Bro have you considered that starving to death is actually okay?
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.
Divine power? What?
The point he’s trying—but failing—to make is to invoke the core underpinnig of American legal philosophy: that people intrinsically have rights as an aspect of their being, and that they grant their government limited authority to regulate rights in order to ensure that nobody’s rights get taken away or trampled on. Though the Declaration of Independence isn’t part of the Constitution, it’s useful rhetoric for understanding the legal philosophy of the United States, where everything I just said is phrased as:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed […]
He idiotically phrases this as “divine power” probably because of this passage, but the actual salient point is that laws and states simply do not possess the power to grant or bestow the rights that already exist independently of them.
It’s not that government doesn’t have the power to grant rights. It’s assumed by default that if the right wasn’t enumerated here (in the constitution) then it exists by default. None of that bars either the constitution (via amendment) or law (so long as it doesn’t contradict the constitution) from granting or conferring or even restricting/limiting rights (again as long as it doesn’t contradict the constitution). All done via the consent of the governed (ie via elected government). We seem to have forgotten we have the power to “perfect” our laws and governing document.
So he’s saying that governments don’t have the right to declare food a universal right?
Yes and incorrectly so.
How horribly concise
But they literally define which rights those are. There is no “natural” base, it’s just whichever they decided to protect (and often times even those are infringed upon)
A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, but the American constitution was actually written by god and passed down by Moses over 2000 years ago.
Happy 2024th birthday God Earth America!
Unfortunately, there seem to be plenty that actually think along this line.
Some Americans are indoctrinated to hate the government so much they forget that rights (despite what ever wording they use) are given and protected by the government
It means atheists don’t have any rights 👍
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.
(if genuine) isn’t, “I like the concept but I think your plan sucks and won’t work” a justifiable reason to say no?
It’s acquire bad reason imo. If anything, the resolution is very forgiving. It could literally pass and nothing absolutely change, yet they still chose to vote against it.
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.
Which is exactly what this UN resolution is about.
Which is what happens when you put the government in charge of your food. Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Hugo Chávez, among many others, all starved millions of people to death. Many Americans are scared to give the government too much power. Unfortunately, the government finds a way to seize that power anyway. I’m sure they’ll find a way to control the food supply. The only thing people can do is oppose it at every turn. Everything evil that the government does is cloaked in altruism, and compassion. Some people see through that cloak. It’s a shame that more people don’t see through it.
I’m amazed at how many people look at the US as an evil invading power, and then wonder why the American people don’t want to let the government take more control over their daily lives. We see what they are doing all over the world, and we sure as hell don’t want it here. The US government is filled with the most evil and corrupt people this society has to offer. The fact that anyone would support anything those bastards do, or want to do, is beyond me.
What about giving companies control of the food instead, as it is today? I’m sure that’s better. Companies have never done anything wrong, of course.
Lol
I think we need a sketch to lighten the mood: https://piped.video/LbcYVcli0mY
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.
This place is a reddit content tracking sub now? Why not just skip the step and directly use reddit again at that point.
Could you maybe unsubscribe from /c/Reddit if you don’t want to see content talking about Reddit?
Not subscribed. Saw it in all and found the reddit posting peculiar. Just found it interesting seeing it shift from sort of a reddit alternative guide section and state of api back in the day to now a reddit reposting sub.
Dude just block the channel
But then how would they get the chance to be a condescending prick ?
Is this really any different from the 4Chan, Twitter, and Tumblr posts you’d see on Reddit?
The internet is an ouroboros of content, where eventually all freely available content will end up everywhere.
Also, I don’t know if this works on Lemmy, but couldn’t you just block the sub-lemmy if you didn’t want to see it’s content on All? That’s what I do for KBin to stop seeing other language subs.
Was just making an observation of the shift, since it was interesting. But, yeah it does seem like a filter to add like ones for enough__spam or communities with Twitter in their name. I do block those. Already block the reddit repost bot and instance like lemmit. But ironic to me that one of the communities that was about trying to stop use of reddit now may be a reddit agregator providing direct reddit links now to provide traffic.
The irony isn’t lost on me, I’m just not surprised.
There are many communities that still only exist on Reddit, so inevitably someone will have to read Reddit to view those community’s content - thus the aggregators.
What I am surprised about is how quickly we started to get bot problems, but where there’s a demand for content, you’ll get bots I suppose. At least for now there’s fewer of them than on Reddit, which is nice.
It’s a post about Reddit attitudes in c/Reddit. What other kind of content would you expect here?
