3 ms·

That's because we need to recognize access to toilets as a human right. As the article mentions, it's possible to upgrade them, but city councils prefer to clo

by klyrs 4y ago

That's because we need to recognize access to toilets as a human right. As the article mentions, it's possible to upgrade them, but city councils prefer to close them.

noworld 4y ago
There's got to be something in between "desirable positive public health outcome" and "human right." Nothing about closing any given toilet implies "human rights violation."
- klyrs 4y ago
  "Any given toilet" is doing a lot of work there. Governments actually know how much people generally need to go to the bathroom. In fact, in many places, you can't get a license to host a large public event without providing toilets. But when it comes to public transit and downtown cores where that very same government has a very good handle on how many people are expected to be hanging around on an average/peak day, no need for toilets whatsoever!
whatshisface 4y ago
The problem with recognizing things that cost money as a human right is that we have to grant that poor countries don't have the luxury of providing them. Then, the same dictators can argue that due to their country's instability, they don't have the "luxury" of providing torture-free policing or freedom of speech. I am sure evil dictators would love for the discourse about human rights to be redirected towards public works - and I don't say that without reason, because they tend to be the most reliable supporters of UN resolutions that do it. I don't mean to say that public works are evil, just that evil dictators would love for us to be unable to tell them apart from human rights issues.
- klyrs 4y ago
  That's helluva weird excuse for rich countries to not recognize that their cultural anxiety about bodily functions creates a legitimate need for private spaces to defecate.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    As long as you don't use a word that implies equating it with allowing people to criticize their government, or distinguishing civilians from soldiers in times of war, I don't have any objections.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      I view the right to piss&shit on even ground with the right to breathe, drink, and eat. If you think all that's less important than the right to criticize one's government, that's fine, feel free to hold it 'til you asphyxiate or your bladder fails.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        Saying that people have a human right to public bathrooms is like saying they have a boating license to clean water - I can infer what you're saying from context, but it leads to confusion. If you're asking for a clear argument establishing a distinction, consider that if a pipe bursts nobody will be hauled off to Nuremberg. :-)
        klyrs 4y ago
        > If you're asking for a clear argument establishing a distinction, consider that if a pipe bursts nobody will be hauled off to Nuremberg. No, but if you're renting an apartment and a pipe bursts, your landlord may be legally required to put you up in a hotel, depending on your local tenancy laws. You're exhibiting some pretty extreme black&white thinking here, and that's really making it hard to interpret your statements as good-faith efforts towards curious conversation.

by klyrs 4y ago

That's because we need to recognize access to toilets as a human right. As the article mentions, it's possible to upgrade them, but city councils prefer to close them.

noworld 4y ago

There's got to be something in between "desirable positive public health outcome" and "human right." Nothing about closing any given toilet implies "human rights violation."

klyrs 4y ago
"Any given toilet" is doing a lot of work there. Governments actually know how much people generally need to go to the bathroom. In fact, in many places, you can't get a license to host a large public event without providing toilets. But when it comes to public transit and downtown cores where that very same government has a very good handle on how many people are expected to be hanging around on an average/peak day, no need for toilets whatsoever!

whatshisface 4y ago

The problem with recognizing things that cost money as a human right is that we have to grant that poor countries don't have the luxury of providing them. Then, the same dictators can argue that due to their country's instability, they don't have the "luxury" of providing torture-free policing or freedom of speech. I am sure evil dictators would love for the discourse about human rights to be redirected towards public works - and I don't say that without reason, because they tend to be the most reliable supporters of UN resolutions that do it. I don't mean to say that public works are evil, just that evil dictators would love for us to be unable to tell them apart from human rights issues.

klyrs 4y ago
That's helluva weird excuse for rich countries to not recognize that their cultural anxiety about bodily functions creates a legitimate need for private spaces to defecate.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  As long as you don't use a word that implies equating it with allowing people to criticize their government, or distinguishing civilians from soldiers in times of war, I don't have any objections.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I view the right to piss&shit on even ground with the right to breathe, drink, and eat. If you think all that's less important than the right to criticize one's government, that's fine, feel free to hold it 'til you asphyxiate or your bladder fails.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Saying that people have a human right to public bathrooms is like saying they have a boating license to clean water - I can infer what you're saying from context, but it leads to confusion. If you're asking for a clear argument establishing a distinction, consider that if a pipe bursts nobody will be hauled off to Nuremberg. :-)
      - klyrs 4y ago
        > If you're asking for a clear argument establishing a distinction, consider that if a pipe bursts nobody will be hauled off to Nuremberg. No, but if you're renting an apartment and a pipe bursts, your landlord may be legally required to put you up in a hotel, depending on your local tenancy laws. You're exhibiting some pretty extreme black&white thinking here, and that's really making it hard to interpret your statements as good-faith efforts towards curious conversation.