Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
Cities should take on most of the cost themselves. Some cities have already done this from their own revenue - pipes wear out over time and so on - why should those cities pay for cities that couldn't be bothered?
I didn't downvote you, by the way; I at least understand the rationale on a surface level.
Citizens should be voting for politicians who do things. They for politicians who cleaned things up. Will you fire all those corrupt politicians in your town that didn't clean things up? Remember those cities that did clean things up paid for the price on their own. I do not want to reward cities who vote to continue corruption.
You understand that lead poisoning most predominantly affects children, right? So even if your argument is that the minority of voting-age individuals who vote against these politicians should suffer the consequences of the majority who do (let alone that those majority deserve to have lead poisoning for voting in incompetent or corrupt politicians/living in a jurisdiction that can't afford to rapidly replace these lines), you're failing to acknowledge that the children who are most deeply affected here have no say whatsoever.
Because we live in a society.
I don't know how to convey that you should do things that keep people, particularly children, healthy even if they don't live in the same municipal tax jurisdiction.
If your thought was shared by society, we wouldn't have lead pipes to begin with and you wouldn't have cause to reply so smugly to someone merely suggesting people should get what they vote for.
If people thought we lived in a society, than we wouldn't have used lead pipes in the 1950 or before?
In an era where we didn't know there was as much risk as we found out over the following decades?
What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know when these pipes were even installed?
Do you think that people should be held responsible for the votes of their great grandparents? Or, more specifically, that their children should get brain damage because of how their great great grandparents voted?
What do you think we gain by letting poor communities be potentially poisoned? That hurts all of us.
Hell, Flint (the prototypical example) didn't even vote for the people who screwed them over. The state government imposed them on the city against their will.
I suppose you think they deserve lead poisoning because they didn't have the good graces to have a flourishing economy after the biggest employer in the city left?