This OP is like what have I done? Nairalanders keep fixing all kinda expressions on his face at different intervals..., this moment, he's laughing his head off, next he's frowning and next again, he's feeling sorry. But he's really worried about those who can't maintain a civil conversation.

bubbllie: This OP is like what have I done? Nairalanders keep fixing all kinda expressions on his face at different intervals..., this moment, he's laughing his head off, next he's frowning and next again, he's feeling sorry. But he's really worried about those who can't maintain a civil conversation.

eeya..lmao

Ladystewie: I really don't blame the man
After keeping her status a secret and infecting him,
He still accepted and loved her
Next thing she wants to leave him
So, who would accept him with his HIV status?

Well said,u look really cute pls can I know u better?fb page

njokusboy: Before anyone makes this a feminist or masculinist issue, make we understand something....

Who says it's about feminism et al? Did I mention either of those in any of my posts? Or imply anything of that nature? If I did, kindly point it out to me, rather than make assumptions on my behalf.

njokusboy: If a HIV positive man goes around infecting unsuspecting women with HIV, he should be shot on sight, preferably on the forehead...
Anybody can be a victim and it does not have to be a married person or even a promiscuous person... This is wickedness...

You have no right to take the laws into your hand and murder someone, irrespective of what you deem their crime(s) to be. Besides, killing an already infected person is medicine after death.

You should be more concerned about adopting preventive measures. It's your responsibility as a supposed adult to practice safe sex, otherwise you should bear the consequences without complaints.

Prevention is better than cure. That's what you should be preaching to the promiscuous guys amongst you.

njokusboy:

Nd where did I say the man who infected her did right? U think everything is man versus woman? This is not a battle of the sexes..

You chose to close your eyes and make assumptive statements exonerating the guys but yet have no qualms about laying the blame squarely on this woman's shoulders? Based on the defence line of the murdering spouse behind bars? Why don't you take a step back and ask yourself if what this man claims to have happened is indeed the truth?

njokusboy: You even ended the BEAUTIFUL SPEECH, with a well thought out closing line. "We need more women like this to keep wandering men in check"

Well, it's the truth isn't it? I mean, if men...married men choosing to think with their third legs realise that the ladies they're chasing out of their matrimonial homes could infact be death in skirts, a.k.a potential HIV / AIDs carriers, do you not think that would make them have a re-think? Do you honestly think that even with a condom, a man would willing sleep with a woman knowing she's got the deadly disease?

If not, then why not?

njokusboy: Now back to the matter, the man married the woman, the woman knew she was HIV positive, he asked to get tested, she refused..

I can pick several holes within this statement of yours:

~ The man claims that the woman knew she was HIV positive. How do you know this for sure? How do you know he wasn't lying, just to make excuses for the crime he'd already committed. Or did the woman confirm from the grave that this is exactly what happened?

~ How do you know for sure that he asked her to get tested, she refused...and that this didn't happen the other way round? Come to think of it, it is very possible that this man might have had the virus, given it to her, and lied that she had it before him. And before you bring up the statement that both of her kids died from AIDs, is there any backing to this claim from the post-mortem report carried out on them? Assuming there was a post mortem done in the first place.

njokusboy: The man was foolish, that doesn't mean he deserves to get infected... just because someone has a long throat does not mean he should be poisoned.

I disagree.

Getting poisoned for developing "long throat" is good deterrent, especially for men with wandering prícks. You can't eat your cake and have it. Life just doesn't work that way. You may think you're being smart and cheating karma but all it takes is just one day. One unfortunate event and everything comes crashing down.

Yes, there should be repercussions in place for potential would-be "long-throaters". Karma is indeed a bítch, isn't it?

njokusboy: If the woman did not know she was positive, na different story..

And how do you know she didn't know she wasn't positive. Just because her murdering spouse claims that she knew doesn't prove that she knew. Unfortunately, it's his word against a deceased's. She can't come back from the dead to refute his claims, can she?

njokusboy: Nd when she was done, she moves on to another unsuspecting man.. someone has got to stop the devil...
It's good riddance

Or maybe, she found out that he had infact passed on the disease to her, hence her wanting to leave him. It wouldn't be the first of such cases.

EfemenaXY:

Who says it's about feminism et al? Did I mention either of those in any of my posts? Or imply anything of that nature? If I did, kindly point it out to me, rather than make assumptions on my behalf.



You have no right to take the laws into your hand and murder someone, irrespective of what you deem their crime(s) to be. Besides, killing an already infected person is medicine after death.

You should be more concerned about adopting preventive measures. It's your responsibility as a supposed adult to practice safe sex, otherwise you should bear the consequences without complaints.

Prevention is better than cure. That's what you should be preaching to the promiscuous guys amongst you.

I made that statement because it was so glaring that the only reason you took that myopic stand was because the bone of contention is a woman...

You have every right to stop someone who is hell bent on harming other people.. when a drunk driver goes around crushing people, the police would simply shoot him and prevent further casualties.. it's not murder, it's community service....

Yes, prevention is better than cure, dat doesn't mean you can go about knocking down every biker that isn't wearing a helmet...

njokusboy:

I made that statement because it was so glaring that the only reason you took that myopic stand was because the bone of contention is a woman...

Surely asking you to point out precisely where I implied such isn't too much to ask? Or is it? And who says the bone of contention here is the woman. Is the man who caused this entire fiasco absolved of all guilt? Is he not the centre of attention? I think it's plain as day that you are the myopic one here. Your arguments aren't logical, seeing as you've been making emotional statements in every single one of your posts.

njokusboy: You have every right to stop someone who is hell bent on harming other people.. when a drunk driver goes around crushing people, the police would simply shoot him and prevent further casualties.. it's not murder, it's community service....

If he really had the right to take the law into his hands and exert jungle justice on his wife, then why is he rottening in jail now? Besides, your analogy is wrong. You're making assumptions again.

So just because the murder claims that his victim was going to spread the virus on to someone else, you believe that in the absence of any solid proof? How d'you know he isn't lying? That man obviously wanted to do away with her and claims she was going to leave him. I don't believe a word of what he says especially now that his wife can't confirm or deny his allegations against her.

njokusboy: Yes, prevention is better than cure, dat doesn't mean you can go about knocking down every biker that isn't wearing a helmet...

The "husband" claims she would have spread it. There's no solid proof to back up his claims. He might be lying for all you know.

EfemenaXY:

You chose to close your eyes and make assumptive statements exonerating the guys but yet have no qualms about laying the blame squarely on this woman's shoulders? Based on the defence line of the murdering spouse behind bars? Why don't you take a step back and ask yourself if what this man claims to have happened is indeed the truth?



Well, it's the truth isn't it? I mean, if men...married men choosing to think with their third legs realise that the ladies they're chasing out of their matrimonial homes could infact be death in skirts, a.k.a potential HIV / AIDs carriers, do you not think that would make them have a re-think? Do you honestly think that even with a condom, a man would willing sleep with a woman knowing she's got the deadly disease?

If not, then why not?



I can pick several holes within this statement of yours:

~ The man claims that the woman knew she was HIV positive. How do you know this for sure? How do you know he wasn't lying, just to make excuses for the crime he'd already committed. Or did the woman confirm from the grave that this is exactly what happened?

~ How do you know for sure that he asked her to get tested, she refused...and that this didn't happen the other way round? Come to think of it, it is very possible that this man might have had the virus, given it to her, and lied that she had it before him. And before you bring up the statement that both of her kids died from AIDs, is there any backing to this claim from the post-mortem report carried out on them? Assuming there was a post mortem done in the first place.




I disagree.

Getting poisoned for developing "long throat" is good deterrent, especially for men with wandering prícks. You can't eat your cake and have it. Life just doesn't work that way. You may think you're being smart and cheating karma but all it takes is just one day. One unfortunate event and everything comes crashing down.

Yes, there should be repercussions in place for potential would-be "long-throaters". Karma is indeed a bítch, isn't it?




And how do you know she didn't know she wasn't positive. Just because her murdering spouse claims that she knew doesn't prove that she knew. Unfortunately, it's his word against a deceased's. She can't come back from the dead to refute his claims, can she?




Or maybe, she found out that he had infact passed on the disease to her, hence her wanting to leave him. It wouldn't be the first of such cases.

Assumptive statement?? Lolzzz, do I need to remind you I only responded to your biased and inconsiderate remarks that it's ok for women to go about infecting men with HIV?
Why didn't you question the validity of the mans claim yourself before you passed ur unreasonable verdict... you simply concluded that the man deserved what he got simply because he decided to take another wife...

Now this is where you are coming from? Are you actually considering the case or you are speaking on behalf of the first wife... instead of you to focus on the story, you are being sanctimonious.. The thread did not say the man was having an extra marital affair, he actually married this woman... even this, is irrelevant to the topic.

This is the question you ought to have asked.. did you do that, no you didnt... you simply said the man was guilty... The point is, if what the man said was actually true, then the woman is a serial killer and rightly got what she deserved... if the man is lying, then he should be sent to the gallows for murder... But you commented under the assumption that the story is true and went ahead to justify a despicable act...

Inorder words, intentionally infecting people with hiv is a good deterrent... I wonder where you pick up all this things you say....
So any man who sleeps with a woman should be infected with HIV as a repercussion shey

Again, you should have asked this question before passing the verdict..

EfemenaXY:

Surely asking you to point out precisely where I implied such isn't too much to ask? Or is it? And who says the bone of contention here is the woman. Is the man who caused this entire fiasco absolved of all guilt? Is he not the centre of attention? I think it's plain as day that you are the myopic one here. Your arguments aren't logical, seeing as you've been making emotional statements in every single one of your posts.



If he really had the right to take the law into his hands and exert jungle justice on his wife, then why is he rottening in jail now? Besides, your analogy is wrong. You're making assumptions again.

So just because the murder claims that his victim was going to spread the virus on to someone else, you believe that in the absence of any solid proof? How d'you know he isn't lying? That man obviously wanted to do away with her and claims she was going to leave him. I don't believe a word of what he says especially now that his wife can't confirm or deny his allegations against her.




The "husband" claims she would have spread it. There's no solid proof to back up his claims. He might be lying for all you know.

What are you talking about here, we are all saying the woman is wrong and deserved what she got, and you jumped in and said she did right by infecting the man with HIV (assuming the story is true)...isn't that myopic? what else do you want me to point out...

Here are your logical claims
(1) Any woman who intentionally infects a man with HIV should be applauded... very logical
(2) Intentionally infecting wandering men with HIV is a good deterrent.... very logical too..
(3) we need more women like this to infect Nigerian men with HIV... absolutely logical..
INFACT, you are a very logical woman..

He is not rotting in jail, he is not yet convicted, if his story is true, I am sure the jury would look at things differently....

Why didn't you simply say you didn't believe him in the first instance, if you had said he was probably lying, we won't even be having this discussion...

njokusboy:

Assumptive statement?? Lolzzz, do I need to remind you I only responded to your biased and inconsiderate remarks that it's ok for women to go about infecting men with HIV?

What makes my remarks "biased" and "inconsiderate"? The woman wasn't the one who got greedy and strayed from her marriage, did she? So who did the "exploring"? The man. Who got infected due to his waka-waka? The man. So how then can you say he didn't deserve to get the rap for his extra-curricular activities?

He deserved it wella.

njokusboy: Why didn't you question the validity of the mans claim yourself before you passed ur unreasonable verdict... you simply concluded that the man deserved what he got simply because he decided to take another wife...

No.

You've been going on and on about how the man who infected the woman with the virus in the first place had no knowledge, so he's absolved of any guilt. You've conveniently avoided facing the fact that whoever this guy is that infected the deceased woman in the first place is also going about "unknowingly" and "innocently" infecting other women with this deadly virus too. Njokusboy, how can you be so blind? Or are you deliberately putting up lame arguments here?

Now this murdering spouse, that got greedy, what did he need another wife for? What's wrong with the first wife? Too old for him? Not posh enough for him? What? You seem to think it's okay for him to develop long-throat and not pay for the consequences of his greed? And least you forget, here's another man that's no doubt infected another unsuspecting woman - his wife!

And yet you see nothing wrong with it? Okay, according to you, it's fine that he took the laws into his own hands and killed off the 2^nd wife. Do you not think it's only fair that the 1^st wife should do exactly the same thing to him to, to prevent him from spreading his killer disease?

I mean think about it. A leopard never changes its spots. If this man could stray from his first wife to start with, what's to stop him from straying again? And again And again? Hmmm??

njokusboy: Now this is where you are coming from?

I'm coming from all angles at you, Njokusboy. It's not that hard to, anyway.

njokusboy: Are you actually considering the case or you are speaking on behalf of the first wife... instead of you to focus on the story, you are being sanctimonious..

Really? And how exactly am I being sanctimonious?

njokusboy: The thread did not say the man was having an extra marital affair, he actually married this woman... even this, is irrelevant to the topic.

It's the same thing. Bottom line here is this: He looked outside. Got greedy. Strayed. Had unprotected sex. Got infected. Couldn't handle the consequences of his very adult actions. Chose the coward's way out by making claims that can't be proven after taking a life. Then regretted his actions in the cold light of day.

I'd say this is very relevant, won't you?

njokusboy: This is the question you ought to have asked.. did you do that, no you didnt... you simply said the man was guilty...

Asked what exactly? And yes, he is guilty on so many counts as carefully outlined above to you.

njokusboy: The point is, if what the man said was actually true, then the woman is a serial killer and rightly got what she deserved...

And then by your logic:

~ The man who infected this lady in the first place deserves to be killed like wise.

~ The murdering husband deserves to be killed by his first wife.

Yes?

njokusboy: if the man is lying, then he should be sent to the gallows for murder... But you commented under the assumption that the story is true and went ahead to justify a despicable act...

Well, this story came straight from the horse's mouth, didn't it? And no, the gallows is to quick an easy death for him. He needs a slow, painful, tortuous death which he's getting anyway.

Despicable act you say? I suppose so. 'cos if you look at it, it's the men who seem to be spreading the virus to the innocent, unsuspecting ladies, don't you think?

njokusboy: Inorder words, intentionally infecting people with hiv is a good deterrent... I wonder where you pick up all this things you say....
So any man who sleeps with a woman should be infected with HIV as a repercussion shey

Yep, it is indeed a good deterrent, since words alone don't do the trick. Like I posted earlier on, we need more agents like this woman plying the streets. Then and only then would the immature boys claiming manhood, finally grow a couple of braincells.

njokusboy: Again, you should have asked this question before jumping to conclusion.....

What question? You've posted a lot without really saying anything in particular.

njokusboy:

What are you talking about here, we are all saying the woman is wrong and deserved what she got, and you jumped in and said she did right by infecting the man with HIV (assuming the story is true)...isn't that myopic? what else do you want me to point out...

Who's "we"?

If you really believe the woman deserve what she got, doesn't this man also deserve to be given the same treatment by his first wife too, seeing as he most likely must have infected her too?

njokusboy: Here are your logical claims
(1) Any woman who intentionally infects a man with HIV should be applauded... very logical

You'd better quote the post where I explicitly said that.

njokusboy: (2) Intentionally infecting wandering men with HIV is a good deterrent.... very logical too..

Oh yes. And believe me, it should work. If mere words fall on deaf ears like they always do with you guys, then you'all need something stronger. Death in skirts. I asked you a question earlier on. Answer it.

Would you as a man sleep with a woman if you know she's got the virus? Would you use a condom to sleep with her? Yes or no? If no, then why not??

njokusboy:
(3) we need more women like this to infect Nigerian men with HIV... absolutely logical..
INFACT, you are a very logical woman..

Same point as #2. Do you derive joy in repeating yourself or are you running out of steam here, Njokusboy??

njokusboy: He is not rotting in jail, he is not yet convicted, if his story is true, I am sure the jury would look at things differently...

Yeah, in Naija of all places, anything goes. It's okay to take the law into your own hands and feel justified for doing exactly as you please. So it begs the question, why have a judical process in place to start with? Anyway, if they "feel differently" as you so crudely put it, then they should also feel "differently" and not raise an eyebrow if the first wife decides to kill him too.

njokusboy: Why didn't you simply say you didn't believe him in the first instance, if you had said he was probably lying, we won't even be having this discussion...

I still don't. He's lied to protect himself. Go to any jail. All the inmates claim they're innocent. This twerp is no different.

EfemenaXY:

What makes my remarks "biased" and "inconsiderate"? The woman wasn't the one who got greedy and strayed from her marriage, did she? So who did the "exploring"? The man. Who got infected due to his waka-waka? The man. So how then can you say he didn't deserve to get the rap for his extra-curricular activities?

He deserved it wella.




No.

You've been going on and on about how the man who infected the woman with the virus in the first place had no knowledge, so he's absolved of any guilt. You've conveniently avoided facing the fact that whoever this guy is that infected the deceased woman in the first place is also going about "unknowingly" and "innocently" infecting other women with this deadly virus. Njokusboy, how can you be so blind? Or are you deliberately putting up lame arguments here?

Now this murdering spouse, that got greedy, what did he need another wife for? What's wrong with the first wife? Too old for him? Not posh enough for him? What? You seem to think it's okay for him to develop long-throat and not pay for the consequences of his greed? And least you forget, here's another man that's no doubt infected another unsuspecting woman - his wife!

And yet you see nothing wrong with it? Okay, according to you, it's fine that he took the laws into his own hands and killed off the 2^nd wife. Do you not think it's only fair that the 1^st wife should do exactly the same thing to him to, to prevent him from spreading his killer disease?

I mean think about it. A leopard never changes its spots. If this man could stray from his first wife to start with, what's to stop him from straying again? And again And again? Hmmm??



I'm coming from all angles at you, Njokusboy. It's not that hard to, anyway.



Really? And how exactly am I being sanctimonious?



It's the same thing. Bottom line here is this: He looked outside. Got greedy. Strayed. Had unprotected sex. Got infected. Couldn't handle the consequences of his very adult actions. Chose the coward's way out by making claims that can't be proven after taking a life. Then regretted his actions in the cold light of day.

I'd say this is very relevant, won't you?



Asked what exactly? And yes, he is guilty on so many counts as carefully outlined above to you.




And then by your logic:

~ The man who infected this lady in the first place deserves to be killed like wise.

~ The murdering husband deserves to be killed by his first wife.

Yes?




Well, this story came straight from the horse's mouth, didn't it? And yes, no, the gallows is to quick an easy death for him. He needs a slow, painful, tortuous death which he's getting anyway.

Despicable act you say? I suppose so. 'cos if you look at it, it's the men who seem to be spreading the virus to the innocent, unsuspecting ladies, don't you think?



Yep, it is indeed a good deterrent, since words alone don't do the trick. Like I posted earlier on, we need more agents like this woman plying the streets. Then and only then would the immature boys claiming manhood, finally grow a couple of braincells.



What question. You've posted a lot without really saying anything in particular.

Madam, the case was that this woman intentionally infected him with HIV and was about to leave him and INFECT somebody else.. she knew she was positive and gave it to her husband... that is what the thread says, it's not an extra curricular activity, they got married...she was his wife not his concubine... The Waka Waka was actually a marrige, it followed due process... That is even irrelevant because even if it didn't, it does not give her the right to intentionally infect people with HIV.. That woman is no better than Patrick sawyer...

I didn't say the first man is absolved of guilt, I thank God you said, "unknowingly and innocently", infecting people, how is that the same as "knowingly and intentionally" infecting people like she did?? or are you just being a troll Or u are actually a lost soul like I said earlier?
How many times do I gotta tell you the man actually married this woman, so u just wanna be dense?

Which angles? Coming from someone who said the woman did right by infecting the man with HIV and later turned around to say the man might be lying, this is actually funny... is dis even a competition

Just read what you wrote up there again, you are now concluding that the man is lying and that the woman did not intentionally infect him?

You are not saying anything.....

(1) The man who infected the woman in the first place deserves to be killed if he did it intentionally
(2) if this man decides to sleep with his first wife knowing fully well he is HIV positive, she would be well within her right if she decides to stab him in the neck with a kitchen knife...

Yes, you can turn it around now, he deserves to die if he is lying, the woman also deserved what she got if he is actually saying the truth... AGREED?

Nd since when did this case become a case of who spreads the virus to whom in the world, the men spreads it to the ladies, who spreads it to the men in the first place or did they wake up HIV positive from their sleep...how is this even related to the topic at hand?

You need more agents to spread HIV shey? Why don't u take up the offer yourself or advice one of your siblings to do the same?
I would pick an immature boy without braincells over an agent of HIV anyday...

Stop acting smart, why didn't u say the man might be lying in the first place? Why did you think of that only after you have been identified as an advocate for HIV?

GboyegaD:

How does killing her and himself change the fact that they are infected? It is my opinion anyways and you are entitled to yours as well.

what killing her does is by stopping her from being a bio-weapon.

njokusboy:

Madam, the case was that this woman intentionally infected him with HIV and was about to leave him and INFECT somebody else.. she knew she was positive and gave it to her husband... that is what the thread says, it's not an extra curricular activity, they got married...she was his wife not his concubine... The Waka Waka was actually a marrige, it followed due process... That is even irrelevant because even if it didn't, it does not give her the right to intentionally infect people with HIV.. That woman is no better than Patrick sawyer...

And how do you know for sure that the woman intentionally infected him with HIV? Just because he says so? A guilty man would say anything to absolve himself of guilt, even if it means lying blatantly against the dead. Is the woman around to verify his claims? How do you know it wasn't the other way round with him infecting her in the first place, then drumming up the cöck-and-büll story of wanting them both to get tested but she declined. And in response to that, he decided to go ahead and have unprotected sex with her and marry her?

C'mon, who does that? The fact that he even suggested that they both go for HIV / STD checks shows without a doubt that he was very much aware of the danger at hand but being the typical Naija man that he is, chose to damn the consequences and sleep with her irrespectively. I mean think about it. If you as a guy are smart enough to want to now the sėxüäl health of your spouse by suggesting either she, or you both undergo these crucial tests, and she refuses, would you still go ahead and have unprotected sex with her?

YES or NO, Njokusboy?

I'm 100% certain your answer would be a resounding 'NO'. So the next question then is, why not? Why not take her word for granted, and sleep with her on blind faith? I know you won't answer this, so I'll answer it for you: You won't sleep with her because you don't want to risk catch HIV / STD.

Now this local hero of yours knew all of this, and yet he went ahead to have unprotected sex with this lady, knowing fully well that not only would he be risking his life, but that of his first wife (directly) and his kids (indirectly). So, Njokusboy, the fact that this man knew exactly what he was doing only goes to prove that he deliberately infected himself with the deadly disease. And going by your jungle justice analysis, since he knew, he deserves to be exterminated from the face of the earth asap.

Your argument in defence of this man would only hold water if this man in question wasn't enlightened enough about STDs. But this wasn't the case, was it? Your guy can't claim ignorance o! So better stop defending the indefensible.

njokusboy: I didn't say the first man is absolved of guilt, I thank God you said, "unknowingly and innocently", infecting people, how is that the same as "knowingly and intentionally" infecting people like she did??

Kindly go back to that post of mine and re-read it. Slowly this time. And while you're at it, learn to decipher sarcasm when you see it.

I deliberately put the words unknowingly and innocently in quotes. What does that tell you?

njokusboy: or are you just being a troll Or u are actually a lost soul like I said earlier?
How many times do I gotta tell you the man actually married this woman, so u just wanna be dense?

It's interesting you mention this because the very descriptive noun, phrase and verb of yours totally encompass the nature of your argument. I couldn't have put this any better.

njokusboy: Which angles? Coming from someone who said the woman did right by infecting the man with HIV and later turned around to say the man might be lying, this is actually funny... is dis even a competition

Competitions? I don't engage in competitions with the mentally challenged.

For the umpteenth time, your assertion that the woman infected this man (without any solid proof to back these up) makes that claim questionable. That aside, what I've consistently said and would say again loud and clearly is that this man deserved exactly what he got. He infected himself by choosing to think with his ddick and not his brains. See, it's quite simple. If you put your fingers in fire, knowing fully well what the consequences will be, who would you blame for getting burnt? Yourself? Or the fire?

I guess you'll blame the fire, because the fire knew it could burn you, and yet it went ahead and roasted your fingers, yes??

Oh, Njokusboy! Njokusboy!!

njokusboy: Just read what you wrote up there again, you are now concluding that the man is lying and that the woman did not intentionally infect him?

Stop repeating yourself. It's getting boring.

njokusboy: You are not saying anything.....

(1) The man who infected the woman in the first place deserves to be killed [size=18pt]if[/size] he did it intentionally
(2) [size=18pt]if[/size] this man decides to sleep with his first wife knowing fully well he is HIV positive, she would be well within her right [size=18pt]if[/size] she decides to stab him in the neck with a kitchen knife...

Yes, you can turn it around now, he deserves to die [size=18pt]if[/size] he is lying, the woman also deserved what she got if he is actually saying the truth... AGREED?

You're unbelievable. Honestly.

You boldy use conditional statements where the men are concerned but become all certain when writing about the affected women in this story??

~ What do you mean by if the man who infected the woman in the first place did it intentionally? How do you know he didn't do it intentionally as some sort of revenge to spread it to as many people as possible? That aside, whether he did it intentionally or not, the fact still remains that he infected someone (the deceased lady) and is probably still doing his thing infecting hundreds of women out there. Yet, when it comes to applying your loopsided-sided-jungle-justice-logic of brutally exterminating all carriers of HIV, you suddenly wish to cast doubts as to the very obvious agenda of this bio-weapon of mass destruction...and not only that, you're advocating for a possibility that he should be left to continue living? Like seriously??

~ What do you mean by if this man decides to sleep with his first wife knowing fully well he is HIV positive??

** He has got the virus. FACT.
** He must have slept with her seeing as they are married. FACT.
** There is a very, very, high possibility that she's contracted the killer disease from him. FACT.

Look. The odds are against your local hero. So you better condemn him totally without trying to wriggle out of it. Apply your jungle justice fairly.

~ Even more interestingly, you go on to say: she would be well within her right if she decides to stab him in the neck with a kitchen knife...

What do you mean by the phrase if she decides? Why the "if". What makes you think she shouldn't kill him on the spot? The way you choose to apply the soft touch to the men in question but get all heavy handed with the women is quite frankly becoming embarrassing. There is no "if" to contend with here. He too is a potential weapon of mass destruction. As long as this randy, local hero of yours lives and breathes, chances are he too could go ahead and infect more unsuspecting females. So it's best (according to your logic), that he be brutally wiped off the face of the earth as soon as possible.

njokusboy: Nd since when did this case become a case of who spreads the virus to whom in the world, the men spreads it to the ladies, who spreads it to the men in the first place or did they wake up HIV positive from their sleep...how is this even related to the topic at hand?

The bone of contention here is that this man had no right to kill his wife. You think otherwise for (questionable) reasons best known to you. So, going by your very analysis, this man too does not deserve to live.

According to you, all HIV carriers deserve to die. So this man should be no different. Don't use one rule for the men and another for the women. Be fair whilst playing God and apportioning judgement to all carriers. Don't be sėxíst, Njokusboy.

njokusboy: You need more agents to spread HIV shey? Why don't u take up the offer yourself or advice one of your siblings to do the same?
I would pick an immature boy without braincells over an agent of HIV anyday...

I asked you a very valid question. When are you going to stop hopping around the ring and answer it?

Njokusboy: Would you as a man sleep with a woman if you know she's got the virus? Would you use a condom to sleep with her? Yes or no? If no, then why not??

njokusboy: Stop acting smart

I am smart, thank you.

njokusboy: why didn't u say the man might be lying in the first place? Why did you think of that only after you have been identified as an advocate for HIV?

An advocate for HIV??

If that's what it'll take to keep you and your promiscuous ilk in check, i.e death in skirts, then yeah, I support it 100%. I did, I do, and I will. Now does that answer your question about my stance, without a shred of doubt??

And yes, I still think, that his story doesn't add up. Therefore, he's lying between his teeth.

teniyi:

You must be thinking with your anus!
The two useless animals involved in the case are from the so-called Northern christian that another animal like you insult Hausa/Fulani and Muslims for. They are neither Hausa/Fulani nor Muslim.

They simply got their devilish and promiscuous behaviour from the Bible.

k

....

EfemenaXY:

And how do you know for sure that the woman intentionally infected him with HIV? Just because he says so? A guilty man would say anything to absolve himself of guilt, even if it means lying blatantly against the dead. Is the woman around to verify his claims? How do you know it wasn't the other way round with him infecting her in the first place, then drumming up the cöck-and-büll story of wanting them both to get tested but she declined. And in response to that, he decided to go ahead and have unprotected sex with her and marry her?

C'mon, who does that? The fact that he even suggested that they both go for HIV / STD checks shows without a doubt that he was very much aware of the danger at hand but being the typical Naija man that he is, chose to damn the consequences and sleep with her irrespectively. I mean think about it. If you as a guy are smart enough to want to now the sėxüäl health of your spouse by suggesting either she, or you both undergo these crucial tests, and she refuses, would you still go ahead and have unprotected sex with her?

YES or NO, Njokusboy?

I'm 100% certain your answer would be a resounding 'NO'. So the next question then is, why not? Why not take her word for granted, and sleep with her on blind faith? I know you won't answer this, so I'll answer it for you: You won't sleep with her because you don't want to risk catch HIV / STD.

Now this local hero of yours knew all of this, and yet he went ahead to have unprotected sex with this lady, knowing fully well that not only would he be risking his life, but that of his first wife (directly) and his kids (indirectly). So, Njokusboy, the fact that this man knew exactly what he was doing only goes to prove that he deliberately infected himself with the deadly disease. And going by your jungle justice analysis, since he knew, he deserves to be exterminated from the face of the earth asap.

Your argument in defence of this man would only hold water if this man in question wasn't enlightened enough about STDs. But this wasn't the case, was it? Your guy can't claim ignorance o! So better stop defending the indefensible.




Kindly go back to that post of mine and re-read it. Slowly this time. And while you're at it, learn to decipher sarcasm when you see it.

I deliberately put the words unknowingly and innocently in quotes. What does that tell you?



It's interesting you mention this because the very descriptive noun, phrase and verb of yours totally encompass the nature of your argument. I couldn't have put this any better.



Competitions? I don't engage in competitions with the mentally challenged.

For the umpteenth time, your assertion that the woman infected this man (without any solid proof to back these up) makes that claim questionable. That aside, what I've consistently said and would say again loud and clearly is that this man deserved exactly what he got. He infected himself by choosing to think with his ddick and not his brains. See, it's quite simple. If you put your fingers in fire, knowing fully well what the consequences will be, who would you blame for getting burnt? Yourself? Or the fire?

I guess you'll blame the fire, because the fire knew it could burn you, and yet it went ahead and roasted your fingers, yes??

Oh, Njokusboy! Njokusboy!!




Stop repeating yourself. It's getting boring.




You're unbelievable. Honestly.

You boldy use conditional statements where the men are concerned but become all certain when writing about the affected women in this story??

~ What do you mean by if the man who infected the woman in the first place did it intentionally? How do you know he didn't do it intentionally as some sort of revenge to spread it to as many people as possible? That aside, whether he did it intentionally or not, the fact still remains that he infected someone (the deceased lady) and is probably still doing his thing infecting hundreds of women out there. Yet, when it comes to applying your loopsided-sided-jungle-justice-logic of brutally exterminating all carriers of HIV, you suddenly wish to cast doubts as to the very obvious agenda of this bio-weapon of mass destruction...and not only that, you're advocating for a possibility that he should be left to continue living? Like seriously??

~ What do you mean by if this man decides to sleep with his first wife knowing fully well he is HIV positive??

** He has got the virus. FACT.
** He must have slept with her seeing as they are married. FACT.
** There is a very, very, high possibility that she's contracted the killer disease from him. FACT.

Look. The odds are against your local hero. So you better condemn him totally without trying to wriggle out of it. Apply your jungle justice fairly.

~ Even more interestingly, you go on to say: she would be well within her right if she decides to stab him in the neck with a kitchen knife...

What do you mean by the phrase if she decides? Why the "if". What makes you think she shouldn't kill him on the spot? The way you choose to apply the soft touch to the men in question but get all heavy handed with the women is quite frankly becoming embarrassing. There is no "if" to contend with here. He too is a potential weapon of mass destruction. As long as this randy, local hero of yours lives and breathes, chances are he too could go ahead and infect more unsuspecting females. So it's best (according to your logic), that he be brutally wiped off the face of the earth as soon as possible.



The bone of contention here is that this man had no right to kill his wife. You think otherwise for (questionable) reasons best known to you. So, going by your very analysis, this man too does not deserve to live.

According to you, all HIV carriers deserve to die. So this man should be no different. Don't use one rule for the men and another for the women. Be fair whilst playing God and apportioning judgement to all carriers. Don't be sėxíst, Njokusboy.



I asked you a very valid question. When are you going to stop hopping around the ring and answer it?

Njokusboy: Would you as a man sleep with a woman if you know she's got the virus? Would you use a condom to sleep with her? Yes or no? If no, then why not??



I am smart, thank you.



An advocate for HIV??

If that's what it'll take to keep you and your promiscuous ilk in check, i.e death in skirts, then yeah, I support it 100%. I did, I do, and I will. Now does that answer your question about my stance, without a shred of doubt??

And yes, I still think, that his story doesn't add up. Therefore, he's lying between his teeth.

This is the most well written nonsense I have read in a long time...

(1) I never said the man was saying the truth, my position was that the woman deserve what she got if what he said was the truth..
Your first post did not consider the validity of the man's claim... you simply said the man deserved what to be infected with HIV simply because he took another wife... My response was to your preposterous reply, I didn't even comment on the thread...
You even transcended the boundary of preposterity to a point of insanity by suggesting that HIV positive women should go about infecting as much men as they could find.. It was after your Brain was restored to its default setting that you now started saying he might be lying... if you had said that the first time, no one would have argued with you..
EFEMENA, it's either you stick to your original position or shut the hell up... On the other hand, if you wanna speak from both sides of your mouth, atleast, do it with some sense..

(2) like I said earlier, the man was foolish, assuming his claim was true.. Bottomline, the woman succeeded in fooling him. Not having unprotected sex was a s't,u pid thing to do, so is paying money into a Nigerian account just because the Nigerian promised you marriage... That does not make the scam any less a crime, the whitemans st'u'p'idity notwithstanding... Inorder words, the fact that the man was S'T,u pid does not make intentionally infecting him less evil. "Assuming she did"

(3) As for your question, I won't have unprotected se'x with any woman if she is not tested, the man st'u'pidly trusted her, she didn't refuse to get tested, she said she already did and she was negative.... Bottomline, the woman fooled him, he took the bait and got infected, does his foolishness justify what she did? No, it doesnt....
Again, we are assuming he is saying the truth and I stick to my earlier position that he should be shot for murder if he is lying.. The difference between you and I is that I am open to the possibility that he was saying the truth and the fact that he was lying... There is not enough evidence to prove either..

The rest of your post is total rubbish, how can a man deliberately infect himself with hiv, now you are suggesting that he knew (or she told him) that she was positive and he still chose to sleep with her.. Ask the closest 10 year old if that makes sense.... The man was enlightened enough about HIV, that's why he suggested getting tested, but she told him she'd already been tested and it was negative. what the man lacked was not knowledge about the disease, it was an insight into the wickedness and maliciousness of the human mind..

(4)NO, the word 'dense' describes your proposal that HIV positive women should go about infecting wandering men... infact, I replace "dense" with moronic..

(5) lolzz, you said women should go about infecting men with HIV, I don't think you are mentally challenged, I think you are a raving lu'nati'c, I think you were knocked severely on the centre of your skull as soon as you were delivered as a result of your not crying when u got pinched...

I am not the man in question, he said the woman infected him, it is questionable but not impossible... Am only saying the woman deserved what she got if the claim is true.. By comparing the woman to a naked fire, you are saying the same senseless thing about her telling him she is HIV positive and him fvcking her notwithstanding...

(6) I use 'if' for the benefit of doubt, I don't jump into stupid conclusions.
'If' does not rule out the possibility that the man was lying, it only gives room for the chance that he is not... I never said he was certainly saying the truth, it's you who said he was certainly lying..
Whether he did it intentionally counts for a lot, hence the distinction between manslaughter and murder.. unconsciously infecting people is not the same as deliberately doing it..
And my jungle justice of brutality was not for everyone who is HIV positive, it is for those who intentionally spread it..

(7) "very obvious agenda", the Fvck do you mean by this? In the previous paragraph, you said it might be intentional, now you are saying, it is clearly intentional... Again, if you want to speak from both sides of your mouth, do it with some sense..
YES, I am advocating that he should be released if his story checks out, it is not just a possibility, it is feasible...

( yes, if he decides to sleep with his first wife now that he knows he is positive..
- "He has got the virus"/ TRUE
- "He must have slept with her", How do you know that? I am sure he hasn't after since finding out he is positive..
- "There is a high possibility that he infected her", YES, intentionally, NO...
The odds are not against him and he is not my hero, a look into the deceased woman's life and her medical history would determine the odds, if his story checks out, he stands a chance of walking free.. I don't have a problem with him getting the death sentence if he is found to be lying.. on the other hand, I think it's the dead woman that is your hero, you want women to infect men with HIV and she allegedly did so... BRAVO

(9)Everyone has got a choice, the man chose to kill the woman that intentionally infected him with HIV, if it's the other way around, I won't have a problem with it..

Which soft touch are you talking about here? Did I tell the man to kill the woman? Why don't you stop seeing things from a feminist perspective,he made a choice," one I don't have a problem with".. she is also free to do the same...
EFEMENA, don't be st'u'pid.... quit analysing nonsense... if he killed the woman because she deliberately gave him HIV, I doubt he would commit the same crime for which he killed someone else..
My point is that this man is justified in killing his wife if she deliberately infected him like he claimed...

Again, I didn't say all HIV carriers deserve to die, my position was that all HIV carriers who deliberately infect others deserve to die.. Again, EFEMENA, don't be st;u'pid

I have responded to that ridiculous question before, I don't see how it relates since the woman did not categorically tell the man she was positive, the man did not know she had it, he would not have slept with her if he did...

I don't have a problem with your being an advocate for HIV but I'd strangle you myself if you come crying foul play when one of your agents is served the meal she deserves..

Lastly, you "think" this story doesn't add up... you are not sure, yet you still concluded he is lying... who is the sexist now? huh?
EFEMENA, don't be st'u:p'id...
Gudnyt.

njokusboy:

This is the most well written nonsense I have read in a long time...

Well written? - Yes.

Nonsense? - I suppose you might say that, seeing as it's made utter nonsense of your arguments.

njokusboy: (1) I never said the man was saying the truth, my position was that the woman deserve what she got if what he said was the truth..

Do you understand that a life has been lost? This man took someone's life and you're more concerned with the validity of his claims, be they true or false. Would the validity of his claims bring back the life he took?

njokusboy: Your first post did not consider the validity of the man's claim...

I don't have to consider the validity of his claim. Whether he feels he was justified or not is beside the point. He isn't in the jungle. There are set laws in place to deal with people who commit crimes. He had no right to take the law into his hands and that has always been the bone of contention here.

njokusboy: you simply said the man deserved what to be infected with HIV simply because he took another wife... My response was to your preposterous reply, I didn't even comment on the thread...

What's preposterous is your stance that in a supposedly civil society, it's okay for people to take the lives of others whom they feel have aggrieved them. Who are you to determine who lives and who dies? Are you God? So going by that, if you feel it's okay to set down laws on how culprits of crimes should be treated murdered on the basis of hearsay, then what's wrong with saying there should be more of such agents plying the streets, if not for anything, but to keep the levels of promiscuity in check? Do you not think that if people...no...men like these stick to monogamous relationships, the rate of STD / HIV infections would drastically reduce?

Don't forget that greed was the cause of this man's downfall. Whether you like it or not, he had a wife but wasn't satisfied with what he had. He wanted more. I asked you a question earlier: why the need for another wife? What was wrong with his first wife? Was it that she wasn't sexy, posh, or slim enough for him after birthing his kids? If he felt there was a gap in his relationship with his wife, why then didn't he work things out with her, instead of fückíng around under the guise of culture? Guys like you use always use culture as an excuse for promiscuity. You do know that sleeping with more than one partner increases the chances of contracting a sėxüally transmitted disease, don't you?

njokusboy:
You even transcended the boundary of preposterity to a point of insanity by suggesting that HIV positive women should go about infecting as much men as they could find..

Nope. What I've consistently said is that since words aren't enough to keep men like these in check, then perhaps, having more agents ply the street will make them have a rethink. And that was the basis of the question I asked you earlier about whether or not you as a man, would condone sleeping with a woman, no matter how freaky you might feel, knowing she was HIV positive. Obviously you wouldn't want to sleep with her using a condom, much less have anything to do with her. But by doing so, the aim underlying aim would have been achieved, wouldn't it? i.e: keeping you in check.

Look, you don't have to like the principle behind it, and yes, it's not ethical, I agree - but it is an effect deterrent to men like you. Just think about it: If men (especially the married ones!) stick to their partners, and these HIV carrying women have no-one to sleep with, do you not think the world would eventually become a better place? How hard is that for you to understand, Njoksuboy??

njokusboy: It was after your Brain was restored to its default setting that you now started saying he might be lying... if you had said that the first time, no one would have argued with you..

Really?

And what is this supposedly "default setting" of my brain? Pray do tell. You're the one who's hell-bent on exterminating all HIV carrying women based on a man's say so. That questionable say so in the absence of any proof to back up his claims. But that doesn't bother you though, does it? As long as it's a woman, she deserves to die and her life isn't worth a kobo. Ride on Njokusboy. Ride on, I say.

Oh, and yes, anything that is questionable = a big possibility of being untrue = very likely a lie. Again, if this helps, I did, I do, and I will still believe this hero of yours is lying though his teeth.

njokusboy: EFEMENA, it's either you stick to your original position or shut the hell up... On the other hand, if you wanna speak from both sides of your mouth, atleast, do it with some sense..

I say it like it is. Especially in light of your rapidly evolving arguments.

njokusboy: (2) like I said earlier, the man was foolish, assuming his claim was true..

~ Whether his claims are true or not is irrelevant. He was, and still is föölish, and is deservedly paying the price for his greed and thinking between his legs.

~ Whether his claims are true or not, the fact remains that he choose to have unprotected sex, even though he knew what the risks are.

~ Whether his claims are true or not, this thick, Olodo construction worker from Victoria, Lagos acts before thinking. Even wild animals fare better. He had unprotected sex before thinking of the consequences. He killed his wife in annoyance and later regretted murdering her. What an ape!

njokusboy: Bottomline, the woman succeeded in fooling him.

Oh puuhhleezzz! Sing me another song!

When are men like you going to take responsibility for your poor actions? Actions you fully consented to as a supposed adult? Did the woman chain him to the bed post and räpė his brains out? Was his drink spiked? Was he not in complete control of his senses when he chose to ffuck around without protection, much less determining the sėxuäl health status of this woman? Yet, to heap foolishnėss upon föölishnėss, he went ahead to tie the knot. He was "föölėd" because he wanted to be föölėd. What an ídiöt. Now you see why I say more agents like these are needed to ply the streets of Naija? If nothing but to get them to kick start their one-celled brains into some degree of functionality...

njokusboy: Not having unprotected sex was a s't,u pid thing to do, [s]so is paying money into a Nigerian account just because the Nigerian promised you marriage... That does not make the scam any less a crime, the whitemans st'u'p'idity notwithstanding...[/s] Inorder words, the fact that the man was S'T,u pid does not make intentionally infecting him less evil. "Assuming she did"

Stick to the topic at hand and stop digressing. The so-called "whiteman" you're choosing to diss is the one cleaning up after your mess, now, abi? Who's researched and produced the anti-viral drugs needed to help boost the immune system of HIV carriers?

"Intentionally" infecting him is less evil than him murdering her. Why then did he try to take his own life by attempting to hang himself? And whilst walking and roaming the streets, there is every likelihood that this waking bio-weapon of mass destruction could potentially infect someone else. He is a walking health risk, but no, Njokusboy doesn't and will never see it that way.

What make you think he is better than the deceased woman? She only knows the amount of crap she probably had to swallow from him everyday, hence her desire to leave him for someone else. And before you harp on about her not telling this other guy, how do you know she hadn't? Or wasn't planning on telling him? Come to think of it, she probably might have, and despite that, this new guy was willing to accept her for what she was.

But your mörönic construction worker from Victoria Island Lagos, saw red. His sisi of a wife (who hadn't birthed for him yet) and probably still had her figure still packaged wella was incensed with jealousy and wasn't going to have any of it. His way of thinking was: "If I can't have you, no one else can!" Abi isn't that how most low-level thinking Naija men reason?

njokusboy: (3) As for your question, I won't have unprotected se'x with any woman if she is not tested, the man st'u'pidly trusted her, she didn't refuse to get tested, she said she already did and she was negative.... Bottomline, the woman fooled him, he took the bait and got infected, does his foolishness justify what she did? No, it doesnt....

Good you know the risks involved.

And no, as already pointed out, stop blaming the woman. He chose not to insist on seeing the test results because of his overwhelming need to have raw sex with her. It was his decision and he should take responsibility for the consequences of his action. It isn't rocket science.

njokusboy: Again, we are assuming he is saying the truth and I stick to my earlier position that he should be shot for murder if he is lying..

And what gives you the right to determine who lives and who dies? Who are you??

njokusboy: The difference between you and I is that I am open to the possibility that he was saying the truth and the fact that he was lying... There is not enough evidence to prove either..

No.

The difference between you and I is that you are easily swayed by your emotions and wouldn't think twice about sanctioning a heinous crime on the basis of hearsay and very, very, questionable claims that haven't got a shred of proof. Nigerian women to you are nothing but second class citizens.

njokusboy: The rest of your post is total rubbish, how can a man deliberately infect himself with hiv, now you are suggesting that he knew (or she told him) that she was positive and he still chose to sleep with her..

I knew the logic behind that statement of mine would elude you. What I didn't bargain for was how it would completely go over your head. Go back and read that bit slowly. If after reading it, you still don't get it, then come back to me and highlight the sections of that post of mine that confuse you so. I promise I won't think any less of you. I mean, how can I? It's not possible to go down any further when one's hit rock bottom, is there?

njokusboy: Ask the closest 10 year old if that makes sense....

It does.

njokusboy: The man was enlightened enough about HIV, that's why he suggested getting tested, but she told him she'd already been tested and it was negative. what the man lacked was not knowledge about the disease, [s]it was an insight into the wickedness and maliciousness of the human mind..[/s]

And and aversion for taking adult responsibility for his poor decisions.

njokusboy: (4)NO, the word 'dense' describes your proposal that HIV positive women should go about infecting wandering men... infact, I replace "dense" with moronic..

Which is nothing compared to your claims supported by an astounding number of conditional statements that the man in this story is the innocent bystander, justified to exterminate a critically ill person's life based on his mis-placed concept of how it's his decision to take a life at his pleasure, and should therefore be exonerated from facing the consequences of his crime.

They had a fight on the night he stabbed her thrice. What do you really think that fight was about? Did he not know that he was already infected by the virus at that stage and saw nothing wrong with being infected, and re-infected by her? Then suddenly, he remembers that she had been receiving calls from another man on her phone, even in his presence (one reason to kill her), + the other "deeds" she had been doing (another reason to kill her). Funny he didn't expatiate on what exactly those deeds of the deceased woman were.

njokusboy: [s](5) lolzz, you said women should go about infecting men with HIV, I don't think you are mentally challenged, I think you are a raving lu'nati'c, I think you were knocked severely on the centre of your skull as soon as you were delivered as a result of your not crying when u got pinched...[/s]

And who's raving now?

Can you stop weeping like an emotional woman going through menstrual pains and hit me hard on the face with solid points? I don't do emotional men, Njokusboy. So quite the tantrums, okay?

njokusboy: I am not the man in question, he said the woman infected him, it is questionable but not impossible... Am only saying the woman deserved what she got if the claim is true.. By comparing the woman to a naked fire, you are saying the same senseless thing about her telling him she is HIV positive and him fvcking her notwithstanding...

Point of correction.

I did not compare the woman to a näkėd flame. I compared the man's actions to toying with a näkėd flame! Don't tell me you've got issues with comprehension as well?

Actions and consequences, Njokusboy...Actions and consequences. He has no one else to blame but himself. He had a home. He wanted more. He got more than he bargained for.

njokusboy: (6) I use 'if' for the benefit of doubt, I don't jump into stüpíd conclusions.

Are you absolutely sure about the bolded part of your sentence? Because the way I see it, condemning a human life to death on the basis of hearsay and unproven claims goes beyond stüpidíty.

njokusboy: 'If' does not rule out the possibility that the man was lying, it only gives room for the chance that he is not... I never said he was certainly saying the truth, it's you who said he was certainly lying..

But yet you condone his actions and clamour for it to be taken up by any aggrieved male who claims to have been infected by the HIV virus from his female partner(s)? Yeah, I see the logic in your statement.

njokusboy: Whether he did it intentionally counts for a lot, hence the distinction between manslaughter and murder.. unconsciously infecting people is not the same as deliberately doing it..

Doesn't change the fact that he admitted to committing pre-meditated murder. He had time to think about what he was doing. The only sad thing about this case is that his busy-body neighbours "rescued" him from the noose. He should have been left to complete what he'd started.

njokusboy: And my jungle justice of brutality was not for everyone who is HIV positive, it is for those who intentionally spread it..

Why? What's the difference? Aren't the end results exactly the same? Whether intentional or unintentional, anyone who gets it has a definite appointment (before their natural time on earth) with their maker.

Don't be a hypocrite and be bold and brave enough to apply you jungle justice to all carriers of the virus, if you really are the concerned for the welfare of non-HIV people - and not just a select few (who incidentally, happen to be men, going by your earlier assertions).

njokusboy: (7) "very obvious agenda", the Fvck do you mean by this? In the previous paragraph, you said it might be intentional, now you are saying, it is clearly intentional... Again, if you want to speak from both sides of your mouth, do it with some sense..
YES, I am advocating that he should be released [size=18pt]if[/size] his story checks out, it is not just a possibility, it is feasible...

Warra hypocrite! So even if his story checks out to be true, he has the right to continue living his life as though nothing happened, even though he's no better than the one he murdered in cold blood? Even though he too is a walking bio-weapon of mass destruction?

So who really is talking from both sides of their mouth? With this selective reasoning of yours based on additional conditional statement?

njokusboy: ( yes, if he decides to sleep with his first wife now that he knows he is positive..

What do you mean by if he decides to sleep with his first wife now that he knows he is positive? Are you honestly telling me that knowing this man's history of not being able to keep his third leg in check, he will now (HIV or no HIV), willingly condemn the rest of his life to celebacy? Like seriously?

Please don't make me laugh. And don't go on with these IF statements of yours. She is his wife. He's legally married to her. He would have exerted his rights to sleep with her and having done so, probably passed his deadly disease to the poor, unsuspecting woman.

njokusboy: - "He has got the virus"/ TRUE
- "He must have slept with her", How do you know that? I am sure he hasn't after since finding out he is positive.. I've told you why he I think he probably has.
- "There is a high possibility that he infected her", YES, intentionally, NO...

