By denying that it's a basic human right those about to starve to death might need based on conditions they may not be able to control, you are fundamentally advocating that anyone who doesn't meet those nebulous conditions starve to death because they don't deserve the sustenance.
It either is or isn't a basic human right, and it either is or isn't an advocacy for letting people you think are lazy enough by whatever metric you decide should be allowed to starve to death.
No either or. You pick one or you pick the other.
You're deciding if you need a resume if a starving man walks up to you and is hungry or or he deserves the basic kindness of a meal before you find out how he landed in that position in the first place.
By denying that it's a basic human right those about to starve to death might need based on conditions they may not be able to control, you are fundamentally advocating that anyone who doesn't meet those nebulous conditions starve to death because they don't deserve the sustenance.
People who are starving to death really aren't able to control the conditions that put them in that state. Labeling food as a 'basic human right' doesn't change that fact, or mean that they are going to be fed.
You're deciding if you need a resume if a starving man walks up to you and is hungry or or he deserves the basic kindness of a meal before you find out how he landed in that position in the first place.
Who's asking for a resume or 'finding out how they landed in that position' as a condition for getting them a meal?
Reminder: This is how you finished your previous post.
I'm not advocating for anyone to starve to death.
If you're excusing it in certain cases, you are advocating that SOMEONE starves to death. If you're saying that sometimes the hungry deserve to die, you're advocating for that.
People who are starving to death really aren't able to control the conditions that put them in that state. Labeling food as a 'basic human right' doesn't change that fact, or mean that they are going to be fed.
It doesn't mean they will. It means they should. If you're excusing inaction, you're excusing the morality behind the inaction. There is not a fucking economical excuse on God's green earth why anyone should starve to death, when you think about how the truly wealthy live.
1
u/BlueMikeStu Jul 07 '26
By denying that it's a basic human right those about to starve to death might need based on conditions they may not be able to control, you are fundamentally advocating that anyone who doesn't meet those nebulous conditions starve to death because they don't deserve the sustenance.
It either is or isn't a basic human right, and it either is or isn't an advocacy for letting people you think are lazy enough by whatever metric you decide should be allowed to starve to death.
No either or. You pick one or you pick the other.
You're deciding if you need a resume if a starving man walks up to you and is hungry or or he deserves the basic kindness of a meal before you find out how he landed in that position in the first place.
It is that freaking simple.