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.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    0·
    28 days ago

    Time to block the access to food for every single politician who voted against until they change their vote.

  • Canis_76@feddit.nl
    0·
    28 days ago

    Everything has value in, and of itself. It isn’t not my place to care about every sentient thing in reality. If being practical is being fuct, then that’s me. Have fun caring about everything you can’t do anything about. When you have a fight worth fighting, I’ll sign up again. In the mean time I agree with everything you say. Whatever that’s worth.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      0·
      28 days ago

      Have fun caring about everything you can’t do anything about.

      Isn’t that what you’re doing right now? Caring about the opinions of others that you won’t change?

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      0·
      28 days ago

      We produce more food than we can eat in the US alone. We export a lot of it and throw another 40% directly in to the garbage.

      Food is scarce only because there’s money in making it scarce. It doesn’t have to be, and it shouldn’t be.

  • Canis_76@feddit.nl
    0·
    28 days ago

    Not really. You have to wonder about countries that think it’s ok to reward people with the work of others for doing… What again? Just existing? Seems like free food leads to confined circumstances. That is something the US knows all too well. The US currently gives food away simply because you exist. Guess what that, without competent education, has led to. Drug epidemics, mass poverty, mass murder, and partridge in a pair tree. Them that work, eat.

    • Natanael@slrpnk.net
      0·
      28 days ago

      Fun fact, universal basic income leads to more people improving their lives and getting educated, working better jobs, reducing homelessness, and strengthening the job market, etc.

      That’s more than just free food! And yet it reduces all the bad things you blame on free stuff!

      • Canis_76@feddit.nl
        0·
        28 days ago

        Then they should have talked about universal basic income. You gotta dig deeper than that. I’m responding to the bait that I saw. And UBI reduces all of the bag things for drones. Who’s paying for this again? Btw, I grew up in it, and fought my way out. The depressing truth is that if the situation you are in isn’t enough motivation to get yourself out, then I have to believe that you don’t want to get out. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I’m not saying that we don’t get out heads, and hearts stepped on by all the crabs wearing timberland boots over here. The tendency ought to be to look to our own, as opposed to others. Others keep us in bag life situations. They didn’t put us there. Out own did that. All of this is general stuff. Something for nothing isn’t a lifestyle I can abide.

        • Denjin@lemmings.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          Get a load of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire over here. He’s currently pulling him self up by his bootstraps good and proper right now and those proles can f off if they think they can get their unwashed hands on his (future) money.

        • Womdat10@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          0·
          28 days ago

          So, first off, what exactly is the most important thing people buy? It’s food, and it’d water. So free food is the next best thing after universal basic income, and is in itself a form of universal income. Second, you say that it’s not rich people and corporations that put us into this situation, and I just want to know where you got this idea, because it’s not poor people who established a capitalist society, or artificially inflated the price of basic needs, causing people to give up less necessary items because they couldn’t afford both housing and food. It’s also not poor people who decided that the minimum wage shouldn’t be livable. All of those things where done by rich people who were born into the right families and didn’t work for a single day in their lives. So tell me again how this is poor people’s fault?

      • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        28 days ago

        …what?

        I don’t agree with the comment you are responding to, but they’re not talking about teachers not getting paid they’re talking about reward for not doing anything, and that reward having to come from somewhere (workers who pay their taxes). Asking if teachers get paid doesn’t work here, they’re paid by the taxpayers but that has nothing to do with having a fundamental right to something (the US offers a public education as a right to all citizens). Teachers don’t have a fundamental right to a teaching job.

        • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          0·
          28 days ago

          I think the point being made is this :- teachers find a job. Then they teach. They produce the product (knowledge) which is given to kids and teenagers.

          Kids and teenagers do not pay for this. They go to school (up to a given age) for free. And everyone seems happy with this point of view. Education is a right.

          And sure – teachers don’t have a fundamental right to a teaching job, but that isn’t the point. The point is kids have a fundamental right to the product the teachers make – knowledge.

        • dwalin@lemmy.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          Food is not a reward, its a basic necessity.

          And having a right to food does not mean the US to pay for everything just like the US does not pay for education on the rest of the world.

          And ecucation IS a human right because its inscribed in the list of human rights recognized by the UN and approved by the US.

