TheBigUrban2:





lol...


Why do some christians lie like this? It was not my reasoning but the way I write.

The irony here is that your reasoning has been so poor that it has been noted by many and has been systemized-


Various components of Anonyism-
1) Answering questions with more questions that are sometimes irrelevant (eg "can u prove god?" ans; "can you prove god doesnt exist"?)
2) Falsely equivocating two similar but different issues. (eg religious humanism and humanistic religion)
3) Claiming that the opponent misunderstands your point (eg Ihedinobi's misunderstood jutsu)


I can bet my life that you have done all 3 or at least 2 in this thread alone

So do you bet your life?

TheBigUrban2:


You are right.

But maybe Uyi Iredia is thinking of the software CD's or the visual or audio representation of a software.

Sofware is mostly immaterial but some aspects are material.

that's like saying that your car is a metal aspect of you because you are inside it

TheBigUrban2:
Various components of Anonyism-

1) Answering questions with more questions that are sometimes irrelevant (eg "can u prove god?" ans; "can you prove god doesnt exist"?)
2) Falsely equivocating two similar but different issues. (eg religious humanism and humanistic religion)
3) Claiming that the opponent misunderstands your point (eg Ihedinobi's misunderstood jutsu)

I can bet my life that you have done all 3 or at least 2 in this thread alone

Example of number 2- falsely equivocating 2 similar but different issues. equivocating the material aspects of software to this nonsense below;

MrAnony1: that's like saying that your car is a metal aspect of you because you are inside it

Example of number 1; Answering questions with irrelevant questions

MrAnony1:
So do you bet your life?

TheBigUrban2:
Example of number 2- falsely equivocating 2 similar but different issues. equivocating the material aspects of software to this nonsense below;

Please explain how they are "similar but different".

Example of number 1; Answering questions with irrelevant questions

Sorry I didn't know that you were asking a question when you said that you can bet your life.

MrAnony1: Please explain how they are "similar but different".


Sorry I didn't know that you were asking a question when you said that you can bet your life.

Its okay.

MrAnony1:
I understand that you are unwilling to call another person a liar. That's fine but if you believe that your position is true, then you must hold that the opposing view that all humans are equal is false whether or not those who hold the view are consciously trying to deceive.

I do believe, firmly I must add, that human beings are not equal in very many ways. A contrary view may be true or false based on the person's perspective; but if we are using the same 'looking glass' then the contrary view is definitely false.

MrAnony1:
Interesting, let's now examine your reasons.


My friend, you have not answered the question I asked you.

I asked you "Why is it fair to treat unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) equally?" And your reply was "because it is fair....." You just totally begged the question. Please try again.

Yes, I know I did not answer the question you asked. The answer I gave was with respect to the right question. The right question would be: 'Why do you believe in fair treatment for unequal people?'.

The bold, above, is what made your question a bit off. I do not believe that unequal people deserve equal treatment. I believe unequal people deserve fair treatment. What is fair need not be equal for everyone.

Take for instance, the Revenue allocation adopted by the Federal government of Nigeria. This is based on 'derivation' which is backed up by a simple principle: The share of the National wealth, of any state, is based on their revenue generating capacity or their contribution to the National income. The state which contributes more gets more.

Though each state does not get an equal amount from the Federal Government but they do get what (to a large extent) is fair. No state's portion of the National revenue is less than what is needed for effective governance of the state. What is fair need not be what is equal.

striktlymi:

I do believe, firmly I must add, that human beings are not equal in very many ways. A contrary view may be true or false based on the person's perspective; but if we are using the same 'looking glass' then the contrary view is definitely false.

If you are view through the same lens, then it wouldn't be a contrary view. Would it? As usual by trying so hard to sit on the fence, you have effectively said nothing.

Yes, I know I did not answer the question you asked. The answer I gave was with respect to the right question. The right question would be: 'Why do you believe in fair treatment for unequal people?'.

Lol, so you chose to ask yourself another question and then proceed to answer it. Let me remind you that you said here: ( https://www.nairaland.com/1814905/all-men-equal-under-god/3#24776009 ) that it is fair to give unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) an equal right to life. I asked you why is it fair?

The bold, above, is what made your question a bit off. I do not believe that unequal people deserve equal treatment. I believe unequal people deserve fair treatment. What is fair need not be equal for everyone.

But I gave you a specific instance which you claimed that in that specific instance ( https://www.nairaland.com/1814905/all-men-equal-under-god/3#24776009 ), it was fair to treat the unequal equally. Please with respect to that specific instance, why is it fair?

Take for instance, the Revenue allocation adopted by the Federal government of Nigeria. This is based on 'derivation' which is backed up by a simple principle: The share of the National wealth, of any state, is based on their revenue generating capacity or their contribution to the National income. The state which contributes more gets more.

Though each state does not get an equal amount from the Federal Government but they do get what (to a large extent) is fair. No state's portion of the National revenue is less than what is needed for effective governance of the state. What is fair need not be what is equal.

This has nothing to do with my question. Just tell me why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right to life

MrAnony1:
If you are view through the same lens, then it wouldn't be a contrary view. Would it? As usual by trying so hard to sit on the fence, you have effectively said nothing.

Wrong!!!

Using same 'looking glass' is no guaranty that we would see things in same light.

MrAnony1:
Lol, so you chose to ask yourself another question and then proceed to answer it. Let me remind you that you said here: ( https://www.nairaland.com/1814905/all-men-equal-under-god/3#24776009 ) that it is fair to give unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) an equal right to life. I asked you why is it fair?

Like you rightly said, your question then was specific to life but this was not the case with your 'second' question. Your 'second' question is generic and cab be applied to very many things not specific to life. To the question on why it is fair to give equal right to life to unequal people, I already answered that before in the link you provided:

striktlymi:
* They should be treated equally because it is fair in that instance. If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons.

MrAnony1:
But I gave you a specific instance which you claimed that in that specific instance ( https://www.nairaland.com/1814905/all-men-equal-under-god/3#24776009 ), it was fair to treat the unequal equally. Please with respect to that specific instance, why is it fair?



This has nothing to do with my question. Just tell me why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right to life

I have already given my answer to the specific question you asked.

striktlymi:

Wrong!!!

Using same 'looking glass' is no guaranty that we would see things in same light.

.....and so the semantic game begins. Please explain what you mean here in plain english.

Like you rightly said, your question then was specific to life but this was not the case with your 'second' question. Your 'second' question is generic and cab be applied to very many things not specific to life. To the question on why it is fair to give equal right to life to unequal people, I already answered that before in the link you provided:

I have already given my answer to the specific question you asked.

So I asked: Why is it fair. . . to give unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) an equal right to life?

and the best answer you can provide is:

"They should be treated equally because it is fair.....in that instance. If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons."

Please go and look up what it means to beg the question.

MrAnony1:
.....and so the semantic game begins. Please explain what you mean here in plain english.



So I asked: Why is it fair. . . to give unequal people (i.e. the weak and the strong) an equal right to life?

and the best answer you can provide is:

"They should be treated equally because it is fair.....in that instance. If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons."

Please go and look up what it means to beg the question.

If the clause in bold is only what you saw or understood from my answer then take it. I aint responsible for your 'picking and choosing'.

striktlymi:

If the clause in bold is only what you saw or understood from my answer then take it. I aint responsible for your 'picking and choosing'.

I didn't pick and choose, I pointed out that you haven't provided a valid answer to the question. You can't go about assuming points that you haven't proven and expect me to nod in agreement.

MrAnony1:
I didn't pick and choose, I pointed out that you haven't provided a valid answer to the question. You can't go about assuming points that you haven't proven and expect me to nod in agreement.

If you did not pick and choose, what then happened to the rest of the answer I gave you?

"If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons."

The above, all of a sudden, became not part of the answer I provided? You did 'pick and choose'.

striktlymi:

If you did not pick and choose, what then happened to the rest of the answer I gave you?

"If one human being can be allowed to live without anyone determining whether it is murdered before birth then the next child deserves the same treatment. Our lives, unlike some other things, belongs to us. It will only be unfair for another to 'destroy' it for very selfish reasons."

The above, all of a sudden, became not part of the answer I provided? You did 'pick and choose'.

Are you saying that the rest of your answer doesn't follow from the first phrase? If so, how does the rest of your answer explain why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right as per the instance I gave you?

MrAnony1:
Are you saying that the rest of your answer doesn't follow from the first phrase? If so, how does the rest of your answer explain why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right as per the instance I gave you?

I am not repeating myself.

striktlymi:

I am not repeating myself.

Repeat yourself? I don't recall you ever explaining why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right. If you have, please show where you did this

Ubenedictus: that is interesting!


So all men are "equal" based on the fact that they are of the same species! Not because they are socially, physically or intellectually equal but because they are of the same specie.

Is that the best and only reason why humans are equal?

That's the problem that arises when one fails to define the context in which he uses words.

Obviously, the context in which you're using "equal" is different from his.

MrAnony1:
Repeat yourself? I don't recall you ever explaining why it is fair to give unequal people an equal right. If you have, please show where you did this

Do you think depriving people of certain privileges as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control is fair?

