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.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    3 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 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

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, unfortunately this seems to be the take with many resolutions. The U.S. doesn’t even want the possibility of being compelled to do something.

    • smb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Now see, that’s all more reasonable.

      That is only “more reasonable” when you ignore the reality that “disliking some parts” of a resolution usually is followed by not voting, but they explicitly voted against thus made any argument why they did not vote ‘for’ that right a clearly undenieable lie.

      maybe the world should follow their vote to the point, those countries voting against should be prevented from receiving food from other countries for free, especially fishing industry that rips off resources on the open seas or near other countries should be physically stopped with force if they come from or go to the countries that voted against a right for food for everyone. That would only be reasonable as they explicitly wanted such a right to not exist, thus it should be explicitly removed in practice from them too. The countries who voted for a right for food then just put a freely increaseable tax on every gram(!) of food exported to those countries that don’t want food to be a right for everyone. And then the against voters can have what their wish they explicitly voted for. i like that idea: those who don’t want food as a right, shouldn’t have that right then. period.

      The US is evil and wrong

      +1

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Now see, that’s all more reasonable.

      Ehhh it’s really just thinly vieled excuses. Hopefully having a VP who enacted universal free school meals changes things a bit (and current polling shows a really strong chance he’ll be the VP in 5 months)

    • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Honestly Lemmy mainstream, biggest comms are pretty damn stupid already. It’s all infinite outrage fest or exhausting doomerism.

      In much more advanced stage than any area of internet I have seen.