firstEVA:
ok, which bird do you have in mind? Vulture or bat?

whichever you chose to tell

Sagamite:


Finally you are talking about people at my level.

https://www.nairaland.com/584449/debate-against-religion-won
https://www.nairaland.com/584449/debate-against-religion-won#9780721

Christopher Hitchens is like me in many ways.

- He gives God-like logical arguments.
- He does not do some psychotic God.
- He insults dumbarses.
- He does not believe in freedom of free speech of fuuktards.
- He does not like conservatives, nor does he like liberals.
- He believes feminism is crap.
- He only does sense, logic, objectivity and reasoning.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQas34criFo

Yh, though I certainly don't agree with all of his viewpoints, he was def a brilliant wordsmith. Btw, that so-called "Hitch versus Feminism" video isn't anti-feminist in the slightest.

I was exposed to his writing, not through his world journalism or atheistic debates, but through his Vanity Fair essays pertaining to his illness, and later on, his impending death. My father was going through treatment around the same time, and tough a time it was, I deeply admired his prose and the manner and perspective with which he handled the subject.

EnlightenedSoul:


My grammar is not that great. If you have an appreciation for eloquent English speech, you should look no further than the late Christopher Hitchens, IMO. He has had that seemingly typical weird old Brit look to him, but the man could make a sapiophile type grammar-girl orgasm simply from listening to him articulate himself, I'm sure lol.

I warn you, though. He was an outspoken journalist. An outspoken atheist, rather. A brilliant literary badass of our times (RIP).

Your grammar is actually quite good. Don't sell yourself short.

EnlightenedSoul:


Yh, though I certainly don't agree with all of his viewpoints, he was def a brilliant wordsmith. Btw, that so-called "Hitch versus Feminism" video isn't anti-feminist in the slightest.

Neither do I agree with all his viewpoints. But, fck me, we agree on most things and we both dish it out with original-thinking, logic, objectivity, facts, impressive dialectics and no need for some stewpid politically correctness rubbish.

He is not anti-feminist, he is just making it clear that many of the feminist points are rubbish.

The only thing sensible people agree with feminists is the fact that women should have the same rights under the law. And that was a premise in his point in the clip that the woman could not spot. He was waiting for and teasing her to talk crap before highlighting it, but she did not. She just stuck to "disbelief", probably because she is a sapiophile who was just enjoying hearing him talk and wanted to flirt with him.

Unfortunately, many feminist don't just want women to have the same rights. They also want advantage over men under the law and punishment/opprobrium on men.

Sensible people, despite believing women should have the same rights, also make it clear they are aware of the physiological and social difference between the sexes. That is the same position Christopher Hitchens was taking.

For example, sensible people would think women should not be in a front line (army infantry) in a warfare, but accept if any woman insists to be allowed to join, then let her go. It is her right. But if she faces the trouble men face there, she should not get any extra or exceptional pity/treatment.

EnlightenedSoul:

I was exposed to his writing, not through his world journalism or atheistic debates, but through his Vanity Fair essays pertaining to his illness, and later on, his impending death. My father was going through treatment around the same time, and tough a time it was, I deeply admired his prose and the manner and perspective with which he handled the subject.

Wow!

My Somali ex' dad died of cancer just a few years before that period.

Sagamite:


Neither do I agree with all his viewpoints. But, fck me, we agree on most things and we both dish it out with original-thinking, logic, objectivity, facts, impressive dialectics and no need for some stewpid politically correctness rubbish.

He is not anti-feminist, he is just making it clear that many of the feminist points are rubbish.

The only thing sensible people agree with feminists is the fact that women should have the same rights under the law. And that was a premise in his point in the clip that the woman could not spot. He was waiting for and teasing her to talk crap before highlighting it, but she did not. She just stuck to "disbelief", probably because she is a sapiophile who was just enjoying hearing him talk and wanted to flirt with him.

Unfortunately, many feminist don't just want women to have the same rights. They also want advantage over men under the law and punishment/opprobrium on men.

Sensible people, despite believing women should have the same rights, also make it clear they are aware of the physiological and social difference between the sexes. That is the same position Christopher Hitchens was taking.

For example, sensible people would think women should not be in a front line (army infantry) in a warfare, but accept if any woman insists to be allowed to join, then let her go. It is her right. But if she faces the trouble men face there, she should not get any extra or exceptional pity/treatment

You're contradicting yourself. His points were not in conflict with feminist views in the slightest. And I wouldn't say it was his speech that stumped her. If you watch closely, you'll realize that her blatant disbelief stems moreso from her obvious inability to imagine that a women might actually want to go that route, i.e, be a SAHM! She's so caught up in the conundrum, she quite literally overlooks the fact that he's presented a choice, several times, lol.

There's a marked difference between feminist views and misandry.

Wow! My Somali ex' dad died of cancer just a few years before that period.

I'm so sorry to hear that, but that's almost too much coincidence for me. Well, my father is alive and fully-recovered. He doesn't run like before anymore, but he's the type you'd still see jog-walking the trails at the buttcrack of dawn. Pretty much the only thing I've noted SO and him have in common: athleticism and the affliction of being every bit a morning person.

Sagamite:
Where is that dumb captain.swag225?

The funny thing is you know someone is likely to be a highly dumb cretinous fuuktard when their imagination is limited to including "swag" in their moniker.

You instantly know this is highly likely to be an impressionable cretinous wannabe.

chim ooo!!!! see punchline

EnlightenedSoul:


You're contradicting yourself. His points were not in conflict with feminist views in the slightest. And I wouldn't say it was his speech that stumped her. If you watch closely, you'll realize that her blatant disbelief stems moreso from her obvious inability to imagine that a women might actually want to go that route, i.e, be a SAHM! She's so caught up in the conundrum, she quite literally overlooks the fact that he's presented a choice, several times, lol.

There's a marked difference between feminist views and misandry.

His points are completely in conflict with feminist's views.

He told her straight up (1) where he feels women should be, (2) women are a different and weaker sex but (3) he believes women should have a choice.

Only the last point feminist would agree with. The first 2 points feminists would no doubt call "Misogyny" in anger.

Most prominent and leading feminists are misandrist fuuktards. And many of the leading media establishment are full of fuuktard liberals who are scared and too useless to challenge these feminist fuuktards.

The interviewer is obviously an average brain "liberal" who would have flipped if it was someone else that said what Hitchens said, but she was so much of a sapiosexual, she just held him in awe and can't imagine finding faults in him. She would have his babies if she had the chance.

EnlightenedSoul:

I'm so sorry to hear that, but that's almost too much coincidence for me. Well, my father is alive and fully-recovered. He doesn't run like before anymore, but he's the type you'd still see jog-walking the trails at the buttcrack of dawn. Pretty much the only thing I've noted SO and him have in common: athleticism and the affliction of being every bit a morning person.

That is good to here.

Cancer is some scary stuff.

Sagamite:


His points are completely in conflict with feminist's views.

He told her straight up (1) where he feels women should be, (2) women are a different and weaker sex but (3) he believes women should have a choice.

Only the last point feminist would agree with. The first 2 points feminists would no doubt call "Misogyny" in anger.

Most prominent and leading feminists are misandrist fuuktards. And many of the leading media establishment are full of fuuktard liberals who are scared and too useless to challenge these feminist fuuktards.

The interviewer is obviously an average brain "liberal" who would have flipped if it was someone else that said what Hitchens said, but she was so much of a sapiosexual, she just held him in awe and can't imagine finding faults in him. She would have his babies if she had the chance.

Nope. That he doesn't feel any woman of his should work simply means, for him, finding one who shares his views and is happy to play the role of the stay-at-home-mother. The third point is the crux of the matter for feminism. The first two points are quite simply irrelevant, and wouldn't concern feminism inasmuch as the woman wasn't being subjugated or forced into that lifestyle.

I quite disagree with the observation that the presenter is an enchanted sapiosexual impressed by his speech. I mean, just look at her. The woman in the clip is clearly appalled at the model being presented by Hitch, that of the SAHM lifestyle, which the host - or any other career-woman or woman of aspiration - can't help but see as an empty one. Besides, his speech isn't notably impressive in this one, anyway.

And LOL @ wants to have his babies. Hah! You just reminded me of one of my coworkers. He once hung up the phone, and said aloud (without meaning to, of course...he was tired, lol), "She totally wants me!". It was a nurse inquiring about about her patient's test results..