My explanations just above this quote of yours fully explain my stance. Chances are, he's also destroyed another life. Chances are, you'll find an excuse for your hero to wriggle out of this too.

njokusboy: The odds are not against him and he is not my hero, a look into the deceased woman's life and her medical history would determine the odds, if his story checks out, he stands a chance of walking free.. I don't have a problem with him getting the death sentence if he is found to be lying.. on the other hand, I think it's the dead woman that is your hero, you want women to infect men with HIV and she allegedly did so... BRAVO

(9)Everyone has got a choice, the man chose to kill the woman that intentionally infected him with HIV, if it's the other way around, I won't have a problem with it..

Which soft touch are you talking about here? Did I tell the man to kill the woman? Why don't you stop seeing things from a feminist perspective,he made a choice," one I don't have a problem with".. she is also free to do the same...
EFEMENA, don't be st'u'pid.... quit analysing nonsense... if he killed the woman because she deliberately gave him HIV, I doubt he would commit the same crime for which he killed someone else..
My point is that this man is justified in killing his wife if she deliberately infected him like he claimed...

Again, I didn't say all HIV carriers deserve to die, my position was that all HIV carriers who deliberately infect others deserve to die.. Again, EFEMENA, don't be st;u'pid

I have responded to that ridiculous question before, I don't see how it relates since the woman did not categorically tell the man she was positive, the man did not know she had it, he would not have slept with her if he did...

I don't have a problem with your being an advocate for HIV but I'd strangle you myself if you come crying foul play when one of your agents is served the meal she deserves..

Lastly, you "think" this story doesn't add up... you are not sure, yet you still concluded he is lying... who is the sexist now? huh?
EFEMENA, don't be st'u:p'id...
Gudnyt.

njokusboy:

I'm not done with you yet.

Still addressing your points, Njokusboy.

Ah! Nairaland complaining that my post is too long!

Okay, here's the rest of it for you, Njokusboy...

njokusboy: The odds are not against him and he is not my hero, a look into the deceased woman's life and her medical history would determine the odds, if his story checks out, he stands a chance of walking free.. I don't have a problem with him getting the death sentence if he is found to be lying.. on the other hand, I think it's the dead woman that is your hero, you want women to infect men with HIV and she allegedly did so... BRAVO

Doesn't change the fact that he is a coward and a murderer. Why did he try to end his life? And yes, promiscuous men out there need visible deterrents. Like I said, it may not be ethical, but it sure is effective. You don't have to like the principle. The end result is what matters. I mean, short of castrating promiscuous married men, what else can be done to rein them in and keep them in check?

njokusboy: (9)Everyone has got a choice, the man chose to kill the woman that intentionally infected him with HIV, if it's the other way around, I won't have a problem with it..

We aren't in the stone age. There are set law in the land for a reason. You have no right to take the laws into your hands, much less decide who lives and who dies.

njokusboy: Which soft touch are you talking about here? Did I tell the man to kill the woman? Why don't you stop seeing things from a feminist perspective,he made a choice," one I don't have a problem with".. she is also free to do the same...

If disagreeing with your views makes me a feminist, then so be it. Now, back to the matter at hand:

How exactly do you propose the deceased woman exercise this freedom of choice? By rising from the dead to exert revenge on him?? You didn't ask the man to kill his wife but yet you don't see anything wrong with it? Being an advocate for murder. Nice one, Njokusboy.

njokusboy: [s]EFEMENA, don't be st'u'pid.... quit analysing nonsense...[/s] if he killed the woman because she deliberately gave him HIV, I doubt he would commit the same crime for which he killed someone else..

Your doubts are misplaced. He's used his third leg to replace his brain in the past. He is a randy goat. He definitely at 45 can't live a celibate life, hence his desire to commit suicide. He will infect others. The temptation will be too much for him to bear.

njokusboy: My point is that this man is justified in killing his wife if she deliberately infected him like he claimed...

Again, I didn't say all HIV carriers deserve to die, my position was that all HIV carriers who deliberately infect others deserve to die.. Again, EFEMENA, don't be st;u'pid

On the contrary, your writeup reeks stüpídity of the highest order. Your point is moot and enshrined in a sexist, loopsided logic. Your first two sentences contradict themselves. You sanction the brutal killing of all HIV infected people...especially the women as they are devious, capable of fooling men who refuse to take adult responsibility for their poor, short-sighted decisions. According to your logic, the killings are fine if they're carried out by men. If it's the other way round, then the women have the decision to probably not kill the men because the men in all probability infected them "unknowingly".

njokusboy: I have responded to that ridiculous question before, I don't see how it relates since the woman did not categorically tell the man she was positive, the man did not know she had it, he would not have slept with her if he did...

I don't have a problem with your being an advocate for HIV but I'd strangle you myself if you come crying foul play when one of your agents is served the meal she deserves..

Lastly, you "think" this story doesn't add up... you are not sure, yet you still concluded he is lying... who is the sexist now? huh?
EFEMENA, don't be st'u:p'id...
Gudnyt.

Strangle who?

Quit foaming at the mouth. I seriously can't handle emotional men. Cuss out your liver if it makes you feel better, but make sure you address the points I've placed before you.

I'm only just warming up for you, Njokusboy!

Utter nonsense of my argument Lmao..

(1) What life was lost, the life of a serial killer is no life at all, if his claim is true, he should be given a medal, the streets are one serial killer safer, like I said earlier, it's not murder, it's community service...

(2) the woman deliberately infected him with HIV, he had a good reason to take the law in his hands, when someone attacks you in your home, you would be well within your right if you put a bullet in they head...

(3) It's not OK to take the life of anyone but in some instances, such as this, it is excusable... What has God got to do with this? Are juries and judges God... What hearsay are you referring to, I see you deliberately dodged stating that I felt it's ok to set down laws on how culprits of crime should be treated, you had to insert the word "hearsay" into it, you just don't want to believe it's possible he might be saying the truth, you have completely ruled that out, Efemena, your perspectives have clouded your reasoning, you are inadequately qualified to make an objective stand on this issue, anyway, if his story checks out, it won't. be hearsay, would it?

(4) There is everything wrong with saying there should be more of such agents plying the streets.. Asides the fact that you are encouraging HIV positive people to go about spreading the Virus, you are also ignoring the multiplier effect, I mean, it is bad enough as it is, it's gonna be worse when people start spreading it intentionally, and what even makes you think intentionally dishing out the virus would keep promiscuous men in check?? The emergence of HIV has not reduced the rate of prostitution, it would only raise the rate of infection and speed up the vicious cycle, if you think spreading HIV is a good measure for curtailing promiscuity, killing off prostitutes may also be considered shey? You are misguided...

(5) I wonder what you have a problem with, I think you should stick to the thread, are you angered by polygamy? By the fact that the man abandoned his Wife for another because she isn't posh or slim enough, is that even a crime? Is that what this thread is about? You are pissed he didn't try to work things out with his wife, ain't you? How do you know he even has problems with his first Wife?
You see, as a feminist, you are inadequately qualified to take an objective stand on this, mind you, I don't support promiscuity, if I can't stick to my wife, I won't marry at all.. That doesn't mean I'd support a woman intentionally infecting a man with HIV because he is promiscuous.. polygamy is even permissible in Islam, I think you should take your grouse to them..

(6) The problem with your 'solution', is that that, the woman won't tell the man she is Positive when she wants to infect him, would she? So he won't even know she is positive, when he does not know, there is no deterrent iinfact... so your solution won't even keep anyone in check... people know that prostitutes are an easy way to get HIV, that has not reduced the number of customers in brothels...
I don't like the principle, it is not ethical and it is not even a deterrent at all since your agents would not make a public announcement about their intentions before proceeding.. it is wicked, malicious and irrational.
This isn't about the world becoming a better place, quit looking at things from an ideal perspective, truth is, Men and Women would never completely stick to their partners, how dare you make it all about men? Nd u accuse me of being sexist?? I am all for men sticking with their wives but that is not the point of this thread...

(7) Why do you like twisting things? How did you read all this ridiculous meanings into what I said, are you assuming on my behalf My problem with you is that you only see what you wanna see..
I reiterate, I am of the position that anybody who intentionally spreads the virus deserved to be wiped off the earth, be it male or female.. it's a better evil than allowing them infect multitude with their evil intentions, it's quite unfortunate that a woman had to be the spreader in this case, if the situation is reversed, my position would remain the same which is more than I can say for you, you would still support the woman and blame the man for intentionally infecting her, seeing as you have been dangling like a bubble head this the beginning of this argument...
Questionable=unsure= could be true or false..
Lollzz, I think your arguments have evolved more, you started with saying he deserved to be infected, you later went on to question his story only to turn around and say the validity of the claim is not important, now you are criticizing polygamy and encouraging HIV positive women to spread the virus as a punitive measure for polygamous men... kai, nawa oh..
- Whether his claims are true or not is very relevant, he was deceived by someone whi is hell bent on infecting him with HIV.
- He chose to have unprotected sex because he was assured his partner was Negative, she wanted to infect him and he stoopidly believed her
- why you so mad? Yet you accuse me of being emotional.. haha, your have a problem with him acting without thinking but you don't have one with a well thought out and devious scheme by the woman, to infect the man... haba??
-Men, like me What are you going on about?? The fact that the woman did it intentionally is the bone of contention here, the fact that she knew she has it and lied about it has skewed the case against her... That he even married her shows that dis wasn't just an affair, the dude actually liked the woman..
You are talking nonsense again, and you need to stop insulting Naija men, I hope you know that includes your father and husband, are you saying their brains are not functional... Who is getting emotional here?

( He stabbed her thrice when she insisted on moving on to another victim after infecting him... The dude was even patient enough not to kill her after all the deceits, he didn't even know she has any child at all let alone one that died of HIV, leaving him for another victim whom she'd prolly leave after infecting was the last straw... This dude is a fvcking humanitarian..

I am not getting emotional, when I do, you would know, those words perfectly describes you, I used them without breaking a sweat... I didn't even mean to insult you...

(9) you compared the man's actions to dipping his fingers in n@k€d flames, The HIV woman representing The n@kkid flames, what is the difference... I think you are the one with comprehension problems...

Actions and Consequences...
EFE, she was HIV positive, she wanted to infect him, she deceived him, intentionally infecting him... He killed her for intentionally infecting him... Actions and consequences, she has only herself to blame...

(10) You truly have a comprehension problem, you have proved that without a doubt, I have not condemned her yet, I only support condemning her if the story is true, Don't you understand English? You have been dancing around like a b1t'ch on heat, making one assumptions after the other, only im,be,cil:e$ do what you have been doing..
You are missing it again, I guess it's due to ur comprehension problem, I only condone his actions if his claims are proven to be true, chai... EFE

(11) I told you its not murder earlier on, if his claim is true, it is community service..

The results are not the same, a person with an agenda to infect others would invariably infect more people.. you can forgive someone who infected you unconsciously not someone who did it intentionally...

I am not wicked, I used to know someone that was positive, he is dead now.. He was a good man, he stopped having sex as soon as he learnt of his status, now that is someone with a good head. If he had wanted to go on infecting people, I'd have recommended the same thing for him..

Yes, if his story checks out to be true, he has the right to continue living, something happened and he should be applauded for making it happen, if someone had shot Patrick sawyer at the airport, we would have applauded him... He is no walking weapom of mass destruction unless he intends committing the same crime for which he murdered his wife...

(12) I wasn't dissing any whiteman, that was just an analogy, you would have noticed that if you were smart... Which mess is the whiteman cleaning up by the way, the mess he created himself, you do know HIV was first discovered among gay men in America right? so the white man prolly brought it to Africa, Na case was recorded in Naija until the late 1980s, the whiteman made the mess, it is his job to clean it up...

(13) I guess the man had a conscience afterall, that is prolly why he chose to end his life, it could be that he didn't relish the prospects of living with the virus, that is more than I can say for the woman who wanted to spread it around, if he plans on infecting other people, he wouldn't wanna end his life, would he? He needs to be alive to spread it, don't you think? And he cannot be committing the same offence for which he murdered someone else..

(14) you are assuming again, 'evolving more', what crap are you saying You earlier said, no man would Want to sleep with anyone with HIV, with or without protection, now you are saying she told the new dude of her status and he was willing to accept her like that, lolzzz, EFEMENA, if you wanna speak from both sides of your mouth, do it with some sense..
His sisi of a wife had HIV, she was moving to another victim after infecting him... since when did murdering a wife that wants to leave become about Naija men sef, watch crime channel, you'd see a lot of that, stop talking trash..

Overwhelming need to have raw sex, isn't this another useless. Assumption of yours, why would he marry her if raw sex was all he wanted

I am Human and it is Humans like me who determine who lives or who dies, not God.

A hear say is better than all your useless assumptions, "she was hot", "his first wife was not slim and posh" and other fvckerry you dug out ur nyansh... what if the story is true, it is proven to be true, would it be hearsay?? would your position change?

(15) what logic are you talking about, you made a clear statement and you are talking about logic behind the statement... if you have something to say, say it, I don't see the castles hanging in the air...
Who told you I care about what you think, EFE, I don't care about you or your opinions, I don't even know your a'r's'e..
(16) I never said, he is innocent, not until his story is proven to be true, at least, a critically ill person that wants to make the world as critically ill as herself.. I think his concept is justified, taking her life was not pleasant but it was neccessary, I think he should be given a medal if his story checks out...

What history are you referring to, he had two wives, how does that equate to a history of not keeping his third leg In check? You got to know his entire intimate history from this thread... chai... nawaoh.......

He has HIV, he is not condemned to a life of celibacy, he can't be as evil as the woman he killed... he killed her afterall....
If he wishes to continue having sex, he should go to a HIV counselling centre and pick a positive woman...

There is no right of sleeping with your wife when you re HIV positive, that is wickedness, everyone agrees, except you.

.........

EfemenaXY: Ah! Nairaland complaining that my post is too long!

Okay, here's the rest of it for you, Njokusboy...



Doesn't change the fact that he is a coward and a murderer. Why did he try to end his life? And yes, promiscuous men out there need visible deterrents. Like I said, it may not be ethical, but it sure is effective. You don't have to like the principle. The end result is what matters. I mean, short of castrating promiscuous married men, what else can be done to rein them in and keep them in check?



We aren't in the stone age. There are set law in the land for a reason. You have no right to take the laws into your hands, much less decide who lives and who dies.



If disagreeing with your views makes me a feminist, then so be it. Now, back to the matter at hand:

How exactly do you propose the deceased woman exercise this freedom of choice? By rising from the dead to exert revenge on him?? You didn't ask the man to kill his wife but yet you don't see anything wrong with it? Being an advocate for murder. Nice one, Njokusboy.



Your doubts are misplaced. He's used his third leg to replace his brain in the past. He is a randy goat. He definitely at 45 can't live a celibate life, hence his desire to commit suicide. He will infect others. The temptation will be too much for him to bear.



On the contrary, your writeup reeks stüpídity of the highest order. Your point is moot and enshrined in a sexist, loopsided logic. Your first two sentences contradict themselves. You sanction the brutal killing of all HIV infected people...especially the women as they are devious, capable of fooling men who refuse to take adult responsibility for their poor, short-sighted decisions. According to your logic, the killings are fine if they're carried out by men. If it's the other way round, then the women have the decision to probably not kill the men because the men in all probability infected them "unknowingly".



Strangle who?

Quit foaming at the mouth. I seriously can't handle emotional men. Cuss out your liver if it makes you feel better, but make sure you address the points I've placed before you.

I'm only just warming up for you, Njokusboy!

It does change a lot, if his story checks out, he is a hero, not a murderer, he took out an enemy of the state... your malicious deterrents are neither ethical nor effective... i don't like the principle, I am not without sense. Nothing can be done to keep men in check, except God intervenes, it is not a perfect world...

ND I told you its humans like me that decides who lives or dies, the law is not absolute, it is subjective and relative, that is why trials exist...

Again, you show your lack of comprehension, the freedom of chice is if the case was reversed and the woman kills the man for intentionally infecting her... I ain't no advocate for murder, I say this man should be released if his story checks out.. the murder is justified...

Implicit in your thinking is that any man who gets married to a second wife is a randy goat

Knowing his condition, the dude has many options if he can't be celibate, he can self service or marry someone positive..

When would you have sense, you have been acting like a tick infested dog all day..
You have a problem with naija men,, left to you, you would wipe them off and you still have the guts to call me sexist.. you have encouraged HIV positive women to go about sharing the virus nd you have the effrontery to call me sexist.. you have advocated for the castration of all Polygamous men, nd I am the sexist, you have questioned the validity of this man's claim and later turned around to say it's not important, ND I am sexist??
Your points are scattered here and there like stagnant water and you say I am sexist...

Your initial position is not only st'u';pid, it is mo;ro,nic, Questioning the validity of the man's story and turning around to term it unimportant bears the hallmark of an i'm,be; cile in denial....
Turn this thing arounf and my position would not change, you on the other hand, is hell bent on proving women as victims and men as the bad people...

Strangle you...

I am doing perfectly fine, I ain't foaming, I can't foam over you, u ain't that hard to chew... I have not even cussed you yet, when I start you would know... you also need to quit playing the victim... I am not addressing your points too, you don't have one, I am merely pointing your foolishness out, God knows what crap you might come up with next...

As for warming up, I don't need a warm up to deal with your shriveled a'r's'e...

dat man never loved his wife.

Why marry someone with a past he hasn't properly investigated?What ever happened to HIV tests?And is killing another human being a cure for his viral ailment?

Such a man should be quickly killed too.