Report: Poultry Workers Forced to Wear Diapers to Increase Efficiency

[cow451]

Disgusting and unsanitary if true.

MSM won't pick up on the story as the Clintons are friends with Arkansas chicken king pins.

MSM is where I heard the story. Nice try, though.

 

[redleghunter]

MSM is where I heard the story. Nice try, though.

Don't know what that means but the source you posted was not MSM not even close.

http://www.eater.com/2016/5/11/11657684/tyson-chicken-labor-conditions

 

[cow451]

Don't know what that means but the source you posted was not MSM not even close.

http://www.eater.com/2016/5/11/11657684/tyson-chicken-labor-conditions

I assume MSM= "Mainstream Media". I didn't post a link, so you must have confused yourself about who posted what.

I heard about it on the radio while driving to work. That means, based on the stations I frequent, it was from a wire service (AP). Last time I checked, Associated Press is mainstream.

NBC is reputed to be mainstream as well.

 

[redleghunter]

No, they were arguments conservatives on these boards have made to me in threads where i condemned the practices of sweatshops.

Do you own any Apple products? Android devices? Any electronics at all? If you do, you support sweatshops.

 

[whatbogsends]

Do you own any Apple products? Android devices? Any electronics at all? If you do, you support sweatshops.

Non-sequitur.

Yes, i do own electronics, and thereby, in some way shape or form "support the economics of sweatshop labor". Even without owning electronics, most large companies employ sweatshop labor, so even if i somehow said no to the above, you're part of the system unless you live in a cave.

That being said, i can advocate against the practices, and try to avoid the worst abusers, which is a far cry from making the argument "sweatshops are a good thing, it gives those people a job!", which many conservatives have these boards have done. Repeatedly.

 

[redleghunter]

Non-sequitur.

Yes, i do own electronics, and thereby, in some way shape or form "support the economics of sweatshop labor". Even without owning electronics, most large companies employ sweatshop labor, so even if i somehow said no to the above, you're part of the system unless you live in a cave.

That being said, i can advocate against the practices, and try to avoid the worst abusers, which is a far cry from making the argument "sweatshops are a good thing, it gives those people a job!", which many conservatives have these boards have done. Repeatedly.

Clearly you would like to goad a straw man by continuing the 'many conservatives.' You should put up links to those comments for all to examine if your claim is accurate.

However, your answer to the sweat shop labor is fair enough.

 

[whatbogsends]

Clearly you would like to goad a straw man by continuing the 'many conservatives.' You should put up links to those comments for all to examine if your claim is accurate.

However, your answer to the sweat shop labor is fair enough.

How many links would you like for me to be able to say "many conservatives"?

I gave two so far. They're all older threads (since now the majority of the discussion is on election nonsense, and economic disparity discussion has taken a backseat (and, no surprise, like essentially every other topic here, became the same discussion with a different starting point again and again, as people remained steadfast in their starting positions), so i'd have to do some digging.

To really see how my claim stacks up, you should be able to find a conservative arguing against that stance for every instance i can provide of them arguing for it, no? Or would you concede that the majority of conservatives on these boards either support sweatshops through arguments i described, or remain neutral on the subject?

 

[redleghunter]

Or would you concede that the majority of conservatives on these boards either support sweatshops through arguments i described, or remain neutral on the subject?

You encountered conservatives on this forum who advocate sweat shops? Now that would be a good quote to post up for us to see.

 

[redleghunter]

NBC is reputed to be mainstream as well.

Clearly debatable. LOL...

 

[whatbogsends]

You encountered conservatives on this forum who advocate sweat shops? Now that would be a good quote to post up for us to see.

Conservatives on these boards have repeatedly argued that sweatshop labor was simply market forces at work, and that they were not morally suspect.

I've already quoted 2 of them in this thread (and linked the respective threads). One said quite clearly that sweatshop labor couldn't be unfair if people willingly took those jobs, the other lamented that those "good" jobs were going overseas, and commented on how he believed those pennies they were paid were good wages in their where they were.

How many more examples do you want me to find?

Are you suggesting you will to be able to find as many conservatives condemning sweatshop labor practices as i can find those who support them?

 

[redleghunter]

I've already quoted 2 of them in this thread (and linked the respective threads).

Must not have caught those posts. Saw that you quoted someone on this thread.

You base your stereotype of a 'conservative' on an anonymous internet forum? How do we know these posters advocating your stereotype are not your very own sock puppets or some other liberal sock puppet doing the same.

Evidence is quite thin.

 

[whatbogsends]

Must not have caught those posts. Saw that you quoted someone on this thread.

You base your stereotype of a 'conservative' on an anonymous internet forum? How do we know these posters advocating your stereotype are not your very own sock puppets or some other liberal sock puppet doing the same.

Evidence is quite thin.

So, i guess my mistake was to take posters at their word for what they represent and what ideology they adhere to. So, what you're saying is, i'm not allowed to reference posters on this forum who call themselves conservatives when i'm discussing arguments that conservatives put up, is that correct?

I'm assuming you use the same standard when commenting on liberals comments in these forums....

Enemy of my enemy? Yeah, quite odd though. On this thread I had liberals ask me if it was ok for Christians to stone homosexuals. I had to inform him we don't but the religion of peace he was defending does so quite often...even throws them off buildings.

So, how do we know those posters advocating your stereotype were not your very own sock puppets or some other conservative sock puppet doing the same? Normally, i'd have no problem with you using statements by liberals as evidence of statements by liberals, but apparently, that's doesn't meet your standard of evidence...

But at least you don't make unsupported generalities about liberals....

Not so much atheists as liberals. It almost seems to be a rabid desire for Dhimmitude.

There's a psychological disorder associated with this but last time I mentioned the term it was not well received by the mods.

So I must resort to an alternate description. Such a desire to submit to one's own demise is psychologically self immolation.

Which statists and liberals hardly think about when passing new laws. Just pass it and see what happens seems to be their meme.

Oh wait. What was your point again?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Unless you hunt for your own meat or raise your own animals for food...finding "ethical meats" is rather difficult to do.

Even the terms "free range", "cage free", and "grass fed" doesn't necessarily mean that you're avoiding the types of things that go on in a factory farm setting.

Food lobby groups lobby the FDA endlessly to redefine what free range and cafe free means, among other redfinitions for "healthy" for people or the animals they kill.

 

[redleghunter]

So, i guess my mistake was to take posters at their word for what they represent and what ideology they adhere to. So, what you're saying is, i'm not allowed to reference posters on this forum who call themselves conservatives when i'm discussing arguments that conservatives put up, is that correct?

I'm neither your parents nor your military commander, therefore you are quite allowed to do what you wish with whatever information you come up with (within forum rules of course). My point was to be cautious on how one comes to conclusions or stereotypes on what is 'conservative.' I'm conservative and do not adhere to the nonsense you posted.

I'm assuming you use the same standard when commenting on liberals comments in these forums....

In the spirit of openness, I will let the jury of my peers decide for their own edification. FWIW I take each person at a time as we are not automatons but unique and distinct human beings made in God's image and likeness.

So, how do we know those posters advocating your stereotype were not your very own sock puppets or some other conservative sock puppet doing the same?

That's the point, you don't know, I don't know. I do know there are trolls on the internet (present company excluded of course) who make it their daily diet to besmirch others and present outrageous templates to derail threads.

Normally, i'd have no problem with you using statements by liberals as evidence of statements by liberals, but apparently, that's doesn't meet your standard of evidence...

Good point. However, not all liberals and conservatives are the same. There are both cruel and kind liberals, both cruel and kind conservatives. Putting people in preconceived boxes, group think, is what totalitarians and authoritarians do. Not free thinking folks. I do concede if some conservative or poser as a conservative says something outrageous, that other conservatives have a moral obligation to object and refute such claims.

But at least you don't make unsupported generalities about liberals....

I know if I do so, you will be the first to mention I did.

Oh wait. What was your point again?

Hopefully, I made that clear above.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Non-sequitur.

Yes, i do own electronics, and thereby, in some way shape or form "support the economics of sweatshop labor". Even without owning electronics, most large companies employ sweatshop labor, so even if i somehow said no to the above, you're part of the system unless you live in a cave.

That being said, i can advocate against the practices, and try to avoid the worst abusers, which is a far cry from making the argument "sweatshops are a good thing, it gives those people a job!", which many conservatives have these boards have done. Repeatedly.

The it gives people a job argument is not as moronic as it sounds. I am by no means a conservative, not even a liberal, but my very liberal economics professor in college made the point that if the only job available pays ten cents a day, it is better than no job, even if that idea seems alien to wealthy Americans.

 

[Four Angels Standing]

Tyson can't force employees to do this. Even SNOPES has this article on their site. Tyson and three other poultry companies are supposedly doing this and it was found out by OXFAM.
Article

 

[whatbogsends]

I'm neither your parents nor your military commander, therefore you are quite allowed to do what you wish with whatever information you come up with (within forum rules of course). My point was to be cautious on how one comes to conclusions or stereotypes on what is 'conservative.' I'm conservative and do not adhere to the nonsense you posted.

In the spirit of openness, I will let the jury of my peers decide for their own edification. FWIW I take each person at a time as we are not automatons but unique and distinct human beings made in God's image and likeness.

That's the point, you don't know, I don't know. I do know there are trolls on the internet (present company excluded of course) who make it their daily diet to besmirch others and present outrageous templates to derail threads.

Good point. However, not all liberals and conservatives are the same. There are both cruel and kind liberals, both cruel and kind conservatives. Putting people in preconceived boxes, group think, is what totalitarians and authoritarians do. Not free thinking folks. I do concede if some conservative or poser as a conservative says something outrageous, that other conservatives have a moral obligation to object and refute such claims.

I know if I do so, you will be the first to mention I did.

Hopefully, I made that clear above.

Thank you for your response.

I appreciate your condemnation of what i find to be obviously immoral labor practices.

I will leave my point as a qualified: "some people claiming to be conservatives on these forums have supported the practices of sweatshops, indicating they thought that because people took those low paying jobs in dangerous conditions, that they were de facto "fair", and the practice itself shouldn't be condemned".

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's the same, but you have to bring your own diaper.

Help wanted: Oxfam America poultry plant, BYOD.

 

[cow451]

Tyson can't force employees to do this. Even SNOPES has this article on their site. Tyson and three other poultry companies are supposedly doing this and it was found out by OXFAM.
Article

Snopes simply gives Perdue and Tyson reps. opportunity to respond. So it has been ruled neither hoax or false.

 

[whatbogsends]

The it gives people a job argument is not as moronic as it sounds. I am by no means a conservative, not even a liberal, but my very liberal economics professor in college made the point that if the only job available pays ten cents a day, it is better than no job, even if that idea seems alien to wealthy Americans.

Fair point, but i think there's a clear difference between "low wages" (i.e. 10 cents a day) and "low wages for long hours in unsafe conditions".