Well that was predictable
Well that was predictable
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still -- when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
Their reasons will not be valid, I'm not going to even entertain reading them.
We make more food than we consume on this planet—in the absence of scarcity, food security is obviously a human right, it's aggressively malignant to be against this.
Whilst we're at it, shelter is a human right too, we have several times more empty houses than homeless people in most developed nations—that's fucked.
194imagine voting against food.
some people really miss the guillotines
118Capitalism invents scarcity where it doesn't already exist in the name of wealth.
If the authority declares food a right, it complicates the artificial scarcity required to profiteer.
Next up, air and water.
61I was struggling to believe this. I mean Turkey, China, North Korea, really? But yeah, I read a little about the reasoning on a .gov website, but there was a lot of, let's just say language there. Someone on stack exchange broke it down and regrettably the reasons aren't good. Mostly it was along the lines of, if people just decided to stop working, we don't want to have to provide them with food or it would infringe upon our intellectual property if we were forced to help others with their right to food. It would also did into our food profits. So yeah... Shit.
56
50Shithole countries
42This is an "are we the baddies?" Moment for the USA.
USA! USA! USA!
38The actual 2002-12-18 vote: Yes: 176 | No: 1 | Abstentions: 7 | Non-Voting: 7 | Total voting membership: 191
UNITED STATES was the only No
22Time to block the access to food for every single politician who voted against until they change their vote.
4I was about to say this smells like disinformation. Cherry picking a more nuanced issue? Unfair portrayal since the USA may face the most significant consequences? Maybe. But ultimately, it still seems to boil down to shareholder primacy and US agricultural lobbies (my interpretation). That’s heartbreaking and everything that is wrong with the world currently.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
2Permanently Deleted
1Everything has value in, and of itself. It isn't not my place to care about every sentient thing in reality. If being practical is being fuct, then that's me. Have fun caring about everything you can't do anything about. When you have a fight worth fighting, I'll sign up again. In the mean time I agree with everything you say. Whatever that's worth.
-31Not really. You have to wonder about countries that think it's ok to reward people with the work of others for doing... What again? Just existing? Seems like free food leads to confined circumstances. That is something the US knows all too well. The US currently gives food away simply because you exist. Guess what that, without competent education, has led to. Drug epidemics, mass poverty, mass murder, and partridge in a pair tree. Them that work, eat.
-60