Reasons for NOT ACCEPTING a diamond!

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#46
legaldiva said:
"Canadian" diamonds are also a huge joke.
Click to expand...

I can understand your point with a company such as Tiffany's, who direct buy and mix stones of multiple suppliers. Any retailer can say it is a Canadian stone, and how would a person really know?

However, the stones that are Canadian govt certified (and not direct supply), are mined, polished and cut without ever leaving the province. They are also fully documented and recorded through every stage and laser engraved with serial numbers. If you have supporting evidence that this is not the case, kindly educate us. If that is not guarantee enough, so be it.
 
#47
legaldiva said:
... because there is absolutely no way to guarantee that you have a "conflict-free" stone. In fact, I would argue that by association any stone is conflict tainted.

Any participant in overall demand fuels the supply, a part of which is unquestionably related to violent conflict.
Click to expand...

your intentions are well, but this is not an idealistic world we live in. are you saying the diamond business should simply be CUT OFF? that is well, nothing short of ridiculous. if there is a problem, do you just run, shut down and hope it goes away? the solution is not as easy as not buying diamonds. it's buying them the RIGHT way. it's not stop producing diamonds, it's producing the RIGHT way. that is NOT going to change unless people DO continue buying diamonds but by being conscious, critical shoppers let the suppliers know it is in their best interest to produce conflict free diamonds.

look at the "green" revolution. more and more businesses are jumping on the bandwagon because they see THAT is where the money is going. if diamond buyers start asking for conflict free diamond, eventually the demand WILL resonate with diamond mining companies, who will feel the pressure to be more transparent and humane because they want that business. that is not going to happen if people simply boycott diamonds altogether. i can't stress enough...people need to see the WHOLE picture and educate themselves before taking on a cause. protesting will do no good unless it comes with solutions.

also, as shiba asks, please give evidence. i think you're basing a lot of your "fact" on assumption. correct me if i'm wrong.
 
#48
i'm not saying there aren't conflict diamonds and that it's not a sick situation but i also get the feeling that it's the cause du jour and kind of a trendy thing to be all concerned about.
but really diamonds are no worse than, say, cocoa, coffee, most of the staples we eat every day are grown in third world countries where labour is cheap and easily exploited, bought for **** prices and then sold for a huge profit in the west.
so if you're really concerned aobut conflict diamonds, you should also give up all food produced in developing countries (or fruit picked by exploited illegal immigrants in the US), stop wearing anything by the gap, american eagle, h&m, zara, etc.. any brand that makes its clothing in sweat shops in developing countries with shady labour laws and easily corrupted government officials.
 
#49
ITA with Azia and Sputnik.

Legaldiva, if you don't mind sharing, what African countries have you studied in relation to the pro/cons of diamond mining. Sorry to say this and I mean no disrespect, but to say that there is no grey area sounds idealistic and immature. There's grey in everything. EVERYTHING. And that's because everyone is different.
 
#50
maguses said:
If I could turn back time, I would reject my diamond ring. I think a briefcase of cash is far more romantic!
Click to expand...

LOL! but on a more serious note, many stones, not just diamonds are used to fuel civil wars. my personal favorite, tanzanite, is linked to major internal warfare in tanzania.

truth is, so many products we use/buy can be considered "conflict" products. even the metals (coltan or tantalum) that are used in cell phones is mined from a rare mud in certain parts of africa are illegal traded to buy weapons. anyways, my point is this: so many products we use that benefit our lives, are often linked to destruction in other parts of the world (just think: pollution from our cars). it's really something to just take in stride and into consideration...

you can read about the cell phone thing here:
http://academic.udayton.edu/BradHume/phone/labor/mining.htm

sorry to stray so far from the original topic of diamonds! :P
 
#51
sputnik said:
but really diamonds are no worse than, say, cocoa, coffee, most of the staples we eat every day are grown in third world countries where labour is cheap and easily exploited, bought for **** prices and then sold for a huge profit in the west.
so if you're really concerned aobut conflict diamonds, you should also give up all food produced in developing countries (or fruit picked by exploited illegal immigrants in the US), stop wearing anything by the gap, american eagle, h&m, zara, etc.. any brand that makes its clothing in sweat shops in developing countries with shady labour laws and easily corrupted government officials.
Click to expand...

so true! ahhh and then today i read this depressing article about how gucci uses cheap "migrant" labor to make their handbags:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aoh_Sy6pJmkY
 
#52
I have read the articles as well as 6 or 8 books on the topic, hoping to dissuade myself from buying them. My mission failed; I love love love them. Isn't that terrible? Clearly I am a worse person than the ignorant buyer...
 
