Sagamite:

This is nonsense!
There is only one issue here.
One person bought the ring. It is not a gift, it is a mere symbolic gesture that emerged in the early 20th century due to a brilliant marketing strategy by De Beers to get more people buying gems by aligning the giving and quality of gems to the value of a woman.

MISCONCEPTION #1
whether its a ploy by De Beers (or not) to buy more diamonds is IRRELEVANT, because any smart person would understand that it could only be a symbolic gesture of MUTUAL understanding if BOTH partners bought (and gave each other) that symbolic ring. if only a man give that ring then it is merely a contractual tool (like bride price) within that UNFAIR agreement that this man gladly went into.

Brilliant marketing because it attacks the insecurity of women and that is one of their greatest weaknesses. "The more fancy your engagement ring the more you are valuable and he loves you". It is also brillaint because it attacks a man's ability to demonstrate his financial prowess. Feeds or destroys their damn ego. Hence motherfuckers are spending as much 1 to 3 months salary on a ring, so it is a very expensive asset.

MISCONCEPTION #2
so men are using expensive tools to impress insecure women into accepting their marriage proposal, and women are at fault because?!?!?
an engagement ring is just as foolish as the bride price man pay, which is rampant in Nigeria. the question would be...if a man pays bride price and thereafter cheats on that same woman, should he get the bride price back? if the bride cheats, should she give back MORE than what was offered to her?!?!

De Beers obviously got their reward from embedding this tradition into the Western society, and of course it wwas copied across the world gradually as Western society set the trends on popular culture. It is a mere traditional, symbolic gesture. It has NOTHING to do with gift!

MISCONCEPTION #3
it aint a GIFT, its an item given in good faith to seal an UNFAIR deal deal. why would you look at it as MORE than it actually is?

My great-grandfather married Iya Mokaila, Iya Elemu, Iya Pelebe, Iya Alamala and Iya Owambe as his wives and he never gave any of them an engagement ring. He was not from an era where he was influenced by western culture while he was working on his farm in Sagamu-ewa!So cut the crap. It is a mere symbolic gesture that has become a tradition.

i am sure he paid bride price though, which aint no different.

As the item is expensive AND not consumable or perishable, when the symbolic intended event it was given for is no more taking place, it should be returned to the person that expended his finances on getting, so he can get his money back and everyone goes their way.

fair enough, if they both agree on that.

Both people should find someone else they are happy to marry without losing anything (especially when people like you are saying it should only apply to one gender) and they should both end up being in the state they were pre-engagement without gaining anything.

thats when it gets tricky... especially if/when the man is at fault (since the ring given is what is at stake)

Not "heads she gains, tails she does not gain or lose".
Not "she has power to punish as she deems fit".

MISCONCEPTION #4
well i guess such man should NOT put that woman in the position of power, to begin with, by offering a gift in order for her to ACCEPT his proposal... he should have come with a pen and paper and sign an agreement with that babe instead. a fool will remain a FOOL. you cant expect such foolish act to go unpunished as this man WILLINGLY entered this unfair agreement.

This is pure, simple, rudimentary, basic, fundamental, raw logic. Not rocket science! Not even bicycle science.
If is simple as fck! That is what a fair law should be based on like it is in Ireland.

Logic is a very simple thing for me. I am highly talented in it, hence why I can see through bullshits and nonsenses as fast as a space rocket moves.

if you see ANY logic in a damn man giving an expensive ring to a woman in order to impress her into marrying him, while she offers ABSOLUTELY nothing but a positive reply, then no wonder so many gullible men are getting conned in this engagement ring nonsense.
there is abolutely NOTHING logical here, sorry.

that would be as silly as me signing an agreement to buy a car, pay a deposit to the dealership, drive the car around for a few months, and due to my own doing (or madness), i decide that i dont want the car again, and would expect to get ALL my money back. is that logical to you?!
furthermore, if the dealership decide that they want their car back, should my full deposit be the MOST i would.should get back?!

Sagamite:


One more simple logic: It should not be the place and responsibility of courts to decide who is at fault for a relationship between a man and a woman ending, their emotional interactions or what emotions they should have.

The courts cannot be there to know what happens and make sound & just judgements OR to understand the emotional dynamics and actions that lead to behaviours. It is purely between the two people and they should decide if the relationship is for them. The courts should stay the fck out of it, otherwise they are getting in a messy situation with "He said, she said" from their respective biases.

You don't fcking get along? Separate and move the fck along. Simple!

As I said: Logic is a very simple thing for me.

again, if that dumb man entered such unfair agreement expecting to come out on top, then let that fool accept the consequences of his ILL actions... if they cant come up with a common accord, then who should decide then (if not the court)?

MrBrownJay1:

MISCONCEPTION #1
whether its a ploy by De Beers (or not) to buy more diamonds is IRRELEVANT, because any smart person would understand that it could only be a symbolic gesture of MUTUAL understanding if BOTH partners bought (and gave each other) that symbolic ring. if only a man give that ring then it is merely a contractual tool (like bride price)

Amsorry!