    • snail_hunter@programming.dev
      0·
      28 days ago

      Not starving to death is not a “reward” and judging ones worth by their ability to provide labor is a disgusting point of view.

    • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      0·
      28 days ago

      Friend, I’m sorry but you’re fucked up in the head.

      Ask yourself the question: does human life have value by itself? (independent of everything, including age, race, employment, etc).

      If your answer is yes, then every human life should be protected, and we as a society need to be organised in a way that provides the minimum necessities for survival (like food, water, etc). This is what the whole world, except the US, just said.

      On the other end, what you’re saying is that life in itself is worthless and that value is given by some other factor (like being employed). This means that, until proven otherwise, everyone is disposable. If you think through the implications of this, you’ll realize you can do whatever to them - kill them on the spot, harvest their organs, cut them to pieces to feed your pigs, … Is this the world you want to live in?

      For the sake of completeness, let’s explore the implications of #1, where people get “money for nothing”. What’s usually tested is giving people just enough money to cover their most basic needs. Would some people stop working, if they didn’t have to worry about starving? I’m sure some would. But would you?

      Because I, for one, like to be able to afford my luxuries, and will keep working to not give them up.

      • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        0·
        28 days ago

        Let’s go another way with this.

        I don’t know if you have any kids or not – this is entirely hypothetical. But I have discovered people think more about a topic the less abstract it is.

        You have two kids, aged 4 and 5. Then you get hit by an asteroid that kills you. No one else can take them in.

        Wouldn’t you like for the state to look after them? To at least give them food, water, shelter and care until they grow up until they are eighteen? To do all this whether they can earn their way or not? To do it just because it is the right thing to do?

        Not because they believe the kids will pay them back or be worth something when they grow up, but because they believe the kids have worth now simply because they are living, sentient human beings?

        Or would you rather that your kids are left out on the street to die? forced to make their own way in the world at the age of 4 and 5? that they will only be fed if they can show they have worth?

        Just curious.

        • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          Thats actually an interesting train of thought imo.
          I personally believe every person that is, or will be in the future, a valuable part of society should get access to social help. Be it food, basic income, housing etc etc.
          I got this believe because i myself came from a poor family, with my mom basically raising 5 very difficult children on her own. However, all 5 of us became very valuable people in society. One is product manager, another is cto, another is data centre engineer etc etc.
          Without the social support we would never have gotten there.

          I believe in those principals because i believe those people should be supported so they can flourish or help humankind as a whole.

          What you said explains perfectly why i feel this way haha

          • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
            0·
            28 days ago

            Your example here has the nuance of future expectation, however. You’re stating that taking care of the children is an investment, not just something done because they are human beings and should be treated as such. Gabe on the other hand is saying simply that it is the right thing to do, regardless of where the kids’ lives lead down the road.

            • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
              0·
              28 days ago

              I know, and i understand the difference.

              Before you read on, remember this is a view from a european guy who has known social support. I am not american, and the american way of being all on your own, with your own devices disgusts me tbh.
              Im not saying taking care of children is an investment per-se, that is a must. They need to be taken care of, period. My argument for making it sound like an investment, besides basic human need, is one created to counter those that dont believe that and think of them as a waste of time and energy.
              I see childeren in need as a hope, a potential for humanity to become better. Those that have known trouble and being poor are special, they have the potential. And yes, maybe you can see that as an investment, but please consider it an investment into humanity itself, and most certainly not an economic investment!

              What i will confess, is that this changes for me, when we are talking about adults. Things, and situations somebody is in, are very complex things as we in a world with infinite possibilities and infinite different type of people. There is like that 0.1% of human adults that would abuse the system, make it worse for everyone because they dont know or can do better in their lives. Ive grown up around such people and i consider them … Not worth it. however, those people who spoil it should not ever ruin it for the others that want it, need it. A person that can not get basic needs fulfilled should always have the option to get support. Rules can be put in place for adults, yes, but the option should be there and a person should never be put on the street with nothing.

              • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
                0·
                27 days ago

                I appreciate the further clarification. I apologize if I put your example in a vacuum and projected solely that upon you. I think we’re both pretty much on the same page regarding this, so don’t really have anything more to add at this point. Cheers :)

              • Gabe Bell@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                0·
                27 days ago

                Ditto.