EnlightenedSoul:


Nope. That he doesn't feel any woman of his should work simply means, for him, finding one who shares his views and is happy to play the role of the stay-at-home-mother.

Nope!

He did not just say "his woman", he frequently said "they".

Surely you don't think or have any knowledge he is a polygamist?

If you don't, then it should be easy for you to work out he means women in general.

This is exemplified by his reference to women as the gentler sex and that he finds it odd seeing women "coursing through the workplace".

He made it clear he believes and prefers women should be in the house except (i) they don't want to or (ii) needs be they work.

Not just his woman, but women!

Many of these prominent cretinous feminists are fcking lesbians for fck sake.

EnlightenedSoul:

The third point is the crux of the matter for feminism. The first two points are quite simply irrelevant, and wouldn't concern feminism inasmuch as the woman wasn't being subjugated or forced into that lifestyle.

Those 2 points are not irrelevant to feminist.

They would scream blue murder at the thought of anyone saying women are not equal in all ramifications except physical strength.

They would scream blue murder at the thought of anyone saying women's place is in the home and it is odd for them to be working.

All you would get is the fuuktards screaming sexist and misogynist all day.

They cannot even stand women stating they prefer to be subordinate to a man and women saying they would stay at home.

Many women are sick of reetarded feminist fuuktards.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZBpdZbSYSg

There is a difference between women that want sane, civilised and progressive equal rights to cretinous feminists women with their mad ideas and hatred of men.

Hitchens abides by the former.

EnlightenedSoul:

I quite disagree with the observation that the presenter is an enchanted sapiosexual impressed by his speech. I mean, just look at her. The woman in the clip is clearly appalled at the model being presented by Hitch, that of the SAHM lifestyle, which the host - or any other career-woman or woman of aspiration - can't help but see as an empty one.

She is!

She is not appalled, she is surprised!

She is surprised he would say it publicly.

She is like most other woman. She treats the same utterances/information/position/etc from different sources differently based on subjective analysis of the source.

If it was another man that said the same thing, like Peter Stringfellow, she would flip on him. It would not be smiles and banter, it would be frowns and disparaging remarks she would throw at him.

Just like the feminist fuuktard Charlotte Proudman. If she had been contacted by a 34 year old hotshot partner from a law firm, she would not have screamed sexism like when it was a man in his 50s.

Just like if Sagamite says on NL that he would smack the arsse or ogles women's titts on NL, it is seen as funnny/cute by most girls, but if some other fuuktard on NL did the same, he would be seen as perverted and mad.

EnlightenedSoul:

Besides, his speech isn't notably impressive in this one, anyway.

His speech is as impressive as any of his others on this because as usual, like me, he demonstrates his original thought (not populist BS) and he is willing to publicly state it and ready as fck to defend it with logic.

Unfortunately, the sapiosexual could not take the bait to challenge him as he planned, she was just getting horn..y. That is why we never got to him explaining his logic.

EnlightenedSoul:

And LOL @ wants to have his babies. Hah! You just reminded me of one of my coworkers. He once hung up the phone, and said aloud (without meaning to, of course...he was tired, lol), "She totally wants me!". It was a nurse inquiring about about her patient's test results..

Your coworker might have been a fooool but I see this all the time, girl. The presenter was an admirer who would proudly have his babies.

Her "surprise" (which you called appalled) is irrelevant. The subject is more important than his statements in her world.

It is like me. I say the fck what I want to say about religion but yet pull hardcore religious girls who one would think would only date "God-fearing" men from their faith.

They still get attracted even though I ridicule their God and religion at will.

Women love confident intellectuals that can win any dialectics and broaden their minds by stating things intelligently the way they have never seen. They find it impressive, sexy, intriguing and a challenge.

That is just women. Sapiosexuals take their love for it to another level.

They want babies!

Sagamite:


Nope!

He did not just say "his woman", he frequently said "they".

Surely you don't think or have any knowledge he is a polygamist?

If you don't, then it should be easy for you to work out he means women in general.

This is exemplified by his reference to women as the gentler sex and that he finds it odd seeing women "coursing through the workplace".

He made it clear he believes and prefers women should be in the house except (i) they don't want to or (ii) needs be they work.

Not just his woman, but women!

Many of these prominent cretinous feminists are fcking lesbians for fck sake.



Those 2 points are not irrelevant to feminist.

They would scream blue murder at the thought of anyone saying women are not equal in all ramifications except physical strength.

They would scream blue murder at the thought of anyone saying women's place is in the home and it is odd for them to be working.

All you would get is the fuuktards screaming sexist and misogynist all day.

They cannot even stand women stating they prefer to be subordinate to a man and women saying they would stay at home.

Many women are sick of reetarded feminist fuuktard

There is a difference between women that want sane, civilised and progressive equal rights to cretinous feminists women with their mad ideas and hatred of men.

Hitchens abides by the former.

She is!

She is not appalled, she is surprised!

She is surprised he would say it publicly.

She is like most other woman. She treats the same utterances/information/position/etc from different sources differently based on subjective analysis of the source.

If it was another man that said the same thing, like Peter Stringfellow, she would flip on him. It would not be smiles and banter, it would be frowns and disparaging remarks she would throw at him.

Just like the feminist fuuktard Charlotte Proudman. If she had been contacted by a 34 year old hotshot partner from a law firm, she would not have screamed sexism like when it was a man in his 50s.

Just like if Sagamite says on NL that he would smack the arsse or ogles women's titts on NL, it is seen as funnny/cute by most girls, but if some other fuuktard on NL did the same, he would be seen as perverted and mad.



His speech is as impressive as any of his others on this because as usual, like me, he demonstrates his original thought (not populist BS) and he is willing to publicly state it and ready as fck to defend it with logic.

Unfortunately, the sapiosexual could not take the bait to challenge him as he planned, she was just getting horn..y. That is why we never got to him explaining his logic

Your coworker might have been a fooool but I see this all the time, girl. The presenter was an admirer who would proudly have his babies.

Her "surprise" (which you called appalled) is irrelevant. The subject is more important than his statements in her world.

It is like me. I say the fck what I want to say about religion but yet pull hardcore religious girls who one would think would only date "God-fearing" men from their faith.

They still get attracted even though I ridicule their God and religion at will.

Women love confident intellectuals that can win any dialectics and broaden their minds by stating things intelligently the way they have never seen. They find it impressive, sexy, intriguing and a challenge.

That is just women. Sapiosexuals take their love for it to another level.

They want babies!

He clearly said, "no woman of mine will work...", and then explained his views on how he feels women ought not to have to work, but then ended his personal opinion piece with a note of self-determination and choice (the man even went on to say that his preferred SAHM wife may go on to work if she so desires, but that she doesn't have to). That is the sticking point! His view isn't in conflict with feminism at all. Feminism/I couldn't care less if a man who wants a SAHM for a wife marries a woman who aspires to the SAHM lifestyle. That is a non-issue if there ever was one. Even the reverse-misogyny (misandry) you speak of doesn't address roles so much as being a doctrine of hate turned onto its head.

Lol! You're flat out wrong about the presenter. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if we've watched the same clip. Your excuse of her so-called positive subjective analysis/bias doesn't apply here as his speech was simple and devoid of the usual acrobatics you'd find in his writing and some of his other speeches, and Hitch was by no means a good-looking man either. Certainly, in his early days, but def not as he sat the chair opposite her. And she did flip out on him, and turn the question back to him several times in a state of appalled disbelief. She was so appalled by the SAHM model he was championing, she didn't hear any of his concessions! I'd advise you to watch the episode again.

"They" want babies, indeed. Lolllll.

I'd do better to ignore such other comments you spewed up there, as well as the self-aggrandizing sap peppered throughout...

EnlightenedSoul:


He clearly said, "no woman of mine will work...", and then explained his views on how he feels women ought not to have to work, but then ended his personal opinion piece with a note of self-determination and choice (the man even went on to say that his preferred SAHM wife may go on to work if she so desires, but that she doesn't have to).

So who are the "they" he was referring to?

I suggest you watch the video again and listen to when she asked him "You don't think women should go to work"?

The question was not "You don't think your wife should go to work"?

And before any excuses, I would suggest to you that Christopher Hitchens, someone has logically tight as me, is a stickler for specificity. He did not confuse the question when it was asked.