Explain to me two things:

1) Where you got that your defined restriction of what a symbolic gesture is?

2) Contractual? What contract?

MrBrownJay1:

MISCONCEPTION #2
so men are using expensive tools to impress insecure women into accepting their marriage proposal, and women are at fault because?!?!?
an engagement ring is just as foolish as the bride price man pay, which is rampant in Nigeria. the question would be...if a man pays bride price and thereafter cheats on that same woman, should he get the bride price back? if the bride cheats, should she give back MORE than what was offered to her?!?!

Amsorry!

Where did you see me say women are at fault?

If the bride price is not perishable or consummable, why should he not get it back?

Why do you think only the woman should be entitled to compensation for wrong doing by the man? But the man should only be entitled for what he could have lost if a woman does wrong? How the fck does such logic make sense in your head? Please kindly explain!

MrBrownJay1:

MISCONCEPTION #3
it aint a GIFT, its an item given in good faith to seal an UNFAIR deal deal. why would you look at it as MORE than it actually is?

Amsorry, what unfair deal?

And how did you come to the conclusion that is what the item is given for?

MrBrownJay1:

i am sure he paid bride price though, which aint no different.

Definitely.

Tradition and symbolic.

They would mostly have been perishable and consummable, hence many would be hard to ask for back exactly. Although we know in many African culture that happens, hence why many women get stuck because their relatives have "perished" it in their hungry bellies.

MrBrownJay1:

fair enough, if they both agree on that.

NO!

That is what the basis the law should be based on, not "if they both agree".

Starting thinking logically so you don't create a mess.

MrBrownJay1:

thats when it gets tricky... especially if/when the man is at fault (since the ring given is what is at stake)

Why should it be at stake?

MrBrownJay1:

MISCONCEPTION #4
well i guess such man should NOT put that woman in the position of power, to begin with, by offering a gift in order or her to ACCEPT his proposal... he should have come with a a pen and paper and sign an agreement with that babe instead. a fool will remain a FOOL. you cant expect such foolish act to go unpunished as this man WILLINGLY entered this unfair agreement.

You missed the point again.

THE LAW should not put the woman in a position of power as you advocated. The law should saw, in a dispute involving engagement ring, the ring should be passed back to the purchaser or purchasers dependent on contribution levels.

As I said: This is pure, simple, rudimentary, basic, fundamental, raw logic. Not rocket science! Not even bicycle science.

You don't justify injustice by blaming people for entering it based on not being able to predict the future. That was such a lame point.

Would you tell a woman who decides to go jogging at 2am in a park and gets raped that "Hey, it is your fault for being so willingly foolish to put yourself at such risk" or you would think of punishing the raper?

Or a man buys an expensive item he saw cheaply online on a website, only to later find out it is not delivered and his card has been used because the site was fake. You would say "Hey, it is your fault for not checking out the website to ensure it was genuine".

Mate, that your point was purely senseless.

The premise of laws should be on achieving fairness and justice in outcomes, not say "well it is your fault for putting yourself in that position".

This is pure, simple, rudimentary, basic, fundamental, raw logic. Not rocket science! Not even bicycle science.

I have never seen or heard of any sane law that is based on the later premise except you regard laws in Muslim countries that punish women for being raped as sane laws. "Oh, you put yourself in a position where the man had the opportunity to rapee you".

MrBrownJay1:

if you see ANY logic in a damn man giving an expensive ring to a woman in order to impress her into marrying him, while she offers ABSOLUTELY nothing but a positive reply, then no wonder some many gullible men are getting conned in this engagement ring nonsense.
there is abolutely NOTHING logical here, sorry.

that would be as silly as me signing an agreement to buy a car, pay a deposit to the dealership, drive the car around for a few months, and due to my own doing (or madness), i decide that i dont want the car again, and would expect to get ALL my money back. is that logical to you?!
furthermore, if the dealership decide that they want their car back, should my full deposit be the MOST i would.should get back?!

Where did you see me see any logic in it?

MrBrownJay1:


again, if that dumb man entered such unfair agreement expecting to come out on top, then let that fool accept the consequences of his ILL actions... if they cant come up with a common accord, then who should decide then (if not the court)?

As I said above: This is nonsense!

brotha Sagamite
its MBJ you are talking to here, not some clueless being, so lets focus on the main issue here:
- you say its a symbolic gesture to offer an engagement ring, and i am saying it is also a symbolic gesture to give up the ring if YOU fukc up AND/OR get the ring back if the babe changes her mind.

- you say its not a contractual agreement, while i am saying that the minute you call each others "engaged" after a ring was OFFERED as a token, then i say contract/agreement there is.

- you say if the gift is not perishable or consummable the man should get it back.... and i say YES unless that said man is at fault. if the woman is at fault then yes ALL gifts should be returned or reimbursed, simply because you cant enter an unfair agreement and expect all to be treated fairly.

- you say it aint an unfair deal while i say that any man that offers a ring as a token of a woman accepting his marriage proposal, while she gives nothing in return then this is INDEED an unfair deal/agreement. she should give him an exact same token in return for this deal to remotely be FAIR.

- you say the ring is not given as a token to seal the marriage proposal deal, i say if it aint that what is the ring for OR BETTER YET, will that said man still give her the ring if she refuses his proposal?!

- if there are any disagreement you want the basis of law to come in effect while you did NOT mention/care about that when that foolish man entered such UNFAIR agreement...

- you say the ring shouldnt be at stake if the man fails on the promises he made when entering that deal/proposal, while I say what should be at stake then (if not the token)?

- you say THE LAW should not put the woman in a position of power, while i say the "law" didnt, its that foolish man who entered that unfair agreement who DID put that woman in a position of power. let this fool take the blame for his mistake. btw, funny as you dont think the ring is an agreement/deal in place but yet demand that we follow the same laws that are used for DEAL or AGREEMENT issues, lol!

as for the below:

Sagamite:
You don't justify injustice by blaming people for entering it based on not being able to predict the future. That was such a lame point.

i certainly dont, but you cant call a man entering an unfair agreement (on his own accord) injustice, it is mere FOOLISHNESS that made such man do that. dont mistake the two! if that man gave the ring without prior having an agreement if they dont get along, then let him accept whats coming to him as the consequences of his foolish actions.

Would you tell a woman who decides to go jogging at 2am in a park and gets raped that "Hey, it is your fault for being so willingly foolish to put yourself at such risk" or you would think of punishing the raper?

anyone who put themselves at risk should accept whatever is coming to them as the direct consequence of their foolish actions.

Or a man buys an expensive item he saw cheaply online on a website, only to later find out it is not delivered and his card has been used because the site was fake. You would say "Hey, it is your fault for not checking out the website to ensure it was genuine".

who else should be blamed if not this greedy foolish man who gave is CC details to some online scammers?! should we now blame the criminals for his foolishness?! bwaaaaah!

MrBrownJay1:
brotha Sagamite
its MBJ you are talking to here, not some clueless being, so lets focus on the main issue here:
- you say its a symbolic gesture to offer an engagement ring, and i am saying it is also a symbolic gesture to give up the ring if YOU fukc up AND/OR get the ring back if the babe changes her mind.

As usual, I can always give you your own free choice in how you resolve your personally issues with a woman. I really don't care about that. What I care about is the basis of laws.

Why should it be a symbolic gesture symbolic gesture for him to give it up if he fcks up?

Are you saying it as part of YOUR value system or are you saying that should be the law? If it is the former, that is your business how you want to deal with it. What I am asking you is your logic for the latter.

MrBrownJay1:

- you say its not a contractual agreement, while i am saying that the minute you call each others "engaged" after a ring was OFFERED as a token, then i say contract/agreement there is.

What contract? How is it a contract?

Do you know the meaning of a contract?

I can also say "the minute you call each others "engaged" after a ring was OFFERED as a token, then it is baked beans on akara". That is a senseless statement, except I can explain it.

Oya explain how it is a contract.

MrBrownJay1:

- you say if the gift is not perishable or consummable the man should get it back.... and i say YES unless that said man is at fault. if the woman is at fault then yes ALL gifts should be returned or reimbursed, simply because you cant enter an unfair agreement and expect all to be treated fairly.

Do you even for a second think how senseless this sounds?

If a man does something wrong, he is punished. If a woman does something wrong, no punishment, she just does not gain?

Do you realise how moronic that sounds as a basis of setting a law?

MrBrownJay1:

- you say the ring is not given as a token to seal the marriage proposal deal, i say if it aint that what is the ring for OR BETTER YET, will that said man still give her the ring if she refuses his proposal?!

I repeat: The ring is a symbolic western tradition that just started in the last 100 years and then copied. Not a legal contract as you claimed.

Traditions are not legally binding or "contracts", in case you don't know that and you, in your warped logic, called it a "contract".

Pure nonsense!

The tradition is to not give it if the proposal is refused.

MrBrownJay1:

- if there are any disagreement you want the basis of law to come in effect while you did NOT mention/care about that when that foolish man entered such UNFAIR agreement...

- you say the ring shouldnt be at stake if the man fails on the promises he made when entering that deal/proposal, while I say what should be at stake then (if not the token)?

- you say THE LAW should not put the woman in a position of power, while i say the "law" didnt, its that foolish man who entered that unfair agreement who DID put that woman in a position of power. let this fool take the blame for his mistake. btw, funny as you dont think the ring is an agreement/deal in place but yet demand that we follow the same laws that are used for DEAL or AGREEMENT issues, lol!

Again, more nonsense arguments.

Laws are not made based on blaming the naivety of any party. They are made based on finding a just, fair and logical outcome. And the law should stay the fck out of personal relationships or the dynamics of it.

I will ask you again: Would you tell a woman who decides to go jogging at 2am in a park and gets raped that "Hey, it is your fault for being so willingly foolish to put yourself at such risk" or you would think of punishing the raper?

MrBrownJay1:

as for the below:

i certainly dont, but you cant call a man entering an unfair agreement (on his own accord) injustice, it is mere FOOLISHNESS that made such man do that. dont mistake the two! if that man gave the ring without prior having an agreement if they dont get along, then let him accept whats coming to him as the consequences of his foolish actions.


anyone who put themselves at risk should accept whatever is coming to them as the direct consequence of their foolish actions.



who else should be blamed if not this greedy foolish man who gave is CC details to some online scammers?! should we now blame the criminals for his foolishness?! bwaaaaah!

Even if it is foolishness, what should the courts do?

Sagamite:


Of course dogs have levels.

Topdogs don't do hoodrats and hos like you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vzU3TdqUKQ

Awwww look who missed me after so many days, dirty smelly "top" dog himself!
Still posting useless vids I don't open are we? How nice!

Sagamite:

As usual, I can always give you your own free choice in how you resolve your personally issues with a woman. I really don't care about that. What I care about is the basis of laws.

and "the law" should favor a man (in his right mind) who willfully GAVE a ring to a woman, and now wants it back (after HE did her wrong)?!?!? abeg make some damn sense!

Why should it be a symbolic gesture symbolic gesture for him to give it up if he fcks up?

the exact same reason why it is a symbolic gesture to bloody offer a ring in the 1st place, duh... thats what these foolish MEN do (if the ring isnt flushed down the toilets)! was he forced or blackmailed into buying such ring?! nope! the man did it on his own free will... he did NOT borrow nor sold the ring to that lady, he GAVE it to her, and since you seem to think that it was NOT given to seal a contract/agreement, then what are you even complaining about?! if you give a ring to someone then thats it, it is NO LONGER yours. basta, end of story.

Are you saying it as part of YOUR value system or are you saying that should be the law? If it is the former, that is your business how you want to deal with it. What I am asking you is your logic for the latter.

asking for logic in such illogical matter?!?! why dont you ask for that same "logic" when a man gives a woman a ring to impress her into marriage, while she gives absolutely NOTHING but a positive reply in return?! is that logical to you?!?!?! stop talking from two sides of your mouth, there is NOTHING logical about giving an engagement ring, so either accept it or start dealing with the real issue at hand.

What contract? How is it a contract?Do you know the meaning of a contract?

ok, fair enough, you seem to believe that it is not a contract, no biggie.... so the ring was given and therefore is no longer that man's ring, EOD!

If a man does something wrong, he is punished. If a woman does something wrong, no punishment, she just does not gain?
Do you realise how moronic that sounds as a basis of setting a law?

sadly, you cant enter a MORONIC agreement (or whatever you wanna call that engagement ring BS) and expect to be treated fairly. the only slowpoke here is the idiot who go and give an expensive ring to a babe (hoping to impress her into accepting his marriage proposal) while she gives absolutely NOTHING in return. focus on that, instead of focussing on the consequences of his deluded actions.
when that woman was "gaining" a ring AND marriage proposal (while the guy was gaining only a marriage acceptance), i didnt see you come here and complain, did you?!?! yet thats a very MORONIC and UNFAIR agreement, wouldnt you say? so again, there will always be a loser in any disagreement, and sadly, on this one it will have to be the man who gldaly and willfully entered this unfair moronic agreement. dont bring the damn basis of law NOW, after that idiot entered this con of a thing called "engagement ring".

I repeat: The ring is a symbolic western tradition that just started in the last 100 years and then copied. Not a legal contract as you claimed. Traditions are not legally binding or "contracts", in case you don't know that and you, in your warped logic, called it a "contract"

ok fair enough, call this deluded act what you want....but therefore dont bring the law into the matter, and instead use the symbolic tradition of men losing the ring (or the ring ending up in the toilet) if the marriage does NOT happen, as the symbolic "law"

The tradition is to not give it if the proposal is refused.

bwaaaaah, funny Saga bobo!!!! one minute you are using tradition to judge this case, the next you want the basis of law to judge this matter... make up your damn mind FIRST, and then stick to it. if it is a traditional mattter then let tradition dictate what should be done with the ring (aka she should do what the hell she desires with the ring), and if it is the law, then let a court decide whether a man should get a ring back if/when he fukcs up (i am certain he wont)

Laws are not made based on blaming the naivety of any party. They are made based on finding a just, fair and logical outcome. And the law should stay the fck out of personal relationships or the dynamics of it.

and therefore i say it again... its all down to WHO BROKE OFF THE ENGAGEMENT. if a man cheats etc on a woman (he gave an engagement ring to), and due to his OWN ill doing the engagement is called off, i doubt ANY damn court will grant him to get the ring back (especially if the babe says she threw the ring in the gutter after she learned he was cheating on her). its not his naivete that is being judged, but his ill actions. on the other hand, if a babe cheats on the guy then any court will simply ask the babe to return the ring. but hey, if you think otherwise, then pls by all means, tell us all what courts do in these matters.

