Please reply - what other things are a human right?
life, privacy, information
Yea, and the US “vote” is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.
A “no” vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).
No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
What makes you think the second number is not a no vote?
In 2021 they published reasoning with they will vote no.
I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there’s no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.
They didn’t say it wasn’t a no vote, they said it wasn’t a veto
Could the US have vetoed the whole process, and no vote would have taken place? Or what does this differentiation mean?
The person I replied to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
Personally, I don’t believe anyone has human rights. It is the wolves right to hunt the gazelle for food, and it’s the gazelle’s right to evade him. Although I am not against uplifting poorer countries, I feel like they would just become more wolves if they got their shit together.
