₦airaland Forum

Gerrard59:
I do understand the concept of slavery, so your elucidation, while lucid isn't new.

Oh, I'm hurt...I literally thought up the whole thing on the go, and now you're telling my original fictional history in a vacuum isn't new?

At the bold, no. It's not appropriate as they were not responsible for their parents' actions. Moreover, policies upon policies have been enacted to "help" blacks.

I guess our world views are fundamentally different then. My view is that a thief or his/her descendants don't have any right over what was stolen. I know right? Radical idea!

With so much racial intermixture that has occurred over centuries, will those who dole out the potential reparations demand certificates of racial purity? It's befuddling to say the least. Yet again, in paying reparations is that: a small percentage of blacks were free before slavery ended, having bought their freedom or having had it bequeathed to them by sympathetic slave owners. Are their descendants eligible for reparations? Reparations are not only unnecessary as a financial compensation, but they would also be an insult to the throngs of successful black Americans who lifted themselves out of poverty before and after the civil rights movement.

Your argument in a nutshell: Implementing the right thing will be so difficult; hence don't do the right thing... Okay, my nutshell, admittedly..but still, that's cold bruv!
Also, I don't know the "throngs" of successful black Americans you're referring to. I love statistics, do give me a statistical account of the proportion of black Americans that have lifted themselves out of poverty relative to the total number. In non-fictional statistics, arguments are usually reliant on the norm not the outliers.

Furthermore, the level of education amongst blacks rose while that of poverty fell between 1940 & 1960 before the introduction of welfare and "progressive politics". No way are millions of white, Asian, and Hispanic Americans going to pay reparations for something that happened before their ancestors ever set foot on American Soil.

Now you're arguing against your own fabrications because I've not mentioned welfare anywhere. Let me help you: Believing that the American society owes a debt to black Americans (not black immigrants to be clear), doesn't mean believing that welfarism is the best way or only way this debt can be paid.

On the flip side...why does your analogy has the name "Uncle Tom"? Oh I get! That's the tag persons like me get.

There's no flip side here. You already have a fine alphanumeric tag, but if you wanna be Uncle Tom, who am I to infringe on your legitimate fantasies?

Gerrard59:
Why should descendants be held responsible for their ancestors' sins? Besides, with "diversity", "inclusion" and good old "affirmative action", has the debt not being repaid? When will you ask the Arabs to do same?

Mr. Gerrard59 has 4 children. Ade, Bade, Tade and Wade. Uncle Tom has 3 Children. I don't care what their names are.

One night, Uncle Tom raids Mr. Gerrard59's house and kidnaps Ade, Bade and Tade, takes them across the sea, then forces them to build a fantastical mansion in a mythical city called Washington DC for free, so that he and his three children can live in security and comfort, happily ever after. And happily, they lived.
In fact, Uncle Tom grew very old and died, his three children also grew old and died they had many grand children, and all of them continued to enjoy the benefits of the magnificent estate Uncle Tom had the foresight to build....with the free labour of Gerrard59's Ade, Bade and Tade.

Gerrard59 is now long dead too. In fact, Ade, Bade, Tade and Wade too are all dead. But they left descendants of theirs. Wade's descendants are in a mythical continent called Africa. Ade's, Bade's and Tade's descendants remain under the service of Uncle Tom's descendants.

Unfortunately for Uncle Tom's descendants, they only lived happily, but not ever after. Ade's, Bade's and Tade's descendants are now many enough to cause riots and make their continued captivity very expensive for Uncle Tom's descendants to maintain. Uncle Tom's descendants, being clever, decide to finally free the descendants of Gerrard59.

However, remember that Uncle Tom's descendants still 'own' that fantastical edifice in Washington DC that Ade, Bade and Tade built for free. Now, they can rent it out, sell it, lease it, convert it into a private museum of American history and continue to make a killing (mind buggling profit, that is to say) out of it. Uncle Tom's descendants have all the requisite capital to stay rich. Gerrard59's kid are set free, but left with nothing to look after themselves, despite the fact that it was their free labour that gave Uncle Tom's descendants their privileged advantage.

But wait a minute! I lied!! That labour that built the magnificent edifice in Washington DC wasn't free. It was stolen!! Remember that Uncle Tom actually stole Gerrard59's Ade, Bade and Tade in the first place.

When a thief steals something and the thief's children continue to take advantage of that stolen property long after the thief is dead. My question to you is as follows:

Is it appropriate to ask the thief's children to return what was stolen to the children of the original owner?

If your answer to the above is yes, then you agree that this has nothing to do with children paying for the sins of their ancestors, and everything to do with giving back stolen things to their original owners; in this case, the descendants of Gerrard59.

Get this: America was built on stolen labour. And until the fruits of the stolen labour is returned to the original labourers, the American society will always owe a debt to Black Americans. ALWAYS!!

That's the best I can do to help you understand this situation. If you still don't get it, I can't help.

And yes, I'd say the same about the Arabs, but this discussion isn't about Black Arabs, it's about black Americans!

Ugosample:
The world is a CRUEL place
You don't expect fairness from anyone

Who said anything about "expecting" fairness? Nah, you fight to the death for it!

If you are weak, you will be eaten up
That is the way of the world

This is a dangerous and demonstrably false mindset. Strong people can fight for and have given their lives to protect weak people.

Arabs raided Europe for centuries
Europe did not succumb

If they did, theur story would have been different today

Arabs raided and plundered Africa
Europe raided and plundered Africa too

What are you on about, and what has this got to do with the plight of Black Americans?

i get your point,,as you are looking at it from a moral angle.
but then the world is the way it is
You have to pick yourself up..

What do you think I am doing when I call attention to the often ignored historical context through which the present situation of black Americans can be viewed?

Igbos were ruined by Nigeria in the late 60s and early 70s
but we picked ourselves up.
even tho some igbos still have victim mentality

but still
most picked themselves up
and look at where we are today in the economic space in Nigeria

Please educate me. How have most Igbos picked themselves up? What is the population of Igbos in Nigeria and what percentage of those are doing well economically?

Don't be fooled by idiotic feel-good drivel promoted by the elite to