3 ms·

> Note that I wrote "in any first world country". I'm sorry if your country does not qualify as such. > I'm not being flippant here. Sorry to say, (Canadian h

> Note that I wrote "in any first world country". I'm sorry if your country does not qualify as such. > I'm not being flippant here. Sorry to say, (Canadian here), yes you came off as being flippant. The issues with Flint seem to be larger than my understanding, but it was not the least contributed by issues and injustices with the demographic (majority black) and the lack of federal aid. Saying it's not a first world country isn't wise of you for these reasons and more. > Then the best solution is to keep paying for bottled water, or to move. Obviously not the best solution, just a bandaid over the problem in lieu of the fact that "Bottled water is 3,500 times worse for the environment than tap water". > you can't trust the country where you live to provide you with access to clean drinking water, then you have literally failed No. The government around the citizen failed. Saying the the victim failed is quite telling of your assumption that the individual is to blame if the government has in some capacity, in some municipal area, failed. > literally failed the UN's Sustainable Development Goal no. 6 The goal is tied to a future date, you cannot fail it by definition in 2021. I'm sorry to say, and I'm also not being flippant here, basic math and logic is taught in "first world countries", your comment here is obviously a failure of such, and I'm sure, there's probally a UN goal I could quote as well. See what I did?

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"contributed by issues and injustices with the demographic (majority black) and the lack of federal aid" How is thus an excuse? South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues. either have objective criteria, or we don't
- mrmuagi 5y ago
  > How is thus an excuse? Because it is a causal factor and not an excuse? > South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues. I agree. See, we have so much in common. > either have objective criteria, or we don't I am not invested in any criterion discussion, merely because I'm not into political science, I am merely firing back at the original poster at their "first world" vs. "third world" views and obvously flippant tone in their message with the audacious preface of not being flippant. The specific causal factor I understand is white flight and the associated downstream effects. That's pretty objective and measurable (tax base), but it's more of a powder keg analysis. The real cause of fault is in the pipes as the other commentor shared, something I did not fully understand until now.
maxerickson 5y ago
The immediate cause of the issues in Flint was mismanagement. Treating the source water to moderate the PH would have prevented lead from leaching into it (the cost would have been very small). And then layered on top of that, they didn't need to switch to the source that needed that treatment. And so on. Removing the possibility of lead leaching into drinking water is an ongoing activity in Michigan, but we are ahead of much of the country at this point (in that we are doing it). That the US has plumbing that uses lead is of course not unique. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/worried-about-lead-in-your-water-here-are-some-steps-you-can-take-1.4670883 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/worried-about-lead-in-your-wat...
semi-extrinsic 5y ago
I'm not saying that first world countries don't have sporadic issues with water supply. They do. What I'm arguing is that if as a general rule you can't trust the results when your local officials testing the water quality, then your country has failed at meeting the standard for a first world country. I agree that "you have failed" would have been better framed as "your country has failed you". That was my thinking, but the sentence did not make it clear. Yes, the UN SDG6 is a goal for 2030 - for developing nations. If you haven't already met this goal, you are a developing nation, not a first world nation.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"contributed by issues and injustices with the demographic (majority black) and the lack of federal aid" How is thus an excuse? South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues. either have objective criteria, or we don't

mrmuagi 5y ago
> How is thus an excuse? Because it is a causal factor and not an excuse? > South Africa, Russia, etc. all have grave issues. I agree. See, we have so much in common. > either have objective criteria, or we don't I am not invested in any criterion discussion, merely because I'm not into political science, I am merely firing back at the original poster at their "first world" vs. "third world" views and obvously flippant tone in their message with the audacious preface of not being flippant. The specific causal factor I understand is white flight and the associated downstream effects. That's pretty objective and measurable (tax base), but it's more of a powder keg analysis. The real cause of fault is in the pipes as the other commentor shared, something I did not fully understand until now.

maxerickson 5y ago

The immediate cause of the issues in Flint was mismanagement. Treating the source water to moderate the PH would have prevented lead from leaching into it (the cost would have been very small). And then layered on top of that, they didn't need to switch to the source that needed that treatment. And so on. Removing the possibility of lead leaching into drinking water is an ongoing activity in Michigan, but we are ahead of much of the country at this point (in that we are doing it). That the US has plumbing that uses lead is of course not unique. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/worried-about-lead-in-your-water-here-are-some-steps-you-can-take-1.4670883 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/worried-about-lead-in-your-wat...

semi-extrinsic 5y ago

I'm not saying that first world countries don't have sporadic issues with water supply. They do. What I'm arguing is that if as a general rule you can't trust the results when your local officials testing the water quality, then your country has failed at meeting the standard for a first world country. I agree that "you have failed" would have been better framed as "your country has failed you". That was my thinking, but the sentence did not make it clear. Yes, the UN SDG6 is a goal for 2030 - for developing nations. If you haven't already met this goal, you are a developing nation, not a first world nation.