If yes, care to explain why?

If no, there you have your answer as to why people ought to be treated equally despite not being equal.

rationalmind:
Do you think depriving people of certain privileges as a result of circumstances entirely beyond their control is fair?

If yes, care to explain why?

It depends on the privileges and the circumstances in particular. Care to give a practical example?

If no, there you have your answer as to why people ought to be treated equally despite not being equal.

I hope you are not suggesting that the reason why people ought to be treated equally despite not being equal is because of what Mr Anony thinks

MrAnony1:
It depends on the privileges and the circumstances in particular. Care to give a practical example?

An housemaid for instance who's an orphan.

Do you think it's fair to deny her equal rights with let's say ones children?

If yes, why?

If no, you've answered your question yourself.

you: I hope you are not suggesting that the reason why people ought to be treated equally despite not being equal is because of what Mr Anony thinks

Since Mr Anony is curious to know why people should be treated equally despite not been equal, his thoughts might help in satisfying his curiosity.

rationalmind:

An housemaid for instance who's an orphan.

Do you think it's fair to deny her equal rights with let's say ones children?

If yes, why?

If no, you've answered your question yourself.

Again it depends on the privilege in particular. Please what rights in particular do you mean?

Since Mr Anony is curious to know why people should be treated equally despite not been equal, his thoughts might help in satisfying his curiosity.

If my thoughts were already sufficient to satisfy my curiosity then I wouldn't need to be curious. Would I?

^ ^^

Lol, as evasive as ever

TheBigUrban2:


Saying that Dawkins doesnt support Eugenics is an ad hominem
Saying that atheism has nothing to do with Euthanasia is an ad hominem

And of course calling out the lies you told and calling a liar a liar is an ad hominem




Go and sleep

calling someone "shameless"...whatever is childish! It is immature and it is stupid.

It show you don't have the psychological capacity to even make a matured discussion. You speak like an old man with the emotional structure of a kid. Throwing trantrum when and if the other disagrees.


Get it together man! If you have a bad day don't spread it on the net.

Now have a nice evening.

Ubenedictus: calling someone "shameless"...whatever is childish! It is immature and it is stupid.

It show you don't have the psychological capacity to even make a matured discussion. You speak like an old man with the emotional structure of a kid. Throwing trantrum when and if the other disagrees.


Get it together man! If you have a bad day don't spread it on the net.

Now have a nice evening.

BUTTHURT

rationalmind: ^ ^^

Lol, as evasive as ever

Please don't blame me for your inability to ask clear questions.

MrAnony1:
Please don't blame me for your inability to ask clear questions.

Neither should I be blamed for your inability to answer simple questions

rationalmind: Neither should I be blamed for your inability to answer simple questions

Lololol ok.....

I am always ready to answer whenever you are ready to clarify your question by citing what specific rights you are referring to. I can't read your mind to know what sort of rights you mean.

MrAnony1: Lololol ok.....

I am always ready to answer whenever you are ready to clarify your question by citing what specific rights you are referring to. I can't read your mind to know what sort of rights you mean.

I need not provide example of specific right and privileges. Asking me to do so only shows you're trying your best to find a way out of answering the question.

Since you already said it depends on what rights and privileges I'm referring to, you are in other words saying you agree there are certain rights and privileges one cannot be denied of on the basis of inequality (which is of no fault of the victim) with another.

Asking me what particular rights and privileges I'm referring to seems irrelevant, no?

rationalmind:
I need not provide example of specific right and privileges. Asking me to do so only shows you're trying your best to find a way out of answering the question.

Wrong. Asking you to be more specific will leave less room to miscontrue my statements. Your reluctance to be clear and specific shows that you are not really interested in hearing my answer. It seems that you would rather your question be as vague as possible so that you can have free rein to missinterprete any answers that may be provided.

Since you already said it depends on what rights and privileges I'm referring to, you are in other words saying you agree there are certain rights and privileges one cannot be denied of on the basis of inequality (which is of no fault of the victim) with another.

This shows that you don't understand what the issue is. I do not deny that certain rights are universal irrespective of physical inequalities, in fact I actually affirm this idea of equal rights but that is not the question. The question is WHY should we affirm these so called equal rights?.
I believe that fundamentally men are created equal in essence and for this reason, even if they appear physically unequal, we are actually equal and therefore there are certain rights that we have and laws that we ought to observe which trump man-made laws therefore it is fair to give an equal right to life to both the weak and the strong and it will be a violation of God's created natural law to treat them unequally.

Now your turn: Since you don't believe that man was created equal or that man has any essence that is not physical, and you also believe that men are not physically equal, why is it fair to treat the unequal equally?

