Lots of cringeworthy American exceptionalism and nationalism in that thread. I especially like this one:

It doesn't, all of these countries have different definitions on what "Rights" are, most of their constitutions don't even define a right in the context of a divine power as the United States does, most countries actually believe its the government's job to assign what rights its people are allowed.

It takes an impressive amount of baseless self confidence to speak with such certainty, yet with such ignorance, not only about other countries but your own country as well.

US official reasoning from 2020, copied below. But here's the link

This resolution rightfully acknowledges the hardships millions of people are facing, and importantly calls on States to support the emergency humanitarian appeals of the UN. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies that will have negative consequences for food security, sustainability, and income growth. Improved access to local, regional, and global markets helps ensure food is available to the people who need it most and smooths price volatility. Food security depends on appropriate domestic action by governments, including regulatory and market reforms, that is consistent with international commitments.

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,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

For these reasons, we request a vote and we will vote against this resolution.

Bro have you considered that starving to death is actually okay?

It's okay if it's your own personal choice. But not okay if someone else is making that choice for you.

I think we have an ethical obligation to help others. Being against forcing someone to do something at gun point doesn't necessarily mean I don't want that something done.

It's pretty disingenuous to claim being against a government provision means someone is in favor of the opposite.