Let me surmarise for you:

1) He does not believe women should go and work.

2) He believes they should have a choice to do so if they wish.

3) He personally would not want his own wife to work.

EnlightenedSoul:

That is the sticking point! His view isn't in conflict with feminism at all. Feminism/I couldn't care less if a man who wants a SAHM for a wife marries a woman who aspires to the SAHM lifestyle. That is a non-issue if there ever was one. Even the reverse-misogyny (misandry) you speak of doesn't address roles so much as being a doctrine of hate turned onto its head.

I just should you an independent video of women themselves complaining about moronic feminists and their attitude to SAHM and you are still arguing feminists are not like that.

EnlightenedSoul:

Lol! You're flat out wrong about the presenter. In fact, I'm starting to wonder if we've watched the same clip. Your excuse of her so-called positive subjective analysis/bias doesn't apply here as his speech was simple and devoid of the usual acrobatics you'd find in his writing and some of his other speeches, and Hitch was by no means a good-looking man either. Certainly, in his early days, but def not as he sat the chair opposite her. And she did flip out on him, and turn the question back to him several times in a state of appalled disbelief. She was so appalled by the SAHM model he was championing, she didn't hear any of his concessions! I'd advise you to watch the episode again.

"They" want babies, indeed. Lolllll.

I'd do better to ignore such other comments you spewed up there, as well as the self-aggrandizing sap peppered throughout...

You really don't understand.

Whether Hitchens is Tyson Beckford or not does not matter to a sapiosexual.

They fall in love with brains, not looks.

I think even Hitchens knew. You will note he asked her at the end if she said "ist" with her "sex-".

He wanted to be sure she said sexist and not sexy.

You don't understand the mating game that much. I am a Pro. I have a PhD in it.

Sagamite:


So who are the "they" he was referring to?

I suggest you watch the video again and listen to when she asked him "You don't think women should go to work"?

The question was not "You don't think your wife should go to work"?

And before any excuses, I would suggest to you that Christopher Hitchens, someone has logically tight as me, is a stickler for specificity. He did not confuse the question when it was asked.

Let me surmarise for you:

1) He does not believe women should have to go to and work.

2) He believes they should have a choice to do so if they wish.

3) He personally would not want his own wife to work, but she may if she so wishes .

Corrections to your summary are in red.

You're clearly missing the point.

You should know that any strong personal view has a way of projecting itself to the larger world as the 'higher model'. Obviously, even in his initial statement, "...no woman of mine will work", it can be discerned that he believes women in general shouldn't have to work. He goes on to say as much in those exact same words, "...they can, but they shouldn't have to", but as I've said twice thus far, that's completely irrelevant! It's serves as nothing more than an emotive induction in the grand scheme of things.

Here's a more apt summary of Hitchens' words:

I prefer that no woman of mine work. She can if she so wishes, but she'll never have to - I'll provide. Woman can work if they choose to, great if they do, but in my opinion, they should not have to.

That is utter freedom. That is no conflict at all. That's feminism with a strong dash of chivalry to boot!

I just should you an independent video of women themselves complaining about moronic feminists and their attitude to SAHM and you are still arguing feminists are not like that.

Yh, just like the presenter, there are women (and indeed, men), who simply don't respect it as a valid lifestyle choice. The presenter overlooked his concessions, even undeservedly calling him sexist towards the end for that exact same reason. I think it an unwise lifestyle, and for me personally, it would be unimaginable and dissatisfying. And I've no doubt in the world that there're plenty of people out there who daily conflate their personal views with others' freedoms.

You really don't understand.

Whether Hitchens is Tyson Beckford or not does not matter to a sapiosexual.

They fall in love with brains, not looks.

I think even Hitchens knew. You will note he asked her at the end if she said "ist" with her "sex-".

He wanted to be sure she said sexist and not sexy.

You don't understand the mating game that much. I am a Pro. I have a PhD in it.

Lol, I know what a sapiosexual is. It seems you've taken to my earlier bit about how a sapiosexual might orgasm from his writing, and gone and ran away with it! Not only have you decided her to be a sapiosexual all your own, but so as not to half-ass it, I assume, you've gone straight up ISIL on this shyt, and decided she must also want his babies.

That little "sex-ist" quip/banter/bit is nothing out of the ordinary, and common af btw. Call a man a jerk, and be not surprised if he retorts with something like, "a jerk you love", or something similar in the neighborhood of self-adulation - a positive spin as a service to the 'ole EGO. A tactic as old as the Good Book, and older still.

Again, you remind me of my friend, whom you said to be a fool, even as your own foolery quite exceeds his and leaves it the dust. A PRO. A PhD, shall we say?

@ Sagamite I hope I've not offended you. It was not my intention.

onila:
he makes some nice comments sometimes

like when he yabbed P square cant speak english, that was hilarious

mr cork is quite posh, educated, sophisticated

most of the time
what hes saying is pointless and not funny

yaay or nay?

as u old reach for NL you open this kind senseless post.kia.O.D.E.

EnlightenedSoul:
@ Sagamite I hope I've not offended you. It was not my intention.

No, don't worry, you have not.

Let me let you briefly into my response thought process:

When I saw your reply, I read only the first 3 lines, it was obvious you intended to persist to keep on arguing against my point.

To be frank, there is nothing new I could bring that I felt would change that position since you would even argue that feminist are not antagonistic and anti-men despite me showing you an independent outburst against the antics of feminists by women themselves.

The whole Hitchens stuff is clear as far as I concerned. But I am also aware it is a bit ambiguous because he mixed his personal position on his wife with his view on his position on women generally up. This mixture can create ambiguity leading to people choosing to interpret it as they wish even though with, logical reasoning, it is obvious his position.

The ambiguity and interpretation is just like you have when people read and follow the Bible and Quran. People can interpret as they wish, not logically, because ambiguity exists.

I felt you were entitled to your interpretation and I knew I would not change it, so I thought of just telling you "We will just agree to disagree".

Then I strolled down to see the other point about sapiosexuals.

While reading that, I saw your slight insult.

Obviously, me being Sagamite, my guttural response was to come down with the hammer.

But I just thought, leave it because:

- It would be ridiculous an argument over something that is a bit ambiguous would degenerate into my thunder and lightening responses.

- Secondly, I have spent a lot of times insulting you far worse than that, and most times you do not retaliate. So there really is no need for vengeance.

The only thing I just thought of doing was that, "If she is going to insult me, then I would not even be respectful enough to tell her 'lets agree to disagree'. I will just leave the argument there". So I changed my mind about responding after reading the lower parth

I did that not because I was angry, but because I felt that was the appropriate response to the insult, which really did not bother me.

To be frank I was not offended, I am just quite militant in my approach on NL.

Sagamite:


No, don't worry, you have not.

Let me let you briefly into my response thought process:

When I saw your reply, I read only the first 3 lines, it was obvious you intended to persist to keep on arguing against my point.

To be frank, there is nothing new I could bring that I felt would change that position since you would even argue that feminist are not antagonistic and anti-men despite me showing you an independent outburst against the antics of feminists by women themselves.

The whole Hitchens stuff is clear as far as I concerned. But I am also aware it is a bit ambiguous because he mixed his personal position on his wife with his view on his position on women generally up. This mixture can create ambiguity leading to people choosing to interpret it as they wish even though with, logical reasoning, it is obvious his position.

The ambiguity and interpretation is just like you have when people read and follow the Bible and Quran. People can interpret as they wish, not logically, because ambiguity exists.

I felt you were entitled to your interpretation and I knew I would not change it, so I thought of just telling you "We will just agree to disagree".

Then I strolled down to see the other point about sapiosexuals.

While reading that, I saw your slight insult.

Obviously, me being Sagamite, my guttural response was to come down with the hammer.

But I just thought, leave it because:

- It would be ridiculous an argument over something that is a bit ambiguous would degenerate into my thunder and lightening responses.

- Secondly, I have spent a lot of times insulting you far worse than that, and most times you do not retaliate. So there really is no need for vengeance.

The only thing I just thought of doing was that, "If she is going to insult me, then I would not even be respectful enough to tell her 'lets agree to disagree'. I will just leave the argument there". So I changed my mind about responding after reading the lower parth

I did that not because I was angry, but because I felt that was the appropriate response to the insult, which really did not bother me.

To be frank I was not offended, I am just quite militant in my approach on NL.

