Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If a justification was given we'd be able to evaluate the worthiness of that decision - if there were technical notes about, for instance, food safety concerns, we could evaluate the justification against other standards in different areas of the world around proper formula storage.

Without a justification the decision is arbitrary and silences any ability to push back against it within the normal bounds of dialog. A justification would potentially allow aid groups to remedy whatever the specific deficiency is if it is a reasonable deficiency to remedy.

If there was a justification it might be acceptable - depending on the justification - without a justification it is unacceptable when there is such a clear need. The aid is blocked and there is no recourse to unblock it outside the current attempts to just smuggle it in.



Starving infants is justifiable sometimes? When?


It is justifiable to stop a shipment of baby formula if that baby formula is known to be unsafe and carry bacteria that will kill infants.

I think in this particular case it's quite safe to say that those blocking the shipments aren't acting in good faith, however.


Does the food carry bacteria in reality? Why are we talking about bizarre hypotheticals?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: