1284

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 195 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world 91 points 5 months ago

we destroy excess food. hire armed thugs to keep people moving into empty shelter.

that's what your taxes are for.

[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

Grapes of Wrath was required reading for me in both middle and high school. I don't understand how more Americans aren't aware of the inhuman actions taken by corporate interests to secure profit.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 47 points 5 months ago

This is something that's starting to get to me.

For the last 30 years EVERY excuse that has been made about America's inhumane corporate toadying has been utter empty and meaningless bullshit but everyone just pretends it's real words.

I mean the justifications for things like denying children free breakfast aren't even rational on the surface, even without going into it.

But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like 'It'll prevent them from being independent' is even close to being a rational statement when we are talking about seven year olds that get all of their food given to them ANYWAY?!

I don't understand how as a country we have gotten to the point that words literally have no meaning anymore but it is going to take us to a dark place very quickly.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 129 points 5 months ago

In this country

We believe

Guns are a right

Food is not

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 58 points 5 months ago
[-] Brickhead92@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

Let them eat guns!

-Marie AR15ntoinette

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 13 points 5 months ago

Can't afford food? Eat a bullet pleb!

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The United States
We believe guns are a right
Food is luxury

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 14 points 5 months ago

Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Bootlickers, all the same: America.

Land of the fee home of the billionaire.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pyre@lemmy.world 117 points 5 months ago

imagine voting against food.

some people really miss the guillotines

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 78 points 5 months ago

Russia: sure

China: okay

North Korea: all right

USA: NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social 62 points 5 months ago

Capitalism 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.

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 58 points 5 months ago

I 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.

[-] Pandantic@midwest.social 51 points 5 months ago
[-] uservoid1@lemmy.world 50 points 5 months ago

The actual 2002-12-18 vote: Yes: 176 | No: 1 | Abstentions: 7 | Non-Voting: 7 | Total voting membership: 191

UNITED STATES was the only No

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/482533

[-] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 56 points 5 months ago

The map is for the 2021 vote, not the 2002 vote.

[-] Slayer@infosec.pub 33 points 5 months ago
[-] uservoid1@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

Right, the vote for 2021-12-16 were: Yes: 186 | No: 2 | Abstentions: | Non-Voting: 5 | Total voting membership: 193

ISRAEL, UNITED STATES were the only No

https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3951462

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's what the post says

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 13 points 5 months ago

Ok ok, this vote was over 20 years ago. Not that I think the result would be different if it was held now.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Ixoid@lemm.ee 44 points 5 months ago

Shithole countries

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 44 points 5 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 39 points 5 months ago

This is an "are we the baddies?" Moment for the USA.

USA! USA! USA!

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

What's the rationale from the US? Where's the ruling?

[-] 2pt_perversion@lemmy.world 70 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The resolution said some stuff about pesticides the US didn't like.

The resolution encroached on other trade agreements the US would rather pursue.

The US doesn't want to transfer technology and wants to keep its own IP rights.

The US doesn't want extraterritorial obligations that the language of the resolution suggests. It thinks all countries should manage their own shit internally.

The US claimed that it domestically supports the right to food and promotes policies to further that goal but doesn't want it to be an enforceable obligation. (Pretty language that basically says the US doesn't think food should actually be an international right.)

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

Now see, that's all more reasonable.

The US is evil and wrong here, don't get me wrong, but it's much more understandable than some cartoon villain esque reason people were speculating on.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

Except if US really supported the right to food, domestically, then wellfare benefits and minimum wage would be higher, Price controls would be in place for staple foods, and there would be more regulation on food safety.

US just doesnt like being told what to do, and will adamantly do the exact opposite of any good if anyone but Muricuh suggests it.

because whats a bunch of malnourished babies and driving people to crime for basic necessities, compared to FrEeDuMb

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] radicalautonomy@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

The United States is such a monstrous entity. Fuck this entire country. Someone hurry up and start the Second American Revolution, I'm fucking tired of this shithole.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1284 points (100.0% liked)

tumblr

3624 readers
599 users here now

Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.

  4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.

  5. No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.


Sister Communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS