factory owners, in the best interests of these children, not to dismiss any child workers until a factory survey was completed and alternative arrangements could be made for the freed children....
How about cases where the lack of sweatshops made the entire country better off? You need to check you premise!
Can you bring any examples where the lack of sweatshops made them better off before the country was developed?

You are being stupid. Stop just blindly accepting the premise fed to you by conservatives!
I still haven't heard any solid arguments on why it's not true. "Children should never be exploited" and the likes do not disprove my point.

You just proved my point. You can't accept facts about simple human decency. Then you wonder why I question your motives.
Now you're justifying cutting children?

You can't grasp simple known facts. Sweatshops are outlawed because they are terrible. You need to understand the fact that sweatshops should never be allowed and work forward. You keep trying to come up with reasons to justify them.
Surgery should be banned too, how dare someone cut a child.

You are so messed up it is ridicules. You really need help!!!
Do you have any real answers, or is everything going to be personal attacks?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 414