Bob

It's about context. An NGO of today can't be compared an NGO from twenty-five years ago, a century ago, or many millenia ago. That's not the point, anyways, is it? The question was about whether or not the slack from an abolished UN would be picked up, and it would. And moreover, more people would benefit.

I'm not sure what you're try to say, and we're getting pretty off topic. Ether way, I hope to see calls for abolition of the UN more and more mainstream. It is pathetic that such calls are described as "fringe" or "right-wing". Many people, and we've seen in this forum, without any knowledge whatsoever about the UN and its subsidiaries, reflexively defend it and speak of it as if it is some indispensable institution that is a force for good in this world. It's revealing about many things in our society - social leftist indoctrination to reflexively support big bureaucracies as long as they have a pleasant mission statement.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Why don't you get back to dazzling us with your intellectual deficiencies where you are unable to distinguish between a gun and a nuclear weapon? Tell us more about how advocacy for liberalization of gun ownership laws is synonymous with advocating for private ownership of nuclear weapons.

Who are you exactly to tell others what they do or don't need? If someone breaks into my apartment, do I then "need" a gun? Your attempt to denigrate gun owners is quite infantile.

Actually, that's not what he said. He said NGOs and other charities would pick up the slack. That's not the same thing as stating that the flow of money labelled as "aid" would remain constant. Moreover, that's not a standard we should seek to uphold. Most people, particularly leftists, think more and more and more money is the answer to all the world's ills. This idiotic mentality is what keeps the money flowing, decade after decade, while the steward of this money continually fail but keep their cushy jobs and are never held accountable. Although you didn't explicitly state it, it's obvious you think that less money "sent" to Africa labelled as "aid" in the event of the UN's abolition is automatically a bad thing. That's a product of your leftism.

What in the world are you talking about? Who has a right to voice what opinion? What makes you think the UNHRC is an open forum that permits free speech?

But why are you thinking that more money being sent to impoverished people is better? There are two questions you need to ask, is Africa in need of more aid, less aid, or is the amount of aid it receives now appropriate? Second, through what structure should the aid to impoverished people be sent? You're viewing this simplistically - as if a lower total of money being sent to impoverished people in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing. As if people will start dying en masse (many of them already are, and it's not for a lack of aid being sent) in greater numbers if the sacred UN could no longer fund its noble endeavours. You're clearly assuming that a reduction in aid in the event of the UN's abolition is inherently a bad thing, and you're expressing this with your statement that implies concern over a reduction in aid that you think would result from the UN's abolition. And I'm telling you that I think it's exactly the opposite, in the sense that less aid is better, and of course with a major structural overhaul.

I didn't misuse the term, as you're clearly trying to make semi-covert statement opposing rights to bear arms. Your implication that the video statement I quoted inevitably leads to advocating for the rights of individuals to own nuclear weapons is an illustration of you being unable to comprehend a simple concept know as balance, and that's a product of puritanical thinking. If you prefer, feel free to substitute puritanical for obstinate or inflexible or rigid. You're not much of a wordsmith, are you? Go to 19:55 to learn a lesson about balance Dershowitz gleaned from a Talmudic story.

I think the point is obvious, ceasing funding to the UN would free up those funds to be spent appropriately, or saved, or a combination of both. The UN is the absolute WORST vehicle through which rich countries should work towards their development goals in impoverished societies.

Aside from the insult that the UN is to its primary funders, the UN needs to be disbanded because it a force for ill in this world. It makes things worse, not better. It's one thing to fail, it's another thing to actually cause harm. Every dollars waste at the UN is another dollars not used towards proper aid and development. It's almost a way in which we wash our hands of responsibility by saying, "well we gave them money, what else do they want?". We have a responsibility to ensure that the money is spent appropriately. The UN is one of the largest organs in a system of aid that perpetuates poverty, and exacerbates problems (disease, war/violence, poor education, and poor infrastructure. I'm talking about extreme poverty. Not poverty-lite that you'll find in subsidized housing neighbourhoods in Canadian urban centres. Impoverished people are dying as a result of these failures, and the ignorance of so many shows when they cling to this fantasy that somehow the UN provides some sort of lifeboat, that these impoverished people would die without.

Non-profits predate the UN by a at least ten thousand years. And they will exist indefinitely after the UN.