                I am also from Europe (the UK specifically) and whether someone is going to be the best person in the whole history of humanity or (for want of a better phrase) the most idle, useless wastrel known to humankind I still believe they deserve the basic support of the welfare system, and shouldn’t be left to starve to death on the streets. Because what does it say about a society that does that to someone?

                You don’t help someone for a reward, or for what you will get out of them, you help them because they are a human being who needs help.

                And if you need a better reason (because clearly some people do) you help them because if you were in that situation you hope someone would help you.

                • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  27 days ago

                  Because what does it say about a society that does that to someone?

                  I just wanted to single this sentence out right here, in agreement with you. The whole purpose of living in a society is taking care of one another. Those who are able should do what they can for those who cannot. They too someday will no longer be able bodied and thus require help themselves. I feel like so many people are just so shortsighted to even see the point. It’s sad, really.

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    0·
    28 days ago

    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.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      0·
      28 days ago

      This is something that’s starting to get to me.

      For the last 30 years EVERY excuse that has been made about America’s inhumane corporate toadying has been utter empty and meaningless bullshit but everyone just pretends it’s real words.

      I mean the justifications for things like denying children free breakfast aren’t even rational on the surface, even without going into it.

      But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like ‘It’ll prevent them from being independent’ is even close to being a rational statement when we are talking about seven year olds that get all of their food given to them ANYWAY?!

      I don’t understand how as a country we have gotten to the point that words literally have no meaning anymore but it is going to take us to a dark place very quickly.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        0·
        28 days ago

        I don’t understand how as a country we have gotten to the point

        I hate to inject politics, but this is very much state by state and locale by locale. NOT “as a country”.

        Take the recent issue with summer lunch program for school kids. As far as I know, it was no strings attached free money from the federal government, yet some states used it and some didn’t, and pretty much on party lines. This is not a singular example, but repeated over and over: how are basic rights turned into political posturing at the expense of citizens?

        • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          Repugnicans have been obstructionists so long, they don’t really know how to do anything other than get frothingly angry at non-issues. Probably some of them were angry that it benefited the poor.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        0·
        27 days ago

        But FUCKING PEOPLE just nod their head like ‘It’ll prevent them from being independent’ is even close to being a rational statement

        I suspect that whole line of reasoning is in service of, and/or a consequence of, this country’s aversion to giving people help they didn’t “earn” or don’t “deserve.” I can hear the conservative relatives now… “yeah it’s just $1.50 to feed a kid each day, but that’s another couple hundred dollars in their welfare mom’s crack budget for the year, and WE shouldn’t pay for that!”

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      0·
      28 days ago

      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.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          Well yeah that’s the thing, a treaty isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) be a vague “helping people is good and being mean is bad”

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        0·
        28 days ago

        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…”

      • pingveno@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        27 days ago

        The text is here

        I started looking into this further and the tweet is misleading. To start with, the graphic is totally inaccurate. This was a vote by the UN Human Rights Council, not the full general assembly. The US was the only country that voted against, with one abstaining. Israel wasn’t involved. It’s also worth emphasizing that the right to food has been established in other international agreements, which the text cites extensively and the US justification refers to near the end.

        Edit: I was somewhat incorrect on the vote, there was a later general assembly vote, which the Instagram account that created this links to. However, their effort to imply that the US somehow hates people being fed is still misleading.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        0·
        28 days ago

        Some of these seem quite valid, but I really hope “intellectual property” isn’t the real reason. Poorly written regulations are too easily invalidated or ignored, so the feedback to “stay in your lane” seems important. However our corporate masters should not be able to dictate the basic right to food

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      27 days ago

      As a US citizen, it is a point of great shame that we have so many struggling to eat enough (and/or healthily enough), as well as pay their medical bills.

      We are a nation with great influence and military might, but the richest Americans are often a direct reflection for what this nation as a whole truly is… It’s a wealthy place that doesn’t take care of its own citizens.

        • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
          0·
          28 days ago

          it’s (mostly) not about government subsidies anymore; it’s about supply and demand being entirely uncoupled. I would put the blame far more firmly at the hands of edward bernaise and lee atwater.

          remember; we do this with clothes and toys and literally every product.

