Boycott Nestle

thaiboxerken said:
Yes, advertisement often sells their product as being more than it is. I agree.

But I don't agree that we should protect people from advertisements. Nestle giving out free samples is just a form of advertisement.

"Is it unreasonable to make that choice for what seem like all the best reasons?"

If someone is stupid enough to use those reasons to bottlefeed vs breastfeed, it's their fault. I don't agree that we should protect stupid people from their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

But what if these people aren't informed that "breast is best".

Look at my link again Thai - the one to the BMJ - Nestle appear to offer incentives to the Drs and Nurses. They do not comply with the voluntary code laid down with by the WHO. You can dismiss this as junk science again if you wish - but I did winnow through a whole load of sites trying to come up with independent ones - such as the news site, rather than anti Nestlé sites.

If someone advertises the plus side of a produce and gives it away for free for a time yet no one is telling you of the negative side - does that make you stupid for assuming there is none?

Does it make you stupid if you don't ask the right questions and you just place your trust in what a multinational company says?

I would say that we are pretty sophisticated when it comes to advertising and pretty cynical too - yet we are taken in time and again

What chance do people in the third world have with less exposure to marketing ploys than we do?

Sou
 
Jedi Knight said:


Sure JJ, spam the forum. You are pathetic. But what is even more pathetic is the pseudo-science you are pushing.

JK
Click to expand...

Then, you claim that it's pseudo-science to point out that a woman's milk supply ceases if she does not breastfeed?

Quack, Quack, Quack!
 
Jedi Knight said:

3) Womyn will follow the feminist instructions thinking that breast-feeding is actually starving the baby.
Click to expand...

False. Your absurd list wasn't "spammed off", it was laughed off. You need to learn the difference, child.
 
jj said:


False. Your absurd list wasn't "spammed off", it was laughed off. You need to learn the difference, child.
Click to expand...

Look, the only 'laughing' is at you. What are you, 70? In a couple years you will be walking around with a geriatric diaper.

JK
 
Chocolate Fudge

It is entirely, absolutely PATHETIC how some people, upon seeing a forum that they dislike question its' value, will deliberately, conciously, and maliciously attempt to further destroy the forum by posting obvious, pathetic misinformation, personal attacks, and in this case, overweening misogyny.

It seems that the quacking cowards who can't win the game want to try to take the football home with them now.

There's no point in responding to Jedi, folks, he's just using his postings to attack women and anyone who dares to expose his ignorant rantings about breastfeeding.

Ergo:

Chocolate Fudge:

2-3 Oz of unsweetened baker's chocolate broken into lumps.
2 c sugar
1 c evaporated (not sweetened) milk
2-3 tbsp butter
2 tbsp Karo
1/2 tsp salt.

Combine in heavy saucepan. Cook, stiring vigorously until sugar is disolved and chocolate is melted. When it starts to bubble, take electric mixer and THOROUGHLY beat it. (yes, that's atypical but I do it that way every time)

When it reaches medium-ball, or just short of medium-ball, take off the heat and put pan into a pan of icewater.

Allow to cool (slowly once it stops cooking) until it's warm to the touch.

Beat in
1 tbsp Stroh Inlander Rum
1/2-1 cup of chopped pecans, walnuts or (best) black walnuts
1 tsp vanilla

Beat until it starts to turn quite hazy on the top. At this point it will start thickening very rapidly

Turn into prepare 8x8 square pan, let cool more, and cut before it's completely set.
 
Re: Chocolate Fudge

jj said:
It is entirely, absolutely PATHETIC how some people, upon seeing a forum that they dislike question its' value, will deliberately, conciously, and maliciously attempt to further destroy the forum by posting obvious, pathetic misinformation, personal attacks, and in this case, overweening misogyny.

It seems that the quacking cowards who can't win the game want to try to take the football home with them now.

There's no point in responding to Jedi, folks, he's just using his postings to attack women and anyone who dares to expose his ignorant rantings about breastfeeding.

Ergo:

Chocolate Fudge:

2-3 Oz of unsweetened baker's chocolate broken into lumps.
2 c sugar
1 c evaporated (not sweetened) milk
2-3 tbsp butter
2 tbsp Karo
1/2 tsp salt.

Combine in heavy saucepan. Cook, stiring vigorously until sugar is disolved and chocolate is melted. When it starts to bubble, take electric mixer and THOROUGHLY beat it. (yes, that's atypical but I do it that way every time)

When it reaches medium-ball, or just short of medium-ball, take off the heat and put pan into a pan of icewater.

Allow to cool (slowly once it stops cooking) until it's warm to the touch.

Beat in
1 tbsp Stroh Inlander Rum
1/2-1 cup of chopped pecans, walnuts or (best) black walnuts
1 tsp vanilla

Beat until it starts to turn quite hazy on the top. At this point it will start thickening very rapidly

Turn into prepare 8x8 square pan, let cool more, and cut before it's completely set.
Click to expand...

lol, the mean old bastard is now spamming the thread with recipes.

JK
 
Re: Re: Chocolate Fudge

Jedi Knight said:


lol, the mean old bastard is now spamming the thread with recipes.

JK
Click to expand...

"Don't be a jerk."
 