Alright. I don't think it's ambiguous at all, but I'll stop myself there. You're showing a little restraint, and that's an interesting twist coming from you. Not a one "cretinous fuuktard" in a while now - I'm a little taken aback

Well, though I restrain myself a bit, I'm not above cursing like a sailor or dishing out insults with a play on words in response to vitriol, but it's completely without emotion. I'm not one to be easily moved, and I really DGAF about insults. A lot of the time, I'll ignore it completely, preferring to focus on the argument instead, and then press your buttons overtly and covertly throughout the course of the "debate" as the spirit leads, for the fun of it. Though I consider myself "nice", I'm sorta used to people sometimes taking offense times I speak plainly as well, which is why I wondered if you were offended. It's the curse of the blunt-natured.

Happy New Year, Sagamite.

Nairaland: Where 50yr olds feel funcky

EnlightenedSoul:


Alright. I don't think it's ambiguous at all, but I'll stop myself there. You're showing a little restraint, and that's an interesting twist coming from you. Not a one "cretinous fuuktard" in a while now - I'm a little taken aback

Well, though I restrain myself a bit, I'm not above cursing like a sailor or dishing out insults with a play on words in response to vitriol, but it's completely without emotion. I'm not one to be easily moved, and I really DGAF about insults. A lot of the time, I'll ignore it completely, preferring to focus on the argument instead, and then press your buttons overtly and covertly throughout the course of the "debate" as the spirit leads, for the fun of it. Though I consider myself "nice", I'm sorta used to people sometimes taking offense times I speak plainly as well, which is why I wondered if you were offended. It's the curse of the blunt-natured.

Happy New Year, Sagamite.

I actually show restraint all the time.

When I go haywire, I do it with a lot of thinking.

I understand Nigerians too well and there is a reason I go haywire on them. It gets the points across and it gets it across faster.

They are so boisterous and egoistical, they will not accept facts in a debate. But when you can highlight and attack their stupidity, they quickly accept it to stop their public humiliation.

They don't like looking stuupid. That is why they try to always give opinion anyway but they are too daft to think before giving it.

I rarely get emotional when I am doing it. It is all tactical and done with control. I even adjust in the midst of doing it, if reason dictates that is necessary.

Happy New Year to you too.

Sagamite:


I actually show restraint all the time.

When I go haywire, I do it with a lot of thinking.

I understand Nigerians too well and there is a reason I go haywire on them. It gets the points across and it gets it across faster.

They are so boisterous and egoistical, they will not accept facts in a debate. But when you can highlight and attack their stupidity, they quickly accept it to stop their public humiliation.

They don't like looking stuupid. That is why they try to always give opinion anyway but they are too daft to think before giving it.

I rarely get emotional when I am doing it. It is all tactical and done with control. I even adjust in the midst of doing it, if reason dictates that is necessary.

Happy New Year to you too.

Lots of folks are like that, tho. Possessive of their views even despite facts and evidence to the contrary.

EnlightenedSoul:


Lots of folks are like that, tho. Possessive of their views even despite facts and evidence to the contrary.

Not in the manner of Nigerians.

If I was on a Ghanaian forum I would not even be like I am known for here.

The pride of an average Nigerian is a handicap for them. It leads them to feel they have to talk about something even though they know absolutely fuckall about it. They just live and are educated in a culture where speaking (no matter how senseless) is seen as one being relevant.

The education system is all about memorisation and no part of it is about debate, hence they are not used to utilisation of facts and their arguments being challenged.

And when they are caught out, instead of listening and learning, they see someone being right while they are wrong as a complete public embarrassment , so they stick to their stuupid and unreasoned arguments to avoid "the shame".

I let them know that taking such dumb approach would still lead to what the are trying to avoid, "the shame" and "public embarrassment".

Some explore trying to see if they can deviate or stop me by engaging in insulting competition, but I stick with the topic and their humiliation with my notorious repetitive questioning. All my approaches have a reason and are tactical.

After they realise they can't escape it by being defiant, they either run from me or learn to learn when they are in that jam.

They also start learning to think a little before talking and know they need to avoid chatting rubbish when I am on a thread.

I am doing a fcking great job improving this cretins of Nigeria on NL.

I am sure Buhari would soon call me to award me my national honours.

Sagamite:


Not in the manner of Nigerians.