I will ask you again: Would you tell a woman who decides to go jogging at 2am in a park and gets raped that "Hey, it is your fault for being so willingly foolish to put yourself at such risk" or you would think of punishing the raper?

again, anyone who does a CRIMINAL act will/should always be punished for their actions, but we must always call foolishness when we see it... and sadly, the consequences of these foolish acts (whether it be rape or murder) should partly be "blamed" on these foolish people who go jogging in the woods at 2am or give their CC details to fake websites. thats the same school of thought i always talk about when men and women are killed by their spouse... you cant tempt a TIGER and thereafter blame the damn tiger for biting you, duh!

Even if it is foolishness, what should the courts do?

read my above bolded reply as to what the court should do, but most importantly, you should 1st make up your mind whether you believe the ring was a GIFT or an AGREEMENT, and stick to it. you cant claim it is a gift one second, then turn and thereafter turn around (when it fits your agenda) and say there is some type of agreement here. its either one or the other bro!

vivaciousvivi:

Awwww look who missed me after so many days, dirty smelly "top" dog himself!
Still posting useless vids I don't open are we? How nice!

Ho, I already know you don't have enough data to open the videos but you surprise me by the fact that you are still so dumb you actually think the video is primarily meant for you open!

The videos are there for humiliating you in front of NL peeps and I am already doing that.

Now go and earn your data by sucking.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9rhJPAAR7A

MrBrownJay1:


and "the law" should favor a man (in his right mind) who willfully GAVE a ring to a woman, and now wants it back (after HE did her wrong)?!?!? abeg make some damn sense!

What utter nonsense.

I am going to narrow this down and come to the other nonsense later.

First of all, explain to me how the law is "favouring" a man by telling him to have what he paid for.

Sagamite:


What utter nonsense.

I am going to narrow this down and come to the other nonsense later.

First of all, explain to me how the law is "favouring" a man by telling him to have what he paid for.

simply because you dont go around giving GIFTS to people, in the guise to impress them into marrying you, and then expect to get that gift back when that said man breaks off the engagement by cheating (or worse).

MrBrownJay1:


simply because you dont go around giving GIFTS to people, in the guise to impress them into marrying you, and then expect to get that gift back when that said man breaks off the engagement by cheating (or worse).

How is it a gaddam gift?

Do you give such to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Explain to me how it is a gift?

Sagamite:


How is it a gaddam gift?

Do you give such to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Explain to me how it is a gift?

what do you call it if not a gift then?! a man willfully goes to buy an expensive ring and hand it to a woman simply because she has accepted his proposal (and as you said earlier, would keep the ring if she refuses). i am sorry to say, that is the definition of a damn GIFT!

and beware, because if you dare saying that there are strings attached to that gift, then it becomes a binding contract/agreement, lol!

Sagamite:


Ho, I already know you don't have enough data to open the videos but you surprise me by the fact that you are still so dumb you actually think the video is primarily meant for you open!

The videos are there for humiliating you in front of NL peeps and I am already doing that.

Now go and earn your data by sucking.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9rhJPAAR7A

Humiliating me in front of NL peeps? Hahahahahahaha
Says the grown as.s "man" bantering words with a lady for weeks n
If only u knew just how many so called NL peeps have PM-emed me yabbing you!
Hahahahaha, oh my lawd!
Ur yabs don't bite one teeny bit, why cos I know ur type - frothing at the mouth online without a single bite in every day life, insecure, childish buffon.
It's really exciting tbh, I almost thought such a breed of "men" had evolved. Unfortunately I was wrong.
Keep being u daddy-yo!
It makes for short bouts of excitement to some of us!
Back to enjoying my time at this wedding reception.
#Cheers

MrBrownJay1:


what do you call it if not a gift then?! a man willfully goes to buy an expensive ring and hand it to a woman simply because she has accepted his proposal (and as you said earlier, would keep the ring if she refuses). i am sorry to say, that is the definition of a damn GIFT!

and beware, because if you dare saying that there are strings attached to that gift, then it becomes a binding contract/agreement, lol!

Please don't waste your time arguing with this overgrown buffon!
Use your time for way more important things in life my dear.

vivaciousvivi:

Humiliating me in front of NL peeps? Hahahahahahaha
Says the grown as.s "man" bantering words with a lady for weeks n
If only u knew just how many so called NL peeps have PM-emed me yabbing you!
Hahahahaha, oh my lawd!
Ur yabs don't bite one teeny bit, why cos I know ur type - frothing at the mouth online without a single bite in every day life, insecure, childish buffon.
It's really exciting tbh, I almost thought such a breed of "men" had evolved. Unfortunately I was wrong.
Keep being u daddy-yo!
It makes for short bouts of excitement to some of us!
Back to enjoying my time at this wedding reception.
#Cheers

A WHAT?? ?? ??

A KINI?? ?? ?? ??



Koni da fun e!

It never ceases to amaze me when ghetto hos, hoodrats and dirty skanks try to call themselves "a lady".

Anuofia, slutt!

Go make an offer and get ya data.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTYdtfM13LE

MrBrownJay1:


what do you call it if not a gift then?! a man willfully goes to buy an expensive ring and hand it to a woman simply because she has accepted his proposal (and as you said earlier, would keep the ring if she refuses). i am sorry to say, that is the definition of a damn GIFT!

and beware, because if you dare saying that there are strings attached to that gift, then it becomes a binding contract/agreement, lol!

What do I call it then?

I call it a spiritual baked beans.

What? You don't agree it is baked beans? I can't label it anything I pull out of me fine, black arse that I cannot back up?

Okay, let me call it a 'contractual gift' as you called it.

So now, my friend, answer the question:

Do you give such "gift" to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Then back it up by telling us:

1) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed but which you cannot give any other type of person in that list.

2) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed that is "contractual".

3) What other "gift" you can give for ONE singular event.

Mr "Contractual Gift"!

Shebi you want to conveniently chat shyt? I will love drilling your shyt with destructive questions. Logic is power.

Sagamite:



A WHAT?? ?? ??

A KINI?? ?? ?? ??



Koni da fun e!

It never ceases to amaze me when ghetto hos, hoodrats and dirty skanks try to call themselves "a lady".

Anuofia, slutt!

Go make an offer and get ya data.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTYdtfM13LE

A da fun mi by the special grace of God.
A he-goat, feminist - fearing kini like u ain't got what it takes to bring me down.
And YES, I am a lady. Sue me!
Like I said, pls keep up with the err...what did u call it? "Humiliation"? Yes, that was it.
Makes good entertainment for me after a rather fantastic outing.
By no means should u stop! I am enjoying myself immensely!
Time to make dinner.
Can't wait for ur response - I am shaking in my boots fool!
Ciao!

Sagamite:


What do I call it then?

I call it a spiritual baked beans.

What? You don't agree it is baked beans? I can't label it anything I pull out of me fine, black arse that I cannot back up?

Okay, let me call it a 'contractual gift' as you called it.

So now, my friend, answer the question:

Do you give such "gift" to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Then back it up by telling us:

1) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed but which you cannot give any other type of person in that list.

2) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed that is "contractual".

3) What other "gift" you can give for ONE singular event.

Mr "Contractual Gift"!

Shebi you want to conveniently chat shyt? I will love drilling your shyt with destructive questions. Logic is power.

what is this one mumbling about?! bro, just say you have nothing intelligent more to say, and we are done here. no biggie!

some dude enter an unfair deal called ENGAGEMENT, and when all goes to shiiit you want both of them to be treated fairly?!?!? it CANT be done!

sadly, you are so bitter about women who may get an unfair advantage against men, that you are focussing on the wrong issue while disregarding the fact that it is these same donkeys (aka men) who willfully gave these women an unfair advantage here. you may hate the fact that women lose nothing in this issue (how can they lose anything if they have given NOTHING but a positive reply?!), but thats what happen when donkeys put women in such biased position. here is a clue: if you dont want to get an inequitable deal, DONT GET ENGAGED/MARRIED, et voila!

if you want the law to be changed then, by all means, make a petition for it, but until then accept the fact that the problem here is with all the donkeys who hand over expensive rings to women, without getting anything in return, just so that they can be engaged, without having a prior agreement as to what should be done with the ring if that donkey breaks off the engagement due to his own ill actions (aka if that donkey fukcs up). sadly, in the absence of a prior agreement, the gal can do what she bloody pleases with the ring, and no court would fault her.

is it RIGHT? probably not, but thats the direct consequence of donkeys entering such one sided nonsense called engagement ring.

vivaciousvivi:

A da fun mi by the special grace of God.
A he-goat, feminist - fearing kini like u ain't got what it takes to bring me down.
And YES, I am a lady. Sue me!
Like I said, pls keep up with the err...what did u call it? "Humiliation"? Yes, that was it.
Makes good entertainment for me after a rather fantastic outing.
By no means should u stop! I am enjoying myself immensely!
Time to make dinner.
Can't wait for ur response - I am shaking in my boots fool!
Ciao!

Ani ko le da fun, kadara ni yen! (Look your life can never be good, that is your destiny)

Ma gbiyanju oshi lati yi kadara e! (Don't waste your time trying to change your destiny)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5v8r0rNk0&t=0s

MrBrownJay1:


what is this one mumbling about?! bro, just say you have nothing intelligent more to say, and we are done here. no biggie!

some dude enter an unfair deal called ENGAGEMENT, and when all goes to shiiit you want both of them to be treated fairly?!?!? it CANT be done!

sadly, you are so bitter about women who may get an unfair advantage against men, that you are focussing on the wrong issue while disregarding the fact that it is these same donkeys (aka men) who willfully gave these women an unfair advantage here. you may hate the fact that women lose nothing in this issue (how can they lose anything if they have given NOTHING but a positive reply?!), but thats what happen when donkeys put women in such biased position. here is a clue: if you dont want to get an inequitable deal, DONT GET ENGAGED/MARRIED, et voila!

if you want the law to be changed then, by all means, make a petition for it, but until then accept the fact that the problem here is with all the donkeys who hand over expensive rings to women, without getting anything in return, just so that they can be engaged, without having a prior agreement as to what should be done with the ring if that donkey breaks off the engagement due to his own ill actions (aka if that donkey fukcs up). sadly, in the absence of a prior agreement, the gal can do what she bloody pleases with the ring, and no court would fault her.

is it RIGHT? probably not, but thats the direct consequence of donkeys entering such one sided nonsense called engagement ring.

My friend answer the gaddam questions and explain.

Abi you agree you are wrong and it is spiritual baked beans?

You think you can pull moronic claims out your arse and then stick defiantly by it?

Would your arse also say when a woman goes to court because she faced domestic violence in her marriage that the judge is entitled to say "Well, since she knew the man was an abuser before marriage and still married him then she deserves what she is getting. If she does not want to get beaten, she should not have married a domestic abuser"?

The law courts of MrBrownJay1's arse!

How dumb does that sound to you?

Sagamite:


My friend answer the gaddam questions and explain.

Abi you agree you are wrong and it is spiritual baked beans?

You think you can pull moronic claims out your arse and then stick defiantly by it?

Would your arse also say when a woman goes to court because she faced domestic violence in her marriage that the judge is entitled to say "Well, since she knew the man was an abuser before marriage and still married him then she deserves what she is getting. If she does not want to get beaten, she should not have married a domestic abuser"?

The law courts of MrBrownJay1's arse!

How dumb does that sound to you?

as i said, if you have nothing sensible to say, then why continue this discussion.... your issue is with the law, nothing else. the LAW will always favour the person who stuck to the engagement against the person who BROKE UP the engagement. if the lady breaks the engagement then she should simply return the ring, if the man breaks the engagement (due to his ill actions) then the man has no entitlement to the ring that may have ended in the dustbin. deal with it instead of trying to smokescreen the bloody issue at hand!

MrBrownJay1:


as i said, if you have nothing sensible to say, then why continue this discussion.... your issue is with the law, nothing else. the LAW will always favour the person who stuck to the engagement against the person who BROKE UP the engagement. if the lady breaks the engagement then she should simply return the ring, if the man breaks the engagement (due to his ill actions) then the man has no entitlement to the ring that may have ended in the dustbin. deal with it instead of trying to smokescreen the bloody issue at hand!

Answer the gaddam questions!

Don't tell me what the law is or would do, tell me what the law should be based on sense!

Or you are free to agree it is spiritual baked beans so we can come to a conclusion that you feel arguments should come from the arse and stuck defiantly to.

Again, the questions:

Do you give such "gift" to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Then back it up by telling us:

1) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed but which you cannot give any other type of person in that list.

2) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed that is "contractual".

3) What other "gift" you can give for ONE singular event.

4) Would your arse also say when a woman goes to court because she faced domestic violence in her marriage that the judge is entitled to say "Well, since she knew the man was an abuser before marriage and still married him then she deserves what she is getting. If she does not want to get beaten, she should not have married a domestic abuser"?

Sagamite:


Answer the gaddam questions!

Don't tell me what the law is or would do, tell me what the law should be based on sense!

Or you are free to agree it is spiritual baked beans so we can come to a conclusion that you feel arguments should come from the arse and stuck defiantly to.

Again, the questions:

Do you give such "gift" to your neighbour, mother, brother, sister, cousin or visitor?

Then back it up by telling us:

1) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed but which you cannot give any other type of person in that list.

2) What other "gift" you can give one of those listed that is "contractual".

3) What other "gift" you can give for ONE singular event.

4) Would your arse also say when a woman goes to court because she faced domestic violence in her marriage that the judge is entitled to say "Well, since she knew the man was an abuser before marriage and still married him then she deserves what she is getting. If she does not want to get beaten, she should not have married a domestic abuser"?

bro the law is based on favouring the person who stuck to the engagement AGAINST the one who decided to break it off. stop throwing the above GIBBERISH as an attempt to smokescreen the issue, and instead stand on FACTS! what the law decides to do on matter other than ENGAGEMENT rings is irrelevant!

again, any donkey who enter an unfair agreement, where only him begins this agreement out of pocket, CANNOT/SHOULDNT expect a fair outcome if/when he does indeed fukcs up. but hey, if you think he should, then take it up with the law, and advise donkeys not to enter these one sided dumb agreements.

MrBrownJay1:


bro the law is based on favouring the person who stuck to the engagement AGAINST the one who decided to break it off. stop throwing the above GIBBERISH as an attempt to smokescreen the issue, and instead stand on FACTS! what the law decides to do on matter other than ENGAGEMENT rings is irrelevant!

again, any donkey who enter an unfair agreement, where only him begins this agreement out of pocket, CANNOT/SHOULDNT expect a fair outcome if/when he does indeed fukcs up. but hey, if you think he should, then take it up with the law, and advise donkeys not to enter these one sided dumb agreements.

Again answer the gaddam questions!

Don't tell me what the law is or would do, tell me what the law should be based on sense!

One could foolishly also say "Well, the law in Saudi Arabia (then) was that women should not drive (because it damaged their wombs )", that does not mean one cannot say what the law should be and be based on.

Or you are free to agree it is spiritual baked beans so we can come to a conclusion that you feel arguments should come from the arse and stuck defiantly to.

Sagamite:


Again answer the gaddam questions!

Don't tell me what the law is or would do, tell me what the law should be based on sense!

One could foolishly also say "Well, the law in Saudi Arabia (then) was that women should not drive (because it damaged their wombs )", that does not mean one cannot say what the law should be and be based on.

Or you are free to agree it is spiritual baked beans so we can come to a conclusion that you feel arguments should come from the arse and stuck defiantly to.

who gives a damn?! stick to the damn issue... aka any donkey who enters an unfair agreement, where only him begins this agreement out of pocket, CANNOT/SHOULDNT expect a fair outcome if/when he does indeed fukcs up. but hey, if you think he should, then take it up with the law, and advise donkeys not to enter these one sided dumb agreements.

MrBrownJay1:


who gives a damn?! stick to the damn issue... aka any donkey who enters an unfair agreement, where only him begins this agreement out of pocket, CANNOT/SHOULDNT expect a fair outcome if/when he does indeed fukcs up. but hey, if you think he should, then take it up with the law, and advise donkeys not to enter these one sided dumb agreements.

So any woman who enters a marriage with a violent partner deserves and should expect domestic violence according to MrBrownJay1's legal logic?

Sagamite:


So any woman who enters a marriage with a violent partner deserves and should expect domestic violence according to MrBrownJay1's legal logic?

what are you on about?!?!? there is a huge difference between MARRYING someone and giving someone an ENGAGEMENT ring.... aka the law is different in those 2 instances. stop trying to deviate from the issue at hand.

but, let us all be clear, ANY person who knowingly goes on to marry an abusive person should certainly expect exactly that. why should marry stop a person from being themselves?! and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law, its called COMMON SENSE!

MrBrownJay1:


what are you on about?!?!? there is a huge difference between MARRYING someone and giving someone an ENGAGEMENT ring.... aka the law is different in those 2 instances. stop trying to deviate from the issue at hand.

but, let us all be clear, ANY person who knowingly goes on to marry an abusive person should certainly expect exactly that. why should marry stop a person from being themselves?! and that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law, its called COMMON SENSE!

What nonsense!

Another thing you pulled from your arse?

Tell us why the law is different in both cases?

I want to learn from the MrBrownJay1 School of International Law.

Sagamite:


What nonsense!

Another thing you pulled from your arse?

Tell us why the law is different in both cases?

I want to learn from the MrBrownJay1 School of International Law.

pls allow me to educate you on the differences..hhmm let me see... maybe simply because A) one comes with a signed contract (by both parties) while the other doesnt, or better yet B) because each receive a ring during marriage while in engagement only one does... think about that for a minute, lol!

MrBrownJay1:


pls allow me to educate you on the differences..hhmm let me see... maybe simply because A) one comes with a signed contract (by both parties) while the other doesnt, or better yet B) because each receive a ring during marriage while in engagement only one does... think about that for a minute, lol!

Mate, are you confused?

Did you not say an engagement is a contract?

So in the confused MrBrownJay1 School of International Law, there are contracts where only one person signs.

Talk shyt much, mate?

Sagamite:


Mate, are you confused?

Did you not say an engagement is a contract?

So in the confused MrBrownJay1 School of International Law, there are contracts where only one person signs.

Talk shyt much, mate?

bwaaaah see this man AGAIN talking from both side of his mouth....so now you agree that it is a contract?!

btw funny how you are quick to accept that it is an agreement when it fits your selfish agenda!
ok then here is the catch....it is indeed a verbal agreement/contract THAT IS UNFAIR TO THE MAN (while men gladly go into these one sided agreements)... furthermore, marriage contracts are signed by both parties while engagement are not.

btw funny how you are quick to agree that it is an agreement, when it fits your selfish agenda.