#53
Look, you can request primary authority from me to challenge my opinions on this subject, but I'm not going to waste my time. If you took Econ 101, then you can see my point. Period. It's a simple argument based on suppy and demand.

If you want to wear diamonds, then you have blood on your hands. It's pretty black and white to me; however, I also respect your opinion to put value on something that is otherwise totally worthless. And let's face it, no one has ever really cared about poor people of color in developing countries anyway.

Or else we'd be pissed about what happened in Guatemala, Iran, Angola, Cuba, Sierra Leone, Congo, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Iraq ... do I need to list more, because I've got more examples.
 
#54
azia said:
your intentions are well, but this is not an idealistic world we live in. are you saying the diamond business should simply be CUT OFF? that is well, nothing short of ridiculous. if there is a problem, do you just run, shut down and hope it goes away?
Click to expand...

I wonder what MLK, Jr would say about that ... I mean, do you advocate against boycott? It's a highly effective tool of protest movements across the world.

As an aside, I'm not trying to make enemies here, but rather simply to present my point of view. I have to apologize, since some of my posts may be very sensitive. I am not trying to offend anyone individually, but simply offer some food for thought ... lately it seems like we're intellectually starved in a certain global sense, you know?
 
#55
legaldiva, i see where you're coming from and it's no use to try to convince you that nothing NOTHING is black and white. when i was twelve, i became a complete vegetarian (i still am) and swore off jewelry. i read the book "when elephants weep" and "cry of the kalahari" and felt the same as you, that mining is morally wrong. i'm 34 now and see a lot more grey in life (or maybe you'd call it "selling out"). either way you seem to be idealistic and i'm happy for that. idealists can change the world. we'll agree to disagree and someday i hope you do create positive change for people without voices.
 
#56
legaldiva, you're certainly more than welcome to present your opinions on sensitive issues here, but you might want to watch your tone. no one here deserves to be talked down to, even if they don't agree with you.
 
#57
Legaldiva- Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you want people to listen to what you say, making passive-aggressive inflammitory remarks, is not going to help. Being able to defend your opinion with facts legitimizes what you are saying and makes others think about the basis of their own opinions. By insulting others, the path to communication is closed and the listener will never see your message.

You tell us it is a waste of time to defend your position but want to give food for thought? Your opinion is based on supply and demand, yet have not addressed alternate supply methods nor manufacturing issues of other consumer products. Demand will not change, so the next reasonable alternative is to change the method of supply.

What is your solution?
 
#58
legaldiva, i never said advocate against boycott. in fact, if you knew me in person, you'd laugh at your own words. to clarify, what i meant is, it's ridiculous to expect that an industry as large as this can just be cutt off. it's not a question of whether you WANT it to be cut off, but whether in reality, if it can. but anyways...

amanda and shiba, good points. i don't think i need to say more directly to legaldiva here. since she seems to not want to open her ears like she seems to wish others would. ;)

on that note, i don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere. the information is out there for people to see and i think by now, especially with the release of Blood Diamond the movie, most people know something of this situation. what people do with it has to be their own decision.
 
#59
I sincerely apologize for my tone, and that I have offended you. Certainly there is plenty of grey area in lots of issues. That, however, doesn't impact the way I personally feel about this issue.

My only concern in my last post is that requiring authority for my position is not a counter argument. It's a legitimate question, and I've been following this issue since I first started studying international relations about 10 years ago. It is not, however, a legitimate counter argument, so it's a "waste of time" to hunt down primary authority to support my position. I'm presenting my opinion, not trying to win a judgment.

Also, I'm lost as to which post of mine could be considered "talking down" or passive agressive infammatory "rhetoric." In fact, in more than one post I've apologized for my opinions, because people usually find this an extremely sensitive topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top