this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
1253 points (96.2% liked)

tumblr

3356 readers
4 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] [email protected] 192 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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

that's what your taxes are for.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

For anyone who actually wants to know, here is the U.S. Explanation of Vote on the Right to Food

For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.

Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.

We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.

Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.

Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.

Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow

"We're fighting to protect John Deere profits..."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 130 points 2 months ago (5 children)

In this country

We believe

Guns are a right

Food is not

[–] [email protected] 59 points 2 months ago (8 children)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Let them eat guns!

-Marie AR15ntoinette

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 117 points 2 months ago

imagine voting against food.

some people really miss the guillotines

[–] [email protected] 78 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Can we talk about what defining things like this as a "right" means?

Otherwise voting to call it a "right" seems super performative. What's the consequence of making this a right?

[–] [email protected] 115 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What’s the consequence of making this a right?

Just for starters, it implies certain acts intended to deliberately deprive people of access to food constitute a crime. So embargos of regions like Cuba, Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and North Korea would be de facto illegal under international law.

Of course, then you have to start asking questions like "What does it mean to be in violation of international law when the ICJ is so toothless?" But that's the UN for you. Issuing generally progressive proclamations through a general assembly while a handful of economic heavyweights get to decide how it all gets enforced.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Russia: sure

China: okay

North Korea: all right

USA: NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 61 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago

Shithole countries

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 months ago

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

USA! USA! USA!

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 70 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

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.)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (11 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago

How is it reasonable at all? The US throws out enough food per year to feed the entire world. They could easily do this, they just don't want to because they're evil and would rather make money than feed people.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Stop exporting to red lands and see how long it takes to reverse course

[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The US can survive without exports, they have a shit ton of natural resources and industry... but Israel, oh they're definitely gone. Israel will be Isfaek in no time

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The wordplay took waay too long for me to pick up on.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (13 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 58 points 2 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 33 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's what the post says

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (11 children)

Israel is the US's puppet

Oh honey

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

You know these ventriloquism-routines where the puppet makes the puppeteer talk with it's voice?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Surely Americans above anyone else would want guaranteed access to food? Imagine them going a day without a hamburger?

(I'm poking fun, not being serious)

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago (4 children)

its easy to go a day without a hamburger, those are chicken nuggy days

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago

This is America, land of the free - as in you are free to fuck off and die, here's your bill. Capitalism won't allow for equitable distribution of basic resources because then line don't go up. We live in hell and claim it's a privilege, and I hate it.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›