          • tektite@slrpnk.net
            0·
            27 days ago

            Worked at a job that aggressively destroyed unsold product to the point that we had a form to fill out and needed a witness to sign it.

            Coworker and I “witnessed” each other “pulverizing” stuffed toys by passing them along to needy children orgs and “dumpstering” other products in thrift store donation bins.

            Fuck their “brand integrity” when they’re throwing out perfectly good products to make room for more crap people don’t need.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              0·
              27 days ago

              absolutely. this shit is unforgivable. the only cure is the guillotine. not just killing them, but doing it publically, showing anyone who would ever do this shit again that we ALL want them dead, and nobody will save them, nobody will come to their defense, because they do good for nobody.

      • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
        0·
        28 days ago

        Grapes of Wrath was required reading for me in both middle and high school. I don’t understand how more Americans aren’t aware of the inhuman actions taken by corporate interests to secure profit.

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            0·
            28 days ago

            I don’t think its that simple, some of them will have it sink in later in life.

            Instead I think its more that we have been so conditioned by visual media that books no longer have the impact that they used to. Now it’s movies and music that fill that role of cultural transmission. Just unfortunately the bandwidth on those mediums is terrible compared to the written word.

            • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
              0·
              28 days ago

              okay but I watched “the matrix” before high school, and that film is literally just an essay on situationism (an anarchist philosophy of the hyperobject of capitalism) with some kung fu and crypto-trans-positivity mixed in.

              so clearly the medium is not the problem here.

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                0·
                27 days ago

                Sure The Matrix profoundly affected some people but not for long and it didn’t create any shifts in society other than now some people had the delusion they were actually in the matrix.

                On the other hand there have been several books that many claim to be pivotal in great world events.

                It’s not that the medium is the problem, it’s that 1) Movies are made for profit, not to transform culture, and 2) Our culture is far to diverse for any one symbol set to be universal the way old Greek plays were.

                Also, the trans positivity wouldn’t have been crypto of the fucking studio didn’t shit themselves over Switch. They were the coolest aesthetic in the show and it is a fucking tragedy how they killed them off. I’m pretty sure leaving Switch’s full story in would have got me thinking about what it means to be an ally a decade earlier.

                But the shitcase studio was worried that such an (at the time) outrageous thing would kill their profit (it wouldn’t have).

                Which is why we can’t trust Hollywood to make our myths and gods.

                • primrosepathspeedrun@lemmy.world
                  0·
                  27 days ago

                  I mean, there are movies that were, for better and worse (mostly worse) pretty important too. birth of a nation, the great dictator, the exorcist (and its involvement with the satanic panic),

                  I watched ‘the matrix’ as a kid, and I ended up as an anarchist. maybe coincidence. who knows.

                  the control of one relatively concentrated entirely capitalist industry is a problem. I agree on that. one could say the same about the publishing industry. and it turns out indie films exist! and are cool sometimes! just like indie publishing! it’s just way harder to distribute them.

                  I agree. fuck hollywood (the industry) and hollywood (the place, which is tacky as hell and filled with tourists and always smells like piss except when it smells like shit, and they lock up all the parks at like 5 PM, and also all the good pizza places are closed or dont open until dinner. it’s super fucked up, especially when they used to sell by the slice and that’s, like, perfect for lunch).

      • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
        0·
        28 days ago

        Clearing land for soy and cattle exports is also the main reason the Amazon and the Pantanal are burning. Two of the most unique and biodiverse biomes on Earth are being reduced to ash and still people go hungry.

        The world we made is too inefficient.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            0·
            28 days ago

            Forget tofu - I can never seem to cook it right. I like the approach just one less red meat meal per week (for example, chicken is better for you and better for the environment), or one less meat meal per week (there are many common meals that happen to not have meat, like a salad, or eggs, or depending on how you count fish). I can have a black bean patty without being vegetarian

            Look at what a small change over the whole population cannot do! Looks like a long term trend in the right direction, but heading back up over the last decade

            https://aei.ag/overview/article/meat-consumption-trends-2023

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                0·
                28 days ago

                I like to saute tons of onions at once and use them throughout the week, after doing a bunch I’ll deglaze, add salt and seasoning and simmer a bunch of tofu in that. Gives good color and great flavor, and can be added to basically any meal.