Asking me what particular rights and privileges I'm referring to seems irrelevant, no?

It is not irrelevant because making your question as clear as possible makes it less likely for you to receive a vague answer.

MrAnony1:
Wrong. Asking you to be more specific will leave less room to miscontrue my statements. Your reluctance to be clear and specific shows that you are not really interested in hearing my answer. It seems that you would rather your question be as vague as possible so that you can have free rein to missinterprete any answers that may be provided.


This shows that you don't understand what the issue is. I do not deny that certain rights are universal irrespective of physical inequalities, in fact I actually affirm this idea of equal rights but that is not the question. The question is WHY should we affirm these so called equal rights?.
I believe that fundamentally men are created equal in essence and for this reason, even if they appear physically unequal, we are actually equal and therefore there are certain rights that we have and laws that we ought to observe which trump man-made laws therefore it is fair to give an equal right to life to both the weak and the strong and it will be a violation of God's created natural law to treat them unequally.

Now your turn: Since you don't believe that man was created equal or that man has any essence that is not physical, and you also believe that men are not physically equal, why is it fair to treat the unequal equally?


It is not irrelevant because making your question as clear as possible makes it less likely for you to receive a vague answer.

1- As far as justice/fairness is concerned, no one should be made to suffer consequences of actions that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

2- Being unequal with others is an unfortunate occurrence that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

3- The unequal is being made to suffer consequences of actions he/she couldn't prevent when treated differently from the equal

4- This on the basis of 1 above does not constitute fairness/justice.

Therefore, it's fair to treat everyone equally despite not being equal.

Anything short of that cannot be termed as fair as shown above.

rationalmind:
1- As far as justice/fairness is concerned, no one should be made to suffer consequences of actions that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

WHY? Why is it fair and just?

The idea of justice/fairness is only valid if there is a law that ought to be obeyed. Since you are obviously alluding to a law, then please tell us who made this law and if no one made this law, then why should it be obeyed?

2- Being unequal with others is an unfortunate occurrence that most likely couldn't have been prevented.

WHY is it unfortunate? Why isn't it just how they happen to be.

3- The unequal is being made to suffer consequences of actions he/she couldn't prevent when treated differently from the equal

So what?

4- This on the basis of 1 above does not constitute fairness/justice.

Except that in 1 above, you have not explained why it isn't fair you have merely claimed that it isn't.

Therefore, it's fair to treat everyone equally despite not being equal.

Anything short of that cannot be termed as fair as shown above.

This destroys the whole concept of fairness because it suggests that we ignore the truth and pretend that what we know to be a lie is true. The statement above is like saying that it is right to maintain that 2+2 is 5 even though we know that it is actually 4.

MrAnony1:
WHY? Why is it fair and just?

Lol, how predictable.

Since this question is not necessary for reasons I'll show later, I'll have to give you an answer that though appears circular befits these sort of questions.

It's fair and just because it goes in line with the definition of what being fair and just is.

You can go ahead to ask why what is being defined as fair is fair and why what is being defined as just is just. Lol

you: The idea of justice/fairness is only valid if there is a law that ought to be obeyed. Since you are obviously alluding to a law, then please tell us who made this law and if no one made this law, then why should it be obeyed?

We've been talking about the treatment of humans equally/unequally by humans. If therefore I allude to any law, I'm alluding to human law, the law of the land.

Who made the law?

Humans

you: WHY is it unfortunate? Why isn't it just how they happen to be.

I promised to show why these sort of questions aren't necessary.

Mr A- Why did you eat?

MR B- Because I was hungry.

Mr A- Why were you hungry?

Mr B- Because I haven't eaten for long.

Mr A- Why haven't you eaten for long?

Mr B- Because there's no money.

Mr A- Why don't you have money?

And then, Mr A goes on and on trolling Mr B with the question "why". The moment one starts asking the question why, one gives the impression he isn't ready for a serious discussion.

Again I'll have to go with the sort of answer befitting these sort of questions. It's unfortunate because it goes in line with what's being defined as unfortunate. Feel free to ask why what is being defined as unfortunate is unfortunate.

you: So what?

you: Except that in 1 above, you have not explained why it isn't fair you have merely claimed that it isn't.

I posit that, that which is self evident needs no explanation. You can proceed to show how itls wrong. It's like asking you to explain how you couldn't have given birth to your father.

you: This destroys the whole concept of fairness because it suggests that we ignore the truth and pretend that what we know to be a lie is true. The statement above is like saying that it is right to maintain that 2+2 is 5 even though we know that it is actually 4.

which truth are you talking about?

Emotional maturity

TheBigUrban2:



BUTTHURT