whats the point of making that a right?

>>220777559
I thought USA had food banks? Most third world countries in green like mine don't give out free food.

>>220777559
This was voted on over 4 years ago.
What's come of it? What difference has it made?
I ask because on its surface it sounds meaningless - "You now have the right to food" ... and?

File: IMG_8945.png (669.7 KB)

669.7 KB PNG

>>220777632
The entire thing was bullshit virtue signaling and the US was the only one to call it out.
It included a bunch of agricultural agreements and trade agreements that had no need to be in a human rights council vote. Things that had already been agreed upon with other organizations that understand agriculture (including the UN Environment Program)
And also stuff about how the US has to give a bunch of agricultural tech away for free.
And it doesn’t actually make any attempts to solve the actual issues behind it (being that these are poor, lawless, warlord ridden shitholes), nor was anything in it enforceable in any way (fucking North Korea is on this shit)
Meanwhile no country made any actual changes as a result of this.
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

>damn, my people are starving and I was really looking forwards to doing fuck-all about it, but now food is "a right" or some shit so I gotta change my plans and turn the big switch in my presidential office from no food to yes food

>>220778894
Trumpavista should cut off the food and let all of us ungrateful apes starve.

remember when the UN did the slave vote and all the former slave bearing nations that created the demand in the first place chose not to vote and the US was the only country that voted no explicitly, kek.

>>220778894
>2022
>2017
What is it with chuds and using outdated sources?

UN is just another worthless globohomo organization

>>220777632
It would suppress wages which would be good for the economy.

>>220777559
can you paint us red? i dont want to be asimilated to africa, latin america or europe.

>>220779202
They were right to vote no, it was retarded money grabbing shit from the usual suspects (also was specifically for transatlantic slavery, the other routes are perfectly fine clearly)

>>220780556
You are in luck buddy.
In 2025 Argentina was #3
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4096560?ln=en

>>220778894
you're destroying civilization by overpopulating the third world shitholes with your food aid
kys

>>220777559
Because we know who you're expecting to pay for that right, and it's not the cheapskates over in Brussels

>>220779473
says a retard from THE globohomo country

>>220780609
I'm surprised the French didn't vote no, they're scared shitless of countries like Algeria demanding reparations (surprisingly, they don't do the same for Turkey). Also the indemnity they placed on Haiti was kinda fucked (people like to place blame on France for everything wrong with Haiti, that's retarded, but indemnities are pure faggotry)

>>220778894
facts

USA votes no because they'll have to pay for it, Israel votes no because they hate American money going to anyone but them.

>>220777559
When I saw shit like pic related I always thought that one day the gringos were eventually going to get bored and they would cut all foreign aid
Funny that it did happen

>>220778465
It's not about giving free food. Why is it the concept of a right so hard for people to understand? It doesn't mean free stuff.

>>220777559
In short, the US "no" vote was not a rejection of combating hunger (the US provides substantial food aid and supports related programs), but a principled objection to the resolution's framing, potential policy side effects on trade/technology, and the elevation of "right to food" as a binding-style human right rather than a desirable development objective. This is a recurring pattern in US UN voting on certain development/human rights resolutions.

nuke all international ngos

>>220777559
>food a right
What does this mean? If food is a right, is someone compelled to provide it to the people who can't or won't feed themselves?

>>220786494
In Finland you have the right to roam the land but that doesn't mean someone is obligated to ferry you around where ever you want. It only means they aren't allowed to stop you from roaming.

Food being a right means nobody is allowed to stop you from buying or growing your own food or otherwise keep you from eating proper food enough to keep you healthy.

>>220778894
>It was just meaningless virtue signaling!!!
So why not just vote yes if it is just symbolical
>Reee we would have to pay for it!!!

>>220784801
This was about Israel telling you to vote no because they'd be called out for preventing food aid from arriving to Gaza. Pure and simple. The nonsense excuse of the resolution both being meaningless and somehow compelling the US to pay for it and whatever else was just something for the goy cattle to believe in so it wouldn't just feel downright evil

File: IMG_4944.jpg (104.2 KB)

104.2 KB JPG

>>220777559
The rest of the world doesn't understand rights. It's cute really. It's like a child's understanding of an adult concept.
Rights are not the same as entitlements. No one has a right to someone else's labor.
Rights come from God and he's not going to rains chicken mcnuggets from the heavens just because you call it a right.

>>220787072
What sort of rights has God mentioned?

>>220777632
immigrants coming into your country would be entitled to food as soon as they set their foot inside your borders

File: IMG_6140.png (169.2 KB)

169.2 KB PNG

>>220787114

>>220787146
Is this from the Bible?

>>220787181
It's from the declaration of independence, so yes.

>>220777632
it would mean you cannot deny food to a person as it's a right now?
this was done probably in response to israel blockading food to palestine

>>220787245
I dunno what sect thinks of that as a holy text, sounds a bit heretical tbqh

>>220787146
I often see that last part traded out for 'property', what's up with that?

>>220787270
Americans do. Lutheran atheist mongols probably don't.
>>220787284
5th and 14th amendment's guarantee that federal and state governments cannot deprive you of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Meaning the government cannot do things such as execute you, imprison you, or take from you without giving you some sort of notice and a hearing. Property interests are expansive in meaning and the enlightenment view would view property beyond tangible or real property but the ability to pursue things like education or a career.

>>220787501
>Americans do
Figures

>>220787284
Justification to sneed on the natives and keep slaves

>>220777559
what do you mean? norway isnt jewish there is only 1 jewish state

>>220787072
You got it backwards yourlself. You're the one who thinks a right is an entitlement and that's why you oppose the right. A right to something doesn't mean other people are obligated to give it to you or do it for you. You have a right to free speech but that doesn't mean other people are obligated to speak for you. You have the right to bear arms but that doesn't mean other people are obligated to buy them for you. But you keep opposing the right to food because you think it means entitlement. By the same logic you should be opposing all rights.

>>220787501
>americans are heretics
I always knew that, but thanks for confirmation, I guess.

>>220789474
We already have the right to food if theneverbeit

>>220778805
Even if it were merely a symbolic gesture that meant nothing. Just for the sake of principle. Who in their right mind would object?

>>220777559
>un:"raise your hands in favour"
>congo:"....."
>un:"raise your hands if against"
>congo:"....."