Petergee:
Try actually reading my response instead of looking for some far-fetched way you can claim I’ve breached the rules, and so avoid the subject. You will find my answer very fully answered your question and showed why “the UN” is excused from your bizarre allegations.
“Bizarre allegations” is a charitable assessment of my post how exactly? As for reading your response, here is the “actual” exchange to which you refer:
Petergee:
the only reason “they” (some UN agencies) promote abortion and contraception is because their masters, the majority of member States, tell them to.
Ani Ibi:
This excuses the UN in some way?
Did you write the following?
Petergee:
And what do you suggest people working for the UN should do? Refuse to carry out the orders they receive from the Member States?
If you did write the latter quote, then you answered a question with a question. The Forum Guidelines request that we do not do that.
As for answering my question: my question was about the authority of the member states acting as an excuse for the ineffectual manner in which the UN conducts business. Your response was the following:
And what do you suggest people working for the UN should do? Refuse to carry out the orders they receive from the Member States? That would be the right thing for individuals to do if the order is immoral, but the only result would be that those individuals would be dismissed and new staff hired who were willing to carry out the policy determined by the Member States. “The UN” is a vehicle for the Member States’ directives. It has no will or policy of its own. Blaming “the UN” is like blaming the police because you disagree with some of the laws they have a duty to enforce, laws made by their rulers.
Please note that your response is self-contradictory. On the one hand, you concede that UN employees are justified in refusing to carry out immoral orders from the nation states. Then you say that the employees would be dismissed were they to do that. If it is justified for UN employees to refuse to carry out immoral orders then why is it unjustified for the UN itself to refuse to carry out immoral orders?
In any case, in spite of your claim that I “will find [your] answer very fully answered [my] question”: actually your answer did not address my question at all. My question had to do with the alleged ineffectualness of the UN. Your answer had to do with the UN “only following orders.”
A novel approach to debate indeed. You simply deny you have said something which is written here in black and white. You claimed to know what 5-decades a day thinks. Trying to deny it only makes you look more foolish.
Claiming that I look “foolish” is charitable how?
Without any quoted material from you to clarify your accusation, I have no idea to what you are referring. The only thing that 5-Decades-a-Day has posted on this thread is the following:
5-Decades-a-Day:
Whether the UN “works” or not is beside the point. The US should just get out, period.
Please be kind enough to quote any of my posts on this thread in which I claimed to know what 5-Decades-a-Day thinks. You can’t. Because I made no such claim.
On the other hand, did you say this in response to 5-Decades-a-Day’s post?
Petergee:
You think the US doesn’t “need” the UN because the US is at present far more powerful than any other country and can basically force the rest of the world to do what it wants, and the UN is only an annoyance to the US doing so.
If you did say that, then please be kind enough to demonstrate where in 5-Decades-a-Day’s post he says the US doesn’t need the UN. Moreover please be kind enough to demonstrate that you are not assuming or saying that “you know what another person thinks or needs.”
continued…