But what if these people aren't informed that "breast is best".

Then hold the doctors accountable.

Look at my link again Thai - the one to the BMJ - Nestle appear to offer incentives to the Drs and Nurses. They do not comply with the voluntary code laid down with by the WHO. You can dismiss this as junk science again if you wish - but I did winnow through a whole load of sites trying to come up with independent ones - such as the news site, rather than anti Nestlé sites.

Are incentives the same as bribes? Many doctors are offered incentives for all kinds of medical products. If a doctor fails to inform the patient about the pros and cons of breast vs bottle feeding, that doctor should be held accountable.


If someone advertises the plus side of a produce and gives it away for free for a time yet no one is telling you of the negative side - does that make you stupid for assuming there is none?

Yes.

Does it make you stupid if you don't ask the right questions and you just place your trust in what a multinational company says?

Yes.

I would say that we are pretty sophisticated when it comes to advertising and pretty cynical too - yet we are taken in time and again

What chance do people in the third world have with less exposure to marketing ploys than we do?

Sou

I don't buy the claim that third world people are inherently stupid.
 
Thai - I am saying no one is inherently stupid to be taken in by advertising. However I do think that people not subjected to advertising in the way that we are can be manipulated by it. That doesn't make them stupid or even naive - we're all manipulated by it.

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.

Sou
 
thaiboxerken said:
Putting JK on ignore is not wrong. Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...

True, true, Ken, very true. But his poison keeps leaking out around the edges.

I think one problem that can arise is that, by giving people a week's worth of formula (not milk, btw, milk is BAD in this context, I sincerely HOPE it's formula!), some women may use it, and then try to breast-feed, but may have stopped (or not started) lactating, that some babies, especially weak or malnourished ones, may not "get it" with breastfeeding, and that such mothers can be saddled with going broke to keep their child alive.

I won't discuss intent. I have no idea how the material is offered, or presented. If it is presented at all, it MUST be presented with that explaination, each and every time, to each and every mother.

Now, in local terms, the formula is actually more calorically efficient, because the inefficiency is happening offstage (when the formula is made), which would seem to be good in an environment with limited nuitrition, BUT ONLY IF THE FORMULA CAN BE AFFORDED AND MIXED WITH SAFETY.

Some of the horror stories (they are anecdotes, indeed, but of the medically reliable kind, i.e. "this child died of a cholera-like illness due to mixing formula with unsanitary water") that have resulted must be considered, as well as the energy cost of always boiling water, etc.

You notice I'm not saying that the answers are cut-and-dried, they almost never are, but I think for most moms, under most circumstances, and even more importantly, for most infants, breast-feeding should be the method of choice.

I am annoyed by the article, because it glosses over several obvious, well-understood concerns and goes for the throat with a claim that looks histrionic on its face.
 

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Because parents want the government to parent their children.


Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.


And I find it a brilliant marketing technique.
 
thaiboxerken said:

Why do you think we have regulations protecting children from certain types of advertising?

Because parents want the government to parent their children.


Why do you think that the advertising we are shown is increasingly more sophisticated? In the '50s they tried to dazzle us with science - now they sell us what we'd like to be.


And I find it a brilliant marketing technique.
Click to expand...

Interesting answer to the first - although I was thinking of cigarette adverts specifically.

And it is a brilliant marketing technique:) Why has it developed though, in your opinion? And why is it brilliant?

Sou
 
Because it works. People tend to want to do anything to be something "better" or whatever. They see the big boobed girls all over the beerdrinker, in the commercials, and they think that maybe it could happen to them. So they buy the beer.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Because it works. People tend to want to do anything to be something "better" or whatever. They see the big boobed girls all over the beerdrinker, in the commercials, and they think that maybe it could happen to them. So they buy the beer.
Click to expand...

And are you still going to say that people are stupid? Because if you do aren't you going to have to say that people in general are stupid - because hot damn if we don't fall for this lifestyle thing every time ;)

(I actually think it's more sophisticated than that - the beer drinker doesn't think he'll get the big boobed girl necessarily - but that he is buying into the kind of lifestyle where other people might think that - hmm maybe that's not more sophisticated after all :D)

Sou
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, people are stupid. A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
Click to expand...

So now we come back to the original question. People in general can be stupid - everywhere. Whether they should be protected from their stupidity is a question I'll come onto in a minute.

Bearing in mind that you think people are stupid - is it fair to expect a higher level of perception from someone in a third world country looking at buying into the richer more affluent western lifestyle - coupled with the images of healthy babies that bottle feeding is connected to?

Basically I'm asking you again - isn't it fair to say that they are making reasonable decisions based on the information they are being fed.

Again I don't want your reaction to the Drs and their responsibility in this - I'm interested only in the whether you feel these mothers are making reasonable choices based on the information they have.

Thanks for your patience here :)

Sou
 
Basically I'm asking you again - isn't it fair to say that they are making reasonable decisions based on the information they are being fed.

No. One shouldn't base decisions on advertisements and promotions alone.
 
thaiboxerken said:
lol. I am not trying to find out if breast-milk is better than forumula, I actually believe it is.
Click to expand...

You must have found 'several' peer-reviewed journal articles then. ;)

-Who
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom