shymexx: Sagamite is a DOLT!!!

Back up your claims, or go to bed...

You are a person!

You did not know an unstructured debate will not allow you to plagiarise?

Or you think it is all debates you can plagiarise in by posting other people's thoughts and pretending it was yours?

Mooron!

Tgirl4real:

I beg to disagree... Catholic priests are not God representatives on earth. Roman Catholism is not the same as the Gospel of Christ or d message of the bible. Anything they do, dey do in their names cos they are the "Most reverred one" "His Eminence" "His Grace"". They already place themselves is the position of a god. So, in what god name are they doing things again? ...may be in devil's name sha. After all, he is also a god.

Ok @ bolded

The remaining: pure nonsense!

ekt_bear:

Ignore anything having to do with religion, and simply answer the question posed.

I can't answer the question because my choice of residence isn't always based on the crime rate of the location... Most times, it's based on the opportunities in that location...

shymexx:

So, the British education system is also a failed one, no You're a STONKER!!!!

ANSWER MY QUESTIONS!!

The British education system is unlikely to produce a person that plagiarises in a debate or say a priest molested kids in the name of God.

person!

Sagamite:
You are a person!

You did not know an unstructured debate will not allow you to plagiarise?

Or you think it is all debates you can plagiarise in by posting other people's thoughts and pretending it was yours?

Mooron!

Plagiarise what?

Another pseudo-intellectual revisionist - you've got your lousy ar.se whopped about five times on this forum...

Just go to bed if you can't back up your claims, coward...

Sagamite:

The British education system is unlikely to produce a person that plagiarises in a debate or say a priest molested kids in the name of God.

person!

But you still got your ar.se whopped again, no??

That's the most important thing...

Go to bed, lousy pillock..

shymexx:

I can't answer the question because my choice of residence isn't always based on the crime rate of the location... Most times, it's based on the opportunities in that location...

My question has nothing to do with your choice of residence.

I am asking, given two countries with very different crime rates, assuming that things are otherwise relatively equal between the two countries, is it not fair to say that the country where 10% of the pop are criminals is more violent/less safe than the one where 0.1% are criminals?

Yes, or no? Very simple question.

Then the second question is, if 95% of criminals come from Country X, should we just view this as something random that has nothing to do with that nation, or is it reasonable to then believe that there is something about said country that promotes crime?

Again, a simple question.

shymexx:

So, you're basically saying they're also gods themselves??

Hmmm... That's new..

However, they need to be separated from the Church because the Church is about God, not them...

Now...u are beginning to think. Because they call themselves part of the church doesn't mean they are the true church.

Anyone that receives personal worship, reference and glory from people in the name of religion need not declare what they truly are b4 u see... They already set themselves up as a god over these people. The people in turn worship them in ignorance thinking they worship the One and only True God. They set man made rules to keep people in bondage under their leadership. The same applies to our so called bishops and arcbishops. Denominational Christianity isn't same as the gospel of Christ. Go figure!!!

I hope u saw the sarcasm in my post u quoted sha?

Well, how does the Lord's Prayer go?

"
"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Please bless me as I have s3x with little children....
"

Thus, the Catholic priests did their acts in the name of God. No be so?

ekt_bear:
My question has nothing to do with your choice of residence.

I am asking, given two countries with very different crime rates, assuming that things are otherwise relatively equal between the two countries, is it not fair to say that the country where 10% of the pop are criminals is more violent/less safe than the one where 0.1% are criminals?

Yes, or no? Very simple question.

Then the second question is, if 95% of criminals come from Country X, should we just view this as something random that has nothing to do with that nation, or is it reasonable to then believe that there is something about said country that promotes crime?

Again, a simple question.

But is that enough to call the country with the higher number of criminals and Country X evil countries??

Bear in the mind that these criminals are in the minority...

Tgirl4real:
Now...u are beginning to think. Because they call themselves part of the church doesn't mean they are the true church.

Anyone that receives personal worship, reference and glory from people in the name of religion need not declare what they truly are b4 u see... They already set themselves up as a god over these people. The people in turn worship them in ignorance thinking they worship the One and only True God. They set man made rules to keep people in bondage under their leadership. The same applies to our so called bishops and arcbishops. Denominational Christianity isn't same as the gospel of Christ. Go figure!!!

I hope u saw the sarcasm in my post u quoted sha?

The same can be said about the Muslim clerics who preach hate and spread ideologies that are different from Islam...

I'm not a Muslim, but I'm just here to call a spade a spade...

@ PROF. WOLE. Christianity is not a religion is a way of life that has a manual (THE BIBLE) and that way of life is a choice people that live by that manual will not only live a peaceful life, they will do everything to make their brother share in the peace.

ekt_bear: Correct!

Thief and armed robber are the same thing. Or similar enough that the difference is negligible.

Yet, in Country 1, 10% of the population are thieves. In Country 2, 0.1% are armed robbers.

Which country would you conclude is more crime-prone?

Or equivalently, of all the thieves on earth, 95% of them come from Country X, 5% from Country Y. Would you then wonder if there is something about Country X that encourages criminality (assuming comparable populations of course)..?

I posed this exact same question to shymexx in the thread about the killings in Libya and he persistently avoided it as well. If there is much greater preponderance of a certain behaviour in a group above others, do you sweep it under the carpet or excuse it away under the theory of being 'isolated'?

debosky:
I posed this exact same question to shymexx in the thread about the killings in Libya and he persistently avoided it as well. If there is much greater preponderance of a certain behaviour in a group above others, do you sweep it under the carpet or excuse it away under the theory of being 'isolated'?

I'm not saying the violent/terroristic behaviours among Muslims aren't problematic... However, should we label a religion with more than 1billion people, evil

Basically, I'm just against the isolation of all Muslims because of the crimes of a few... I've got Muslims in my family, and I can't deny them just because of the actions of a few nutters in another part of the world... And I can't also deny the Christians in my family, just because of the paedophilic tendencies of some Catholic priests...

shymexx:

But is that enough to call the country with the higher number of criminals and Country X evil countries??

"Evil" is a vague word, one which people can quibble over. What if we said more crime-prone? Less safe? More violent? Would those be reasonable conclusions to draw from my little example?

Bear in the mind that these criminals are in the minority...

The crime rate in the USA is much higher than that of similarly wealthy countries in Europe. Yet in both cases, criminals are in the vast minority. Just because criminals are in the minority in both cases, does that mean we cannot draw any conclusions? What makes this magical 50% cutoff so special for you, anyways?

Again, "evil" is a vague word. People usually use it as shorthand for something much longer and more precise.

Actually, "good" is also a vague word.

If your beef is that people are using vague words in association with Islam and they should use more specific language, fine, no problem. I'll concede the point (though you should also keep in mind that this is an internet forum, where people use vague language all the time for convenience).

But if you are denying that there are differences between Islam and Christianity when it comes to violence, terrorism, and various other things that most modern humans find unsavory, then I think you are being dishonest with yourself.

shymexx:

Plagiarise what?

Another pseudo-intellectual revisionist - you've got your lousy ar.se whopped about five times on this forum...

Just go to bed if you can't back up your claims, coward...

You are a person!

Who are you trying to BS you did not plagiarise in debate?

https://www.nairaland.com/997196/nairalands-literary-debating-day-finals#11526490

Is plagiarising not regarded as shymexxing on NL now?

Just type in shymexxing in the NL search function.

ekt_bear:
"Evil" is a vague word, one which people can quibble over. What if we said more crime-prone? Less safe? More violent? Would those be reasonable conclusions to draw from my little example?

Crime-prone/more violent is more appropriate... Less safe is also vague because the victims of these 'crimes' won't agree with you..

The crime rate in the USA is much higher than that of similarly wealthy countries in Europe. Yet in both cases, criminals are in the vast minority. Just because criminals are in the minority in both cases, does that mean we cannot draw any conclusions? What makes this magical 50% cutoff so magical for you, anyways?

We can't draw conclusions... We need to put other intangibles into consideration... London is believed to be safer than New York for example based on the crime rate... But most Londoners who live in crime infested areas of London would disagree with that assertion...

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Who are you trying to BS you did not plagiarise in debate?

https://www.nairaland.com/997196/nairalands-literary-debating-day-finals#11526490

Is plagiarising not regarded as shymexxing on NL now?

Just type in shymexxing in the NL search function.

You're a funny chap!!

I was invited 2 hours before a debate, to talk about Nigerian politics(a topic I don't really know much about) - and I did what I had to do to get through the first round.. So as to debate my opponents on a one-on-one basis...

You were also part of the debate - why did you pull out at the last minute

At least I honoured the invite.....

And who the hell told you that there's anything called PLAGIARISM in a debate I lifted a paragraph from the article, and there's no crime in doing that in a debate...

Stick to the topic, loser...

shymexx:

Crime-prone/more violent is more appropriate... Less safe is also vague because the victims of these 'crimes' won't agree with you..

Fine. So make the appropriate mental substitutions when you see people castigating Islam and calling it evil.

We can't draw conclusions... We need to put other intangibles into consideration... London is believed to be safer than New York for example based on the crime rate... But most Londoners who live in crime infested areas of London would disagree with that assertion...

Good call.

We cannot draw any conclusions from large differences in rates.

For example, the AIDS rate in South Africa or Lesotho is much much higher than that of say the UK. Yet, we cannot draw any conclusions about what the likelihood of getting a disease having unprotected sex in the UK vs. South Africa is.

It is simply unknowable, despite the published error rates. May as well flip a coin to decide.

Outstanding logic.

I never thought I'd see such blatant escapism.

shymexxing at it's best.

shymexx:

You're a funny chap!!

I was invited 2 hours before a debate, to talk about Nigerian politics(a topic I don't really know much about) - and I did what I had to do to get through the first round.. So as to debate my opponents on a one-on-one basis...

You were also part of the debate - why did you pull out at the last minute

At least I honoured the invite.....

And who the hell told you that there's anything called PLAGIARISM in a debate I lifted a paragraph from the article, and there's no crime in doing that in a debate...

Stick to the topic, loser...

You were invited to debate 2 hours before time and had no time, so you decided to put another person write-up verbatim up as your points and not declare it was copied, pretending you wrote it? And that is not plagiarising?

Only in your deluded world?

You are a pure person!

Product of a failed education system!

I think the issue is that if one accepts that Islam is a pretty evil religion, then perhaps one will also conclude that Muslims are also bad or something.

But I don't think that is true...most Muslims are going to be overall good people.

I dunno...I feel like the way to confront problems is to admit that they exist. You can never reform a religion unless you are first willing to admit that the way it is currently practiced/interpreted is flawed.

debosky:

I never thought I'd see such blatant escapism.

shymexxing at it's best.

He would soon declare he has won the argument and believe it himself.

Just like he declared copying the entirety of someone else's write-up verbatim, and claiming he wrote it, is not plagiarism, and he believes that.

Utter person!

ekt_bear:
Fine. So make the appropriate mental substitutions when you see people castigating Islam and calling it evil.

Good call.

We cannot draw any conclusions from large differences in rates.

For example, the AIDS rate in South Africa or Lesotho is much much higher than that of say the UK. Yet, we cannot draw any conclusions about what the likelihood of getting a disease having unprotected sex in the UK vs. South Africa is.

It is simply unknowable, despite the published error rates. May as well flip a coin to decide.

Outstanding logic.

I never said it was unknowable, my assertion was based on the premise some people would disagree with you, and rightfully so...

You might be more likely to get AIDS in SA(based on statistics), but those who're HIV positive in the UK will definitely disagree with you...

Sagamite:



He would soon declare he has won the argument and believe it himself.

Just like he declared copying the entirety of someone else's write-up verbatim, and claiming he wrote it, is not plagiarism, and he believes that.

Utter person!

But why did you pull-out of the debate

At least I still honoured the invite despite the two hours notice...

But you had a week to prepare for the topic...

There's nothing called; PLAGIARISM, in a debate!!!!

I lifted a paragraph from there and wrote the rest of the darn article myself...

Go to bed, SAGAMITE, You lost today again like you always do... Bwahahahaha

SAGAMITE-KILLER = SHYMMEX....

shymexx:

I never said it was unknowable, my assertion was based on the premise some people would disagree with you, and rightfully so...

You might be more likely to get AIDS in SA(based on statistics), but those who're HIV positive in the UK will definitely disagree with you...

So, someone who already has AIDS in the UK will think that AIDS is easier to get in the UK, you are saying? OK, fine.

What of:
a) those who don't have AIDS in the UK
b) those who have AIDS in SA
c) those who don't have AIDS in SA?

You aren't being very logical here..........

shymexx:

But why did you pull-out of the debate

they wouldn't let him use "person" to start a sentence.

For about 1000 years (5th century to 15th century and even some time after that), European Christians were violent, superstitious, fanatical, socially oppressive, sexist, blindly obedient to their religion, intolerant, prone to witch hunting, inclined to burning "pagans" and heretics or apostates at the stake (the auto-da-fé), condemning and socially ostracizing people for blasphemy, persecuting religious minorities of other faiths (particularly Jews), etc. etc., but after a long while the Europeans got over the initial awe they had for the wisdom, elegance, sophistication, etc. that was found in some parts of their adopted religion (Christianity) and they came to terms with the fact that they didn't have the rigid, ascetic, dogmatic and unworldly/non-materialistic culture that could really adhere to the strict demands of a culture/religion born out of Semitic beliefs and tradition. Many Arabs and other Semitic groups however, probably for cultural reasons, were/are more easily able to adhere to the demands of the Muslim religion and therefore fashion their society to fit the needs of their religion rather than the other way around. After the "Enlightenment" period of Europe however, Europeans started fashioning the religion (Christianity) to fit their evolving society and those non-Europeans that later received the religion through contact with Europeans started practicing the religion in a similar manner. The end result is that the religion (Christianity) looks more enlightened and progressive than it would have looked in earlier times when its practitioners engaged in all sorts of backward behavior in the name of religion. The Muslim middle east and north Africa have not had their enlightenment period - and we don't know if they ever will - but if they were to undergo such a transformation, it's likely that the religion and its followers would be viewed in the same way Christians are today - as being usually tolerant of most things, progressive, and rarely prone to religious violence and fanaticism.

shymexx:

The ones who killed, did it for their belief system, and they justified it using the Bible...

The Catholic Priests molested kids in the name of their God, hence why the Pope never punished them...

Both Abrahamic faiths(Christianity and Islam) are basically the same thing... One is just more violent than the other right now because of their inability to separate religion from the state... Christianity was as violent as Islam is right now when it was going through the same phase...

So, you can't say one is more evil than the other because they were both cut from the same cloth, period..

You may have issues with Catholitism but at least let your submissions be fact based and logical.

First, No one disputes that there are priests who are bad but DO NOT lump bad priests with the thousands of great priests who have given up their lives to serve in the most difficult places.

Second, your anology is off because no priest has ever stated that he molested because God told him to do so or because its in his training. Have you ever heard of Catholics protesting in support of a priest who was accused of child molestation? Child molestation is bad and done in secret. No one does it proclaiming the guidance of God or the Holy Spirit.

Tgirl4real:

Now...u are beginning to think. Because they call themselves part of the church doesn't mean they are the true church.

Anyone that receives personal worship, reference and glory from people in the name of religion need not declare what they truly are b4 u see... They already set themselves up as a god over these people. The people in turn worship them in ignorance thinking they worship the One and only True God. They set man made rules to keep people in bondage under their leadership. The same applies to our so called bishops and arcbishops. Denominational Christianity isn't same as the gospel of Christ. Go figure!!!

I hope u saw the sarcasm in my post u quoted sha?

It appears you want to have a debate about Christianity.

What denomination are you referring to above?

What is the true church? You should have been clear on that.