Hey guys,

We have an official No thread going now called:

OPINION - McMaster Campus Choice: The NO side of the Coca-Cola Referendum Debate

Note that our blog link does not work on it: http://mac-choice.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by arathbon

If we went after any company with ties to or that did business with politically undesirable partners than we'd be in a bit of a pickle. Let's start listing countries (or business partners) that might upset a significant portion of people:

China
Israel
Columbia
Venezuela
North Korea
Vietnam
Indonesia
Zimbabwe
Syria
Pro-Western governments in Iraq and Afghanistan
Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
Myanmar/Burma
Walmart
Imperial Oil
France

Ok the last one was a joke. (Although in the us i'm sure there are a few hardcore "patriots" who won't buy anything that's french and not freedom)

etc. etc.

The point is, Coke may be maintained close business relations, and even owning large parts of, businesses engaged in unethical activity. If we were to hold every company to this standard we could only do business with ourselves.

Removed my comment.

Originally Posted by edaan

Removed my comment.

Wth, put it back.

This is the internet. You can say whatever you want with no consequence.

Why do university students have to make everything a cause? Coke will still continue to be popular on campus, and if not, Pepsi (which I'm sure isn't exactly an angel either).

The benefits for a student and for the MSU far outweigh the negatives.

Sometimes I think students go too far, and try to change the world. And that's fine and dandy, but things like this don't change the world. It's a sad reality that surprisingly some people don't seem to understand.

Originally Posted by aaront

Why do university students have to make everything a cause? Coke will still continue to be popular on campus, and if not, Pepsi (which I'm sure isn't exactly an angel either).

The benefits for a student and for the MSU far outweigh the negatives.

Sometimes I think students go too far, and try to change the world. And that's fine and dandy, but things like this don't change the world. It's a sad reality that surprisingly some people don't seem to understand.

Atleast people have causes and views they support. It is our right as people to do so. Just because you sit on your ass playing video games 7 days a week with no personal goals or needs dosnt mean everyone else has to. Is it realistic to think that it will change coke or cause a difference in the world? No. But it is the effort that people put into their daily lives that sets them apart from other people. You think they are going too far? I think you are falling too short.

the Yes side posters have a few problems.

one says something like " 6 out of 7 unions don't have a problem with coke." that is not a very good thing to say.



also doesn't one poster say something along the lines of " the No side is trying to rob students of benefits?" that is not a great poster either.

ps. I could have possibly remembered the posters wrong as i glanced while walking by

The No side has argued that Coca Cola is aginst unionization and that workers are being mistreated. Those posters show that the other unions don't support these allegations at all, and along with the other court cases and investigations, works to show that there are now grounds for these allegations. I will give you that by itself, the poster's argument seems strange, but in combination with the other posters and all the evidence that the Yes side has presented, it shows people the entire picture which is what we want

Originally Posted by andrew22

the Yes side posters have a few problems.

also doesn't one poster say something along the lines of " the No side is trying to rob students of benefits?" that is not a great poster either.

ps. I could have possibly remembered the posters wrong as i glanced while walking by

That's your opinion. Several people have a big problem with the fact that the 'No' side is not choosing to take this further afterwards and has said they aren't looking to ban coke. If they're not going to fight them all the way, why fight them this little bit which is insignificant to them but could offer benefits to students at McMaster. That's what this poster is about.

Originally Posted by sew12

as opposed to the (much uglier btw) no posters which essentially serve to condemn the yes side and claim they are misleading, which is funny considering. Pot kettle, you know.

Awwww.. sorry you didn't like my posters. I tried really hard at them too! lol! They were just to advertise the information sessions. =) The debate, information and education was to occur AT those sessions, NOT just from looking at a poster to decide. (I hope you came out.) If the vote really came down to better posters, man did I screw up! HAHAHAHA! My bad! ^^ I'm so sorry.

Originally Posted by aviaf

That's your opinion. Several people have a big problem with the fact that the 'No' side is not choosing to take this further afterwards and has said they aren't looking to ban coke. If they're not going to fight them all the way, why fight them this little bit which is insignificant to them but could offer benefits to students at McMaster. That's what this poster is about.

Well see I don't really agree with the YES side's reasoning for this. Either you ban Coca-Cola or don't do anything at all. Is it really that black and white? By refusing to sign an exclusive contract we are taking a small stand against Coca-Cola. If we sign an exclusive contract what does that say about our approval/disapproval of Coca-Cola's global practices? Also in this referendum the question only asks about an exclusive contract, not banning Coca-Cola.

By letting students have alternatives to Coca-Cola on campus it gives them the opportunity to make up their mind about Coca-Cola and the option to buy something else. I have friends who drink Coca-Cola and that is their choice. I am not trying to impose my views on anybody about what they personally drink. The key message in this campaign is that students should have a right to choose what they are drinking on campus. Signing an exclusive contract is taking away that choice.