If I was on a Ghanaian forum I would not even be like I am known for here.

The pride of an average Nigerian is a handicap for them. It leads them to feel they have to talk about something even though they know absolutely fuckall about it. They just live and are educated in a culture where speaking (no matter how senseless) is seen as one being relevant.

The education system is all about memorisation and no part of it is about debate, hence they are not used to utilisation of facts and their arguments being challenged.

And when they are caught out, instead of listening and learning, they see someone being right while they are wrong as a complete public embarrassment , so they stick to their stuupid and unreasoned arguments to avoid "the shame".

I let them know that taking such dumb approach would still lead to what the are trying to avoid, "the shame" and "public embarrassment".

Some explore trying to see if they can deviate or stop me by engaging in insulting competition, but I stick with the topic and their humiliation with my notorious repetitive questioning. All my approaches have a reason and are tactical.

After they realise they can't escape it by being defiant, they either run from me or learn to learn when they are in that jam.

They also start learning to think a little before talking and know they need to avoid chatting rubbish when I am on a thread.

I am doing a fcking great job improving this cretins of Nigeria on NL.

I am sure Buhari would soon call me to award me my national honours.

Lol, I see. So, I take it you coined "product of a failed education system" and "cretinous fuuktard" on NL?

I like the product of a failed education system insult. I noticed the one in Egypt was also largely memorization-based, but, frankly speaking, the Western education system (pre-college) is on the decline and has been for quite some time now, at least as far as the US is concerned.

EnlightenedSoul:


Lol, I see. So, I take it you coined "product of a failed education system" and "cretinous fuuktard" on NL?

Product of a failed education system: "Yes!"

Cretinous fuuktard: The combination "Yes!".

The fuuktard bit, I remember reading that a nairalander called ThiefOfHearts (TOH) might have been the person to first use it. I really cannot recall if I also originally conjured it up or I saw it from her and adopted it.

EnlightenedSoul:

I like the product of a failed education system insult. I noticed the one in Egypt was also largely memorization-based, but, frankly speaking, the Western education system (pre-college) is on the decline and has been for quite some time now, at least as far as the US is concerned.

Unruly kids due to elimination of corporal punishment at home and in school, repeatedly informing kids of their rights more than of their responsibilities, poor policies, reality TV being the main source of entertainment for kids and too much use of calculators would have contributed to this.

I remember my generation doing maths with mental calculation and log tables, as well as having a few educational programmes to watch at home after school. No wonder I can still do this years later:

https://www.nairaland.com/2940812/hardest-challenge-ever#43209638

EnlightenedSoul:


Lol, I see. So, I take it you coined "product of a failed education system" and "cretinous fuuktard" on NL?

I like the product of a failed education system insult. I noticed the one in Egypt was also largely memorization-based, but, frankly speaking, the Western education system (pre-college) is on the decline and has been for quite some time now, at least as far as the US is concerned.

This is an example of a typical Nigerian I was telling you about:

https://www.nairaland.com/2953174/why-there-no-female-generals#43208888

Sagamite:

Not in the manner of Nigerians.

If I was on a Ghanaian forum I would not even be like I am known for here.

The pride of an average Nigerian is a handicap for them. It leads them to feel they have to talk about something even though they know absolutely fuckall about it. They just live and are educated in a culture where speaking (no matter how senseless) is seen as one being relevant.

The education system is all about memorisation and no part of it is about debate, hence they are not used to utilisation of facts and their arguments being challenged.

And when they are caught out, instead of listening and learning, they see someone being right while they are wrong as a complete public embarrassment , so they stick to their stuupid and unreasoned arguments to avoid "the shame".

I let them know that taking such dumb approach would still lead to what the are trying to avoid, "the shame" and "public embarrassment".

Some explore trying to see if they can deviate or stop me by engaging in insulting competition, but I stick with the topic and their humiliation with my notorious repetitive questioning. All my approaches have a reason and are tactical.

After they realise they can't escape it by being defiant, they either run from me or learn to learn when they are in that jam.

They also start learning to think a little before talking and know they need to avoid chatting rubbish when I am on a thread.

I am doing a fcking great job improving this cretins of Nigeria on NL.

I am sure Buhari would soon call me to award me my national honours.