          • miss phant@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            0·
            28 days ago

            Veganism is not even about absolutism, it’s about reducing animal cruelty to the extent possible and practical. Throwing out a leather belt you already own would not lead to any reduction in animal harm, I’d even call it an action that would go against veganism.

            • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
              0·
              28 days ago

              What if I told you the cessation of animal husbandry will result in greater misery and possible extinction of our current domesticated animals?

              Basically all domesticated animals except pigs cannot thrive in the wild any longer. Releasing them would be a cruelty greater than a quick death in a slaughterhouse.

              When we first domesticated animals we made a sacred pact with them: If they provide for ours, we will care for theirs, and it’s an ancient pact older than any living culture.

              • friendlymessage@feddit.org
                0·
                28 days ago

                You’re working under the hypothetical that mankind would just one day stop consuming animal products and every animal would be released into the wild. That’s not what would happen.

                There are two possibilities: policy-driven or consumer-driven, both essentially work the same way. We would at some point stop breeding new farm animals, be it because it’s outlawed or because demand for animal products would go down. Either way, this would be a gradual process over decades. Every animal that is already bred would of course still be slaughtered, just like they are now. This would lead to the extinction of the domesticated branches of some animal families, true. However, as they add absolutely nothing to biodiversity, there is no loss to nature. Their free cousins still exist roaming the planet anyway such as the red junglefowl and the wild boar.

                Also, feral chickens, feral dogs, feral pigeons, and feral cats among many more feel hurt by your statement they couldn’t survive in the wild. For many domesticated animals it’s simply not feasible to release them to the wild not because they couldn’t survive on an individual level but because of their sheer number no potential habitate could survive it.

                When we first domesticated animals we made a sacred pact with them

                You’re very much romanticizing what happened here. A pact requires consent. Animals can’t consent, so there is no pact. Especially not a sacred one, I mean, what the fuck?

                I wouldn’t go as far as calling what we’re doing slavery either for the same reason, human concepts of free will and consent don’t really work with animals. But if you think, we’re actually caring for these animals, I have a bridge to sell you.

              • htrayl@lemmy.world
                0·
                28 days ago

                I would say your simply wrong.

                It is not more moral to keep billions of animals alive, and in miserable conditions, solely for the purpose of consuming them, despite any romanticized idea of keeping a completely artificially selected species around.

                And also, that there isn’t a world where we completely give up meat eating anyways, and even less of a world where we let them go extinct.

            • Spot@startrek.websiteEnglish
              0·
              28 days ago

              I once met a caravan of “Roadkill” vegans. They would not eat anything animal related unless it was for sure going to go to waste. They had pamphlets on how to make sure if the meat was spoiled or not, processing guides on how to get the most use of animals, all kinds of info I found very surprising from what I had known of veganism.

              • grysbok@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                0·
                28 days ago

                Makes sense. I don’t order pork but if something comes with surprise bacon I’ll eat it–the pig is already dead. And I’ll be angry at Applebee’s for adding unlisted bacon to their macaroni and cheese. (Seriously, you have no vegetation options and when I try the “make a meal out of sides” trick you add betrayal bacon? I’m glad millennials are killing Applebee’s.)

          • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
            0·
            28 days ago

            You eat tofu because you think eating animals is mean.

            I eat tofu because I’m broke and its 2 bucks a lb and a good source of protein that can be added to nearly any meal. We are not the same.

            And I likely eat a fucktonne more tofu than you do. Like probably 2 or 3 times unless you eat it basically every day.

            Haven’t bought red meat in over 2 months, not for lack of wanting mind you. I have a frozen pack of bone in chicken thighs that I use to flavor my tofu, and if I stretch it it will last all month.

            I don’t know who the fuck you think you’re talking to, it’s amazingly extra to imagine my eating habits and then berate them for your imaginings. It’s like when your girlfriend is angry at you for cheating on her in a dream.

              • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
                0·
                28 days ago

                No I will NOT fucking let you end it on this. The whole ‘meat leads to food scarcity’ is absolute twenty year old rancid bullshit filled with the insidious corn kernels of deceit.

                We throw enough food away untouched to feed every single hungry person in America twice over, our food scarcity is entirely artificial.

                Are you aware that the U.S. government forces farmers to let food rot to keep prices sable?