Also in terms of your other posts about lack of proof about human rights abuses, you need to remember that Coca-Cola profits off of its image and it invests lot of money trying to convince you that it is a great company. This includes covering up its poor human rights record. For more information about evidence of human rights abuse and poor environmental standards see the beginning of the No side of the referendum thread.

http://www.macinsiders.com/showthread.php?p=1221 39&posted=1#post12213 9

Originally Posted by [Juana]

Awwww.. sorry you didn't like my posters. I tried really hard at them too! lol! They were just to advertise the information sessions. =) The debate, information and education was to occur AT those sessions, NOT just from looking at a poster to decide. (I hope you came out.) If the vote really came down to better posters, man did I screw up! HAHAHAHA! My bad! ^^ I'm so sorry.

I was talking about the posters just with the no platform on them, not the Coke 101 ones, did you do both?

I saw one of the ones advertising the information session this morning and that one was more aesthetically pleasing.

The ugliness of the posters was just a point I noted, I was more concerned about the actual information on them. I doubt you'd lose the vote based on ugly posters.

They weren't designed or layed out at all, they were just slips of bright yellow and blue paper with a wall of text on them. The yes side's posters were designed, they had a clear heiarchy of information, emphasis on important parts, and were aethestically pleasing to the eye.

You seem to think its unimportant but part of running a good campaign is making sure your promotional material is eye catching and lays out the information well. Walls of text are not a very good idea for posters students are going to be blowing by in the student centre, you have to make them notice and want to stop and read your information. The yes poster accomplishes this better, that's all.

Also if you notice all the posters for the candidates are designed, not just walls of text containing platform points. They serve to be eye catching and make people notice their candidate. They provide information like web addresses so people can go on and read about the candidate if they so choose. I would say most of the posters have certain successes about them, but some of them are better than others. That said I am voting for the candidate whose posters I find the least attractive, so no I'm not ruling out anyone based on their posters, just noting that good design of posters and campaign material is part of a strong campaign.

Originally Posted by Natalie M

Well see I don't really agree with the YES side's reasoning for this. Either you ban Coca-Cola or don't do anything at all. Is it really that black and white? By refusing to sign an exclusive contract we are taking a small stand against Coca-Cola. If we sign an exclusive contract what does that say about our approval/disapproval of Coca-Cola's global practices? Also in this referendum the question only asks about an exclusive contract, not banning Coca-Cola.

Because your "small stand" isn't going to accomplish anything but make people like you feel better about yourselves for 2 weeks.

Shit's gonna go on in this world whether or not Mac signs an exclusive agreement. I personally want to benefit from it if horrible things are gonna happen anyway.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Because your "small stand" isn't going to accomplish anything but make people like you feel better about yourselves for 2 weeks.

Shit's gonna go on in this world whether or not Mac signs an exclusive agreement. I personally want to benefit from it if horrible things are gonna happen anyway.

Not that I agree that horrible things are going to happen (in regards to Coca Cola anyway, of course horrible things are always going to happen in the world) but this is part of my point.

The no side is ignoring the fact that Coca Cola's dominance on campus isn't going to go away just b/c we don't sign and exclusivity contract. Just b/c we are legally allowed to have more choices on campus doesn't mean we will. As has already been points out its much easier to only deal with 1 supplier who supplies a wide variety of product (which Coca Cola does) as opposed to dealing with a bunch of suppliers. Just b/c it can be 80-20 or an even higher percentage of non-Coca Cola product on the shelf doesn't mean it will be. By voting no on whatever grounds you can't force the University to deal with other suppliers or offer more, all you can stop them from doing (and technically by voting no you can't stop the University from doing this, just the MSU) is signing an exclusive contract with Coca Cola.

Coca Cola is very likely to still dominate our shelves if the no side wins, only thing that will happen is we won't have the opportunity to gain benefits from an exclusive contract with them.

Originally Posted by sew12

Not that I agree that horrible things are going to happen (in regards to Coca Cola anyway, of course horrible things are always going to happen in the world) but this is part of my point.

The no side is ignoring the fact that Coca Cola's dominance on campus isn't going to go away just b/c we don't sign and exclusivity contract. Just b/c we are legally allowed to have more choices on campus doesn't mean we will. As has already been points out its much easier to only deal with 1 supplier who supplies a wide variety of product (which Coca Cola does) as opposed to dealing with a bunch of suppliers. Just b/c it can be 80-20 or an even higher percentage of non-Coca Cola product on the shelf doesn't mean it will be. By voting no on whatever grounds you can't force the University to deal with other suppliers or offer more, all you can stop them from doing (and technically by voting no you can't stop the University from doing this, just the MSU) is signing an exclusive contract with Coca Cola.

Coca Cola is very likely to still dominate our shelves if the no side wins, only thing that will happen is we won't have the opportunity to gain benefits from an exclusive contract with them.

I agree completely. And I think the other post I quoted said something about having more variety? It's not like Coke ONLY sells soda. Big deal, someone wants Gatorade? Even I prefer Gatorade but drank Powerade religiously last year because it's available. All this garbage is substitutable.