Only USA and Israel voted no.

View attached image.
2 years ago

Comment has been collapsed.

Yay or Nay to make food a right?

View Results
Yay
Nay

Only in America are guns considered a right but food isn't. Insane.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

With enough guns and bullets you will never go hungry... After all violence is solution to everything and if not you aren't using enough.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Why eat food when you can just eat bullets?

View attached image.
2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

They look undercooked.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well... they don't give away free guns and I'm pretty sure they'll agree buying food is a right.
There's no free lunch though. It's just realism. Declaring "food is a right" is basically engaging yourself in providing said food for free to an unlimited amount of human beings, which is an impossible promise to keep. So from this picture, we can also say only USA and Israel didn't make a promise they can't keep.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're missing the point. Declaring food a right doesn't mean that everyone now had access to food but rather that they should always have access. Just like the German constitution says that, from a German law standpoint, everyone should have a right to their own wellbeing, (religious) freedom and whatnot (sorry, don't have the time to look up English translations of fancy words right now) but that doesn't mean that it's the case. Just from a law standpoint that it's recognised that everyone SHOULD have those rights. Similar thing here. No one is promising to handout lunch packages or end world hunger.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I get the idea, but then it sounds a bit vain and bureaucratic to pass a resolution saying "X is a right" if nothing is actually done to provide that right... Seems like a cheap attempt at getting free karma out of nothing.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I mean oh, yes. In an ideal world, actions should definitely follow these words. But alas...

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Implying something is a right doesn't mean the government needs to provide it for free for everyone, but could make it illegal to pay workers so little money they go hungry, per example.

And of course there is no free lunch, this is why usually people pay taxes. I pay my taxes for free healthcare, free colleges and cheap food, it's awesome.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh my god 🤦🏼‍♀️

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Israel really disappointed me this time.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, the UN disappoints Israel much more. Can't blame them.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you vote against, you are automatically categorized as cruel and ignorant - because who is so evil as to be against giving poor people food?
But the question is, what is really the practicality of this decision? Am I violating human rights if I eat a banana that a poor person on the other side of the world cannot afford?
I think we spend too much time on defining human rights, instead of asking ourselves what are our obligations as individuals, collectives or nations. If we invest more in being kind and generous etc instead of creating an endless money machine for organizations that are feeding their existence off of rich people's definitions for poverty and human rights - we would have probably been in a better place and with less hunger and poverty.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Actually, we are in a situation with way less hunger than ever before. So what exactly you mean with 'been in a better place'?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Correct, and that is mostly due to scientific innovations around bioengineering etc. Nevertheless, there is always better situations than what we have today... Millions of people around the world still experience hunger daily.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah no.
More people can actually buy their foods and they got less f* up by environmental hazards etc.
Scientific and bioengineering only helped a lot with money making.
Can't feed a super plant when you can't buy it. Can't harvest it, when it's dead.
Can't live from a super plant for 5 people, when you are 200.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Has anything changed as a result of this vote and have concrete actions been proposed to defeat hunger ?
Or is it another vote «for all the good» and «against all the bad» ?

On the territory of the former USSR, such a joke is common:«I have the right to eat - yes, I can - no»
(in Russian, the word «eat» and «have» is written and sounds the same, wordplay:
«У меня есть право есть - есть, я могу - нет»
)

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've been living in Russia for almost 50 years but never heard such a joke. Where did you pick it up, I wonder? That joke's as common as a giraffe in Antarctica.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Obviously this joke is so common that neither google nor yandex ever heard of it.
I didn't either. The phrase doesn't even sound syntactically correct in Russian, for that matter.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If they don't make this a right there won't be any food left. Just my two cents

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

e n l i g h t e n e d c e n t r i s m

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

what is this? a survey? who asked the questions, who were the representatives that spoke for each country?

i only did a little research, but as far as i can tell this is from 2017...

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

^^^^ people need to back things up with facts and websites. this is just whats trending right now

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Free speech and freedom are rights because those don't infringe on anybody else. My right to say what I want doesn't prohibit anyone else's. But making a resource a right would mean someone without food would have the right to take food from someone who has it, regardless of the circumstances. They have a right to food after all. This does nothing to put food into the hands of those who need it, it's just a UN circle jerk, with the worst offenders against human rights acting like they're such humanitarians because they're voting on the right side of history.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Brilliant perspective

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Hmmm... giving someone a right doesn't entitle them to commit a crime against someone else.
I have a right to work but if I don't have one, I can't kill someone who has a job to take their place. Your logic is nonsensical.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The idea itself is nice and I am all for the effort to end hunger, but I am not sure on the practical side of this result. What good comes of this?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Likely not too much like with rest of Human Rights. Like for example right for work...

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

No, because there is no practical possibility to execute this right. It's just a nice thing to say. I think a lot more should be spent to combat global hunger, but "food is a right" won't put food on the tables of poor Southern children

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is as practical and possible as trying to end stupidity.
After this becomes a right, how will it be enforced? What will be the penalty? Who will foot the bill?
I only see more purposefully jobless people refusing work because they now have a right to food...of all things. Those that need it...really need it won't ever get to exercise this right.
I would rather they make education a right and teach common sense.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Stupidity should be illegal - or downright painful.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Japan did not follow its ally, the U.S., because of its "starvation" culture...
If you have experienced hunger in the past, you would think so.
Or if you have been taught the history of hunger, you would agree.
But what if you have not been taught the history of hunger?
Or what if hunger is an ongoing problem?

I think that's where the answer lies.
Hunger in the United States - Wikipedia
2016 pdf
It said that Israel has the highest rate of hunger in the developed world.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"or what if hunger is an ongoing problem?"
as covid is?
Wait we have a trick! Edible mask will save the world

View attached image.
2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

img?👀 Hmm....

Melonpan - Wikipedia 🍈😷

The one in the image probably looks like this.

There is also a variety called muskmelon(Cucumis melo), so the image looks like it was mounted as a pun on those.
However, it seems to have been taken in South Korea, not Japan.


By the way, if I get too hungry, I'll probably go out looking for bad humans.
Don't think about what that means.😋

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 1 year ago.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm all for Soylent Green why waste precious resources?

View attached image.
2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Considering what most people put in their body on a daily basis, from nicotine to McDonalds, I'm not sure they fall under the Organic label.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Organic really just means carbon-based. ;)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Heh I was just being facetious but you're totally right. And hell, Nicotine is carbon based too, right? ;)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think a lot of people are missing the point. Human rights are not defined to make things automatic and enforce some kind of care bear global communist system.
The point of UN defined human rights is to make it possible to sanction governments which make laws that go against these rights.

Liberty is a human right as defined by the UN. It doesn't mean people can't go to jail.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you. It's good to see someone who actually understands.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My girlfriend is a human rights lawyer so let me tell you I have no choice lol
She won't let up on me until I get the whole thing ;)

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And the participants of the UN Human Rights council make people go to jail? Look at the participants current and past.
Most of them are anti Human Rights and want to keep you defenseless.
Please try to understand.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The point of UN defined human rights is to make it possible to sanction governments which make laws that go against these rights

You mean in case a government decides to pass a low that forbids its citizens to eat? I guess I get your point then, but... is this really a realistic risk :s

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Not for the majority of citizens no. But genocide by starvation is not completely out of the question in some countries which routinely cut roads to prevent aid from going to regions where they have political opponents or revolutionary movements. Or starve prisoners.

I wish it was completely unrealistic and it should be. I guess that's what the vote was for. But hoping to change that through UN defined human rights is not exactly realistic either.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for being the voice of reason in this topic. So many posts from people who probably misunderstand the role of the UN in general and the role of these kind of declarations.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

To be fair, it's sometimes puzzling to understand what exactly the UN does or what they are hoping to achieve.
I still believe that it's better than nothing, toothless as it is.

And look, if anything, it does create a debate about the issue, even in remote corners of the internet like our humble abode so that's something already.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Members
Past and present, alot countries looking out for their own citizens well-being, No?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm struggling to figure out what you mean.
That's a lot of countries, to be sure, and it's just as well.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Half of them have been called out for Human right abuses.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's why it's important they are there. The people abusing human rights are most likely not the ones on the council. They represent their countries and these countries need to be part of the conversation on rights.
I know it sometimes look like we are not going anywhere with the UN or even that they sometimes make things worse (Rwanda anyone?) but we definitely wouldn't make a difference if the council on human rights was a bunch of countries lecturing everyone else.

For all the UN hasn't achieved, we don't know what we would have if it wasn't there at all.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ahh the UN, when was the last time they can actually solve any major problem?

Israeli Occupation?
Cambodia Violence?
Srebrenica Massacre?
Iraq invasion?
Syrian civil war?
Rohingya Crisis?
The Uyghurs?

They can't do shit, because they don't have any forcing power.

Now world hunger?

Remember when the UN suggest Elon Musk donate 2% of his wealth to "solve world hunger"?
Elon challenged them back to give him a detailed plan on how $6.6 billion can "solve world hunger",
and the UN replied with this plan.

Will it help people in need? Yes
But will it solve world hunger? Definitely not.

It will only postpone the problem. Once the food supply sent is depleted, they will need more because they can't sustain themselves.
The solution is more complex than just giving them food.

Why they are on the brink of famine in the first place?
How can we help them make a self-sustainable system that can solve their food need?

I guess that's is more the answer that Elon is looking for.
And because the UN doesn't have any forcing power, it will be extremely difficult for them to do that.

After making food a basic right, then what?
How will they enforce that?

But I hope that I'm wrong and they can actually make the world a better place.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well said.
UN strikes me as the kind of organization you would see in Hollywood movies; ran by people who speak about human rights all the time, but those people themselves might be running underground torture chambers lol (jk, actually maybe not jk). The only real use of the UN is to support certain known countries in conveniently conducting their agendas wherever suitable, using human rights,

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

underground torture chamber xD

Yeah with the system they have right now, it will benefit a certain country that can manipulate vote with its ally.
But I guess that is what diplomatic stuff is all about.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just look at who sits on the UN Human Rights panel. Past and current.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Bureaucrats never changed the world, that's for sure.
Sometimes you have to start somewhere though and any step from anyone in any direction is a step.

I don't believe the idea is to enforce food for everyone.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yep, I agree.
It's not a bad idea but still won't change much.

As a big international organization, I personally would expect the UN to do so much more.
Not just making petitions, laws, etc. as a gimmick, but also doing a concrete step to move forward.

With their resources, they can do better.
But again, with their current situation, without forcing power, they can't do much.
Even I think the UN Chief (or ex, I forgot) also said in an interview, that the UN doesn't have the force power which limits their capabilities in solving major world problems.

2 years ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As a big international organization, I personally would expect the UN to do so much more.

Sad but true. But as a world coalition, it's sadly blocked by the same issues that plague the world and the countries who are spending the most to fund what little the UN does are the ones calling the agenda.

Even I think the UN Chief (or ex, I forgot) also said in an interview, that the UN doesn't have the force power which limits their capabilities in solving major world problems.

Yeah "peace through cooperation" can't replace a good kick in the butt but hey we haven't had a global conflict since nukes have been all over the world so maybe at least it helps to talk, I don't know.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah, I couldn't believe the gall of the UN to put forth that "plan" in response to Elon's requirement for open source information and detail on how the money would be used. It's either ballsy of the UN or a complete detachment from reality.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

t's either ballsy of the UN or a complete detachment from reality.

Unfortunately I bet on the latter. Or maybe both

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/gashc4336.doc.htm

While this draft resolution acknowledges such hardships, it also contains unbalanced and inaccurate positions that the United States cannot support. She expressed concern that the concept of food sovereignty could justify food protectionism, which will have negative consequences for food security. The United States does not recognize the right to food, which does not have a definition in international law.

Well, while it does sound funny, maybe we should firstly look at what the propositions for this "right for food" was. While I dont doubt US could refuse a valid suggestion maybe we should first look at the proposition itself. UN is pretty much a joke and it wouldnt be a surprise if US vote against it could be based. How about not making uneducated guesses to stir up arguments ?

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If liberty and human rights have to be (re-)defined by a global organisation, they can also be dictated by that global organisation.
When common sense is over-ruled by a legal hierarchy, then the basic premise of any inherent freedom is undermined.

As far as I can tell, too many countries are just sheep... agreeing with a document with just enough loopholes and jargon to cloud over the real agenda they're likely wanting to roll out over time.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If liberty and human rights have to be (re-)defined by a global organisation, they can also be dictated by that global organisation.
When common sense is over-ruled by a legal hierarchy, then the basic premise of any inherent freedom is undermined.

UN is criticized for being completely toothless all the time so I don't think you have much to fear on that front. Liberty and human rights are governed by laws in most countries though, not by common sense. Lawlessness might be the ultimate freedom but I'm a softie so I'll take my more secure lesser freedoms.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm talking about "legalising" of freedom.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If the UN itself can grow and provide food for every single person on Earth for free, then I am all for it. Gimme the free gibs. If it costs too much, then I am also for each employee doing so without getting salaries until every person is fed.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It wouldn't be the first time a title of a bill or resolution was tailored for propaganda purposes rather than as an accurate summary of the same.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Food, water and a roof should be a right.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

People not having access to food has nothing to do with whether or not it's labeled a right by the UN. It's a matter of not having the money and resources to buy food. Even if it's a right who's going to pay for it?

Now instead of paying all these people at the UN big salaries to do meaningless things like this, that money was put towards the provision of food... nah then these righteous UN people wouldn't have their BMWs and Mercedes and fancy houses and those are their "rights".

Meanwhile dumb people on the internet will parrot along "yeah bro it's a right yo look at me SJW!"

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just shoveling money at buying food provisions is absolutely useless.
While I agree UN should use the money more towards fixing problems instead of pushing bureaucracy and feeding their own pockets, nothing would be fixed if we diverted that money to buying the food.

The problem needs to be fixed at the core. Shoveling money at a temporary fix just increases the problem in the long run. What would be the solution ? I dont know. Is there something that can be done to fix it ? I dont know... But simply buying and giving out food only puts off famine temporarily. Are we going to constantly go and beg every millionaire to donate so we can feed the starving population ? And this is most likely why US opposes this - it probably is one huge virtue signaling without any actual problem solutions.

But I agree that by simply labeling it a "right" means absolutely jack shit. I mean slavery is abolished but we still see it alive and well in 21st century and UN somehow are blind to the fact because money.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is, as most UN resolutions are, a non-binding, symbolical, completely bureaucratic, virtue-signaling vote.
US and Israel were the only countries not to fall into nonsense by approving a resolution that changes nothing, and puts no food on anybodys table.
"The regular United Nations budget for the 2018/2019 biennium, approved by the 73rd session of the General Assembly on 22 December 2018, amounts to 5.811 billion US dollars, inclusive of all supplements."
That money could be spent developing agriculture, more resistant crops, irrigation systems, education, etc. That would feed people. Instead, most of it is big salaries for bureaucrats, plane tickets, symbolic votings and discussion that solve nothing and lead nowhere.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Does this include suborganizations too? Because while UNO is a toothless organization that does nothing, some of their children (like UNESCO) do good things actually

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Think of all the despotic nations that voted yes. I'm sure they're committed to resolving hunger in even their own countries. Complete joke.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 2 years ago.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This is from almost 5 years ago, why are you posting it now as if it were "news?"

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was more interested in what people from the website had to say. Didn't really mean to present it as news.

2 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.