                Do you magically think that if we stopped animal agriculture tomorrow that food will magically become cheap for the needy?

                No it won’t, because the government will AGAIN AS IT HAS EVERY YEAR just order more farmers to not sell their crops.

                This is why we hate vegans, it isn’t just about your empty moral self-superiority, it isn’t just your poorly thought out but loudly shouted schemes, it’s all that added to the fact that you actively go out of your way to find disinformation that appeals to your values, and then choose to believe it regardless of any outside facts.

                I cannot even begin to relate the contempt I feel for people who actively forward disproven ‘knowledge’ with zero regard to its accuracy.

    • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      28 days ago

      reductive and meaningless statement, every goddamn country on the planet are fucking bAd GuYs. Newsflash, the majority of humans with power are horrible selfish trash, every country is guilty of disgusting shit. Every country is controlled by their richest assholes.

  • RedditRefugee69@lemmy.world
    0·
    26 days ago

    I was about to say this smells like disinformation. Cherry picking a more nuanced issue? Unfair portrayal since the USA may face the most significant consequences? Maybe. But ultimately, it still seems to boil down to shareholder primacy and US agricultural lobbies (my interpretation). That’s heartbreaking and everything that is wrong with the world currently.

    https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/86770/why-did-the-us-and-israel-vote-against-making-food-a-human-right

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

  • systemglitch@lemmy.world
    0·
    28 days ago

    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)

    • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      28 days ago

      joke, got it, but actually 🤓☝️…

      the US is #10 among countries ranked by obesity rate: https://data.worldobesity.org/rankings/

      1 American Samoa 70.29%

      2 Nauru 69.65%

      3 Tokelau 67.05%

      4 Cook Islands 66.05%

      5 Niue 63.71%

      6 Tonga 63.37%

      7 Tuvalu 57.73%

      8 Samoa 52.83%

      9 French Polynesia 47.02%

      10 United States 41.64%

      alt source with slightly different rankings, where US is #14: https://www.worldatlas.com/society/the-most-obese-countries-in-the-world.html

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        0·
        28 days ago

        American Samoa isn’t a country. It’s a US territory.

        A lot of those others aren’t countries either. Tokelau “belongs” to New Zealand. Niue and Cook islands are legally shaky as well.

        The population for all combined above the US, compared to the entire US population is ridiculously low, and I feel like this is to distract from how massive the obesity issue is in the US. When excluding what are basically territories and at most micronations, the US has the most severe obesity issue.

    • medgremlin@midwest.social
      0·
      28 days ago

      That’s part of the problem. Obesity and malnutrition go hand-in-hand in this country because healthy foods are more expensive and more difficult to procure and prepare for people who are just scraping by. People will rant and holler about how poor people are so stupid for buying and eating fast food when buying ingredients and cooking can be cheaper and is definitely healthier, but that does not account for the people who are working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and they simply do not have time for grocery shopping and cooking. There’s also the astonishingly dystopian reality of “food deserts” where there are people who don’t have access to actual grocery stores that sell fresh produce and meat. There are plenty of neighborhoods and even entire towns in America that do not have a store where they can buy fresh food, and even more where they don’t have access to affordable fresh food. It’s abominable.

      As a medical professional, I see patients with tons of health problems including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome…the list goes on…and they simply do not have reliable, functional access to the healthier diet that would go a long way towards fixing those health problems. There are morbidly obese children with diseases like pellagra because of vitamin deficiencies, or obese people with muscle wasting because the food they have access to is mostly carbs and fat with very little protein. It is so frustrating and appalling to me that people on the outside of these situations look down on people struggling with obesity and diabetes and whatnot as if those people had any meaningful control over their situations.

      One of my attending physicians in the family medicine clinic described it as “regular, small-town Midwest problems”. Often, the best we can do is recommend that they try to get more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish or chicken instead of red meat…but we also prescribe multivitamins and weight loss, diabetes, and hypertension medications because insurance will at least help pay for those. Honestly, health insurance companies could save literal billions of dollars if they offered rebate programs for healthy food and supported local farmers’ markets or something. Diet and exercise will lower someone’s high blood pressure 5 times as much as most of the medications will.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      0·
      28 days 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.

  • AnarchoSnowPlow@midwest.social
    0·
    27 days 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.