Well, if you think puritanically without any balance, then of course. Since a nuclear weapon and an AR-15 are both weapons, obviously your argument is on solid ground. I guess you think you're quite clever in your stupidity.

Best line from this video, "...the key to freedom is the ability to be able to defend yourself". Unfortunately Canada doesn't really respect this truth, governmentally or socially. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4&feature=related

This video is pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W91EWQv4Fc

I don't think the government should sponsor such activities in one way or the other, that includes providing training for proper use of guns in public school, but training for proper use of firearms should be more widespread in Canada. I think the reason gun training and knowledge seem to be so low in Canada is because of the over-the-top restrictions on gun ownership in Canada. There also seems to be a cultural taboo against guns in urban areas, as if gun ownwership s something reserved for whackos who like to hurt animals.

Yeah, why should Canadians have the right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, or sport? Pinko is the perfect example of the simplistic statist who wants more and more government to protect us from ourselves, and less and less freedoms lest we hurt each other. By the way, don't think I'm surprised that you dodged all the questions I asked which would've required you to explain your support of gun registration beyond nonsensical "tracing gun used in crimes". As if we should just accept that on its face when it's completely counterintuitive.

Let's see some statistics. How much gun crime do we have in Canada? Are gun crimes on the rise, staying level, or going down? What proportion of gun crime is committed with legally registered guns (because we already have laws on the books requiring gun registration and licensing, which is a de-facto registry)? How often is it that police are stumped with a weapon that they cannot trace? Even without having looked at this is detail I can tell you that I would comfortably bet on the answers to some of these questions. There is nothing "silly" about raising the point that federal government ALREADY "invested" over a BILLION DOLLARS into this registry, without any completion. Most reasonable Canadians can see this gun registry idea as just another make-work project amounting to theft of taxpayer money. It is pure corruption. As far as "most Canadians" agreeing with you, good luck proving that. And even if most Canadians do support this endeavour (which they do not), it doesn't make it a sensible project. Whether or not something makes sense isn't determined by popularity. We already have (unnecessary) laws on the books requiring registration of firearms. Although we should scrap these laws, if the government really wants to get serious about gun registration in order to chase some phantom named "public safety", then they can simply enforce the current laws and not waste another dollars building some useless database. What does this statement even mean? Are you trying to blame domestic gun crime on America?

And which of those treaties are "enforceable by our own courts"?

You will not receive any "proof" from pinko, William Ashley, or any other supporter of this gun registry that it actually increases public safety and is a justifiable expenditure of taxpayer money (although I recognize this post of yours I'm quoting is asking for proof of something else). Consider the fact that pinko, particularly, has made many posts in this thread, and not one of them provides any explanation of exactly how the gun registry would improve public safety. Rather, we simply receive a statement of fact that it will. I think this thread is a perfect microcosm for demonstrating that there is no serious argument to be made in favour of this government program. Moreover, considering the unbelievably simple manner in which such an unnecessary registry could be established (it's basically just building a database and set of policies that gun salespersons/owners need to adhere to), it is yet another example on the long list of government corruption - the spent over a billion dollars on it with nothing to show for it. A billion dollars "building" a database and a policy, and they weren't even built after all that money was spent.

I am not using hyperbole and I am not changing parameters. I am accurately describing the deaths of hundreds millions of people to preventable illnesses as being an absolute catastrophe that the UN is largely responsible for. It's telling how you describe my adding of context to one-liners from a UNICEF public relations link is "changing parameters". As long the UN isn't held accountable for its actions and has no direct stake in the outcomes of its operations, the problems it claims to be addressing will persevere. That's why extreme poverty continues, and why a 40% reduction in an easily preventable illness like measles for which we've had a vaccine since the late sixties is touted as an accomplishment to be proud of, rather than a sickening illustration of failure.

What's the point in discussing with ou? You're not addressing anything I've said and you've yet to demonstrate that any UN endeavour has been successful. And if you can demonstrate a UN success story, you're going to then need to explain how this achievement was better achieved through the UN then through direct relations between relevant stakeholders. You haven't even made a good argument for the initial challenge - give us examples of successful UN aid programs. All you did was copy-and-paste UNICEF talking points for soliciting donations, several of which I've addressed.

What international treaties?

It's because the Jewish olim are part of the nation to whom this land belongs. That's how they have "more claim" in a collective sense.