coogar:


the same frail grass addled brain destroyed your entire existence in one swift move. the grass addled brain undressed you in public & it exposed your cluelessness when it comes to your country's constitution! if anything, my brain commingles brilliance with wits.

My very first post on this topic showed my ignorance of the law so your addled brain should look again to see which existence it destoyed.

oh shut it, will you?
you have rambled the entire day with a stultifying dullness over a little difference. i have given you a scenario where the woman does not even get punished whilst the man gets 14 years.......i expect you to carry a placard tomorrow and protest against this injustice.

captain "save-a-hoe" - the floor is yours.

I have told you to report to the mods if it so pains you. For someone who wants to see the law unchanged you seem to be eager to see some action, effects of your grass dulled brain?

LordReed:


Okay so if a man is slapped what is that, felony or misdemeanor?

Have you heard of a case where a man goes to make a report that he was slapped, just a slap and nothing else?
That's women bizniz right there...

However, for sake of appearances...let's assume that this slap was soooo darn severe that it caused physical injury/bodily harm on the man's face or maybe resulted in a concussion (same goes if it's a woman that was slapped), this clause satisfies it:

CHAPTER 29

355. Any person who unlawfully assaults another and thereby does him harm is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years.

Note that (355) is gender-neutral, regardless that the word 'him' is used...in case that's what you'll start calling discrimination again

crackhaus:

Have you heard of a case where a man goes to make a report that he was slapped, just a slap and nothing else?
That's women bizniz right there...

However, for sake of appearances...let's assume that this slap was soooo darn severe that it caused physical injury/bodily harm on the man's face or maybe resulted in a concussion (same goes if it's a woman that was slapped), this clause satisfies it:


Note that (355) is gender-neutral, regardless that the word 'him' is used...in case that's what you'll start calling discrimination again

So in other words if a man is slapped and it does not do any injury he cannot press charges?

LordReed:

My very first post on this topic showed my ignorance of the law so your addled brain should look again to see which existence it destoyed.

there's no excuse of ignorance in law.....
if you are this old & yet you are clueless on issues like the constitution of your own country then your entire formal education is a waste of resources. your sponsors should have used the funds in cocoa business. then again, if you are ignorant of the law, what the fück are you doing on a thread that is intellectually out of your league?

hmmmm-----in your bid to "save-a-hoe", you wandered into a territory where your types don't belong. you are a prey in this habitat, go home and re-educate yourself. stop jumping at any thread that puts men against women. they don't need your help. the women can fight for themselves.

I have told you to report to the mods if it so pains you. For someone who wants to see the law unchanged you seem to be eager to see some action, effects of your grass dulled brain?

which yeye action?
i am playing your words back to you. if you can make close to 30 comments over a miserable 1 year punishment, you should burn few courthouses for a 14-year punishment, isn't it?

you don enter trouble today. i'm going to torment you till your nose bleeds.

LordReed:

[s]
There are enough references to know whether I change my stance on issues when I get more information or not however I cannot say the same for you, care to prove me wrong?

Whether you are tormented by this or that is irrelevant but instead of facing the topic squarely you indulge in self-denial and grammatical acrobats that have no point other than to obscure the discussion.[/s] Who/what stops you from screaming discrimination? [s]And if you point some other discrimination does it dramatically erase the others?[/s]

Take a breath bro, the tension and antagonism from your argument with coogar is starting to spill into your replies to me...

In response to your question, refer to this bit in my earlier post:

I never called it discriminatory because I know better, and also because I really don't care if male sentences are typically longer than females' - I'm not eternally tormented by the idea that my gender is being discriminated against...

It isn't a matter of who/what stops me from screaming discrimination, it's just a matter of me not screaming discrimination because of what I put in bold for you from my earlier post.

Clear enough?

LordReed:


So in other words if a man is slapped and it does not do any injury he cannot press charges?

I don't know, because I'm yet to hear of a case of a man pressing charges for being slapped.

coogar:


there's no excuse of ignorance in law.....
if you are this old & yet you are clueless on issues like the constitution of your own country then your entire formal education is a waste of resources. your sponsors should have used the funds in cocoa business. then again, if you are ignorant of the law, what the fück are you doing on a thread that is intellectually out of your league?

hmmmm-----in your bid to "save-a-hoe", you wandered into a territory where your types don't belong. you are a prey in this habitat, go home and re-educate yourself. stop jumping at any thread that puts men against women. they don't need your help. the women can fight for themselves.




which yeye action?
i am playing your words back to you. if you can make close to 30 comments over a miserable 1 year punishment, you should burn few courthouses for a 14-year punishment, isn't it?

you don enter trouble today. i'm going to torment you till your nose bleeds.

Unlike you I am not afraid to say I do not know about something. If you think admitting ignorance and seeking more information is bad then you are the biggest of ignoramuses.

Torment yourself, I am not moved by your words.

crackhaus:

Take a breath bro, the tension and antagonism from your argument with coogar is starting to spill into your replies to me...

In response to your question, refer to this bit in my earlier post:


It isn't a matter of who/what stops me from screaming discrimination, it's just a matter of me not screaming discrimination because of what I put in bold for you from my earlier post.

Clear enough?

And I stated that what you put in bold has no bearing on the discussion. Your lack of empathy cannot negate the subject matter.

LordReed:

Unlike you I am not afraid to say I do not know about something. If you think admitting ignorance and seeking more information is bad then you are the biggest of ignoramuses.

there you go again with your single digit IQ. when you don't know about something, you listen more and type less. learn from those who know and keep quiet.

you assumed the role of a raconteur when it's clear as daylight you aren't even clued up on the subject we are discussing. many people don't know like you but they are in the background learning.

however, in your bid to "save-a-hoe", you have offered yourself as a sacrificial lamb to a predator like coogar. i have even lost appetite to eat you any further. if i am going to devour a prey, i'd rather it's a smart prey. i am scared your flesh could infect me with your cluelessness.

Torment yourself, I am not moved by your words.

this is you right now.....NL's one & only captain "save-a-hoe".

crackhaus:

I don't know, because I'm yet to hear of a case of a man pressing charges for being slapped.

So if hypothetically a man wanted to press charges for a slap, say just to make his attacker suffer the consequences and he has witnesses willing to testify on his behalf, are you saying he cannot?

coogar:


there you go again with your single digit IQ. when you don't know about something, you listen more and type less. learn from those who know and keep quiet.

you assumed the role of a raconteur when it's clear as daylight you aren't even clued up on the subject we are discussing. many people don't know like you but they are in the background learning.

however, in your bid to "save-a-hoe", you have offered yourself as a sacrificial lamb to a predator like coogar. i have even lost appetite to eat you any further. if i am going to devour a prey, i'd rather it's a smart prey. i am scared your could infect me with your cluelessness.

As I said before report me to the mods because I won't keep quiet. I will challenge any idea I do not agree with and no amount of vaunted boasting will change that. Predator my ass.

LordReed:

As I said before report me to the mods because I won't keep quiet. I will challenge any idea I do not agree with and no amount of vaunted boasting will change that. Predator my ass.

how can you challenge what you don't agree with when you have already admitted you are ignorant of the law?

coogar:


how can you challenge what you don't agree with when you have already admitted you are ignorant of the law?

Your grass addled brain won't let you think would it? The laws are not available to be read online again abi? Paper coogar.

Shege. Coogar and Crackhaus representing.

laide4:
Lordreed, stop wasting your time in a fruitless argument.
They'll brandish you captain-save-a-hoe and other sorts of vile names and one would think they will hate on any female who supports them.

Hypocrisy! In their deluded mind, they are the extraordinary perfect beings.
These guys are bitter.

Ediot, counter their arguments with intelligence or remain a spectator.

LordReed:


Your grass addled brain won't let you think would it? The laws are not available to be read online again abi? Paper coogar.

unfortunately, you put the cart before the horse. next time, read the laws online. cover all grounds before coming to a public forum to expose your ignorance.

laide4:


These guys are bitter.

It must be part of the reason, anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy and must be "destroyed". Like there is some kind of trophy or something to be won here.

laide4:

Op's post is self explanatory.
Only Ediots run in circles.
No time!

Francesca, sorry for quoting you in the first place. I didn't known it was you. Please carry on.

coogar:


unfortunately, you put the cart before the horse. next time, read the laws online. cover all grounds before coming to a public forum to expose your ignorance.

Sue me if e pain you.

Timbuktou:


Francesca, sorry for quoting you in the first place. I didn't known it was you. Please carry on.

so laide4 is francistony again?
no wonder he cannot overcome the simple task of gaining admission into a nigerian university. he spends 90% of his day creating alternate monikers.

coogar:


so laide4 is francistony again?
no wonder he cannot overcome the simple task of gaining admission into a nigerian university. he spends 90% of his day creating alternate monikers.

Nna, someone just told me that offline . I almost knocked myself on the head for quoting shim.

TV01:

Real good effort here Cracky. Some of the most erudite minds of their era did not sit down gleefully looking to codify the oppression of women into the constitution.

The very worst they would have done is capture what was already generally accepted in society - point in question being things about spousal unions and the marital estate.

Trawling through the constitution and then wilfully or ignorantly mis-ascribing discriminatory intent is the purview of a troubled mind. Like I noted, the law - for better or worse - evolves. Under appeal, any such blatantly discriminatory law would be repealed.

That is in part the confoundingly obtuse confusion of feminism. Always playing the victim, always bleating on about rights - yet totally neglecting responsibilities - and always looking to villify men as misogynist, whilst demanding the same men give in to their unthinking demands. Did anyone even look to see if any women were involved in framing the constitution?

The force is with you Sir TV as usual.

The only reason I am on this thread is to kill the impression that a group of people gathered to pen down a constitution which deliberately discriminates against women..
I mean, how absurd is that?
Why would anyone with a functioning brain even think this?

For the underlined, about if women were involved in framing the constitution...which I actually have been waiting for someone among these people screaming discrimination, to mention.

This is the little I know:
After the 5th Pan-African Conference took place in Manchester on 15th-21st October 1945, most African nations under colonial rule started yearning for independence. Obafemi Awolowo and Jaja Wachuku were the Nigerians present there.
Other notable Africans present before they became notable of course, are, Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya), Hastings Banda (Malawi), Peter Abrahams (South Africa).

In July 1947, delegates chosen from the legislative members in the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) arrived in London to push the motion for self-government of Nigeria.
Among these delegates were three very important persons namely:

1.) Jaja A. Wachuku, a lawyer;
- First speaker of the house
- First foreign affairs minister
- First ambassador to the UN.

2.) Prince Adedoyin;
Not much info on him.

3.) Funmi Ransome-Kuti, activist;
- Founder of Nigerian Women's Union
- Mother of Fela
- First woman to drive a car

Clearly, a woman, a highly intelligent women-activist no less, was part of the delegation that pushed for self-government.
Whether she was sitting in parliament the day the constitution was revised is something I can't say for sure.
However, that a woman was even involved in all this is something worth mentioning...deliberate discrimination would be almost if not impossible.

The irrelevant ignored bitter fool with no job to his name save for wandering on Nairaland to argue with women won't stop mentioning my name on every thread.
Am I this special?
Get a job ASAP to engage your jobless self, you redundant half-wit.

E no go better for anybody wey do this thing to you.
You are cursed beyond measure.
No Nairaland female is responsible for your woes.
Useless flatulent buncum!

Timbuktou:


Nna, someone just told me that offline . I almost knocked myself on the head for quoting shim.

shim needs to get a job.

LordReed:


So if hypothetically a man wanted to press charges for a slap, say just to make his attacker suffer the consequences and he has witnesses willing to testify on his behalf, are you saying he cannot?

You and your akara seller logic though...

I said I don't know as I haven't heard a of a man reporting a case of being slapped...

I never said he cannot, I said I haven't seen/heard...
Have you? Shior...

FrancisTony:
The irrelevant ignored bitter fool with no job to his name save for wandering on Nairaland to argue with women won't stop mentioning my name on every thread.
Am I this special?
Get a job ASAP to engage your jobless self, you redundant half-wit.
E no go better for anybody wey do this thing to you.
You are cursed beyond measure.
No Nairaland female is responsible for your woes.
Useless flatulent buncum!

Do u hv one?
transgendered loser nd lonely,creating multiple moniker 2 bash people he can neva be lik dem only on nairaland.
u aare a goat,slowpoke nd a loser.
u r cursed,ur mother is curse,your grandmother is even curse more 4 allowing ur ashawo of a mother to meet ur oliburuku ofa father 2 hav a child lik u.
U will continu 2 fail in life becoz u moke GOD.pretentious idiotic christian,u know nothing abt God becoz u ar very bitter.ur situation will never be good.cursed child.You will die in ur miserable existence.die loser,die loser.
continu liking ur post.only 3 people in dis thread lik ur comments,we will see 15 likes nd one wonder where the pople who liked it?
how many r we here?u see how dumb nd despefrate u r,nd i am not surprised,u r a low life.

bring the laide4 moniker u idiot francistony,let go dere.

LordReed:


And I stated that what you put in bold has no bearing on the discussion. Your lack of empathy cannot negate the subject matter.

Lmao...

Someone asks me if I consider something discriminatory, I replied accordingly but with safe-guards...he then says my safe-guards have no bearing on the discussion.
Is it by force to call it discrimination?

Is it my fault that you failed to follow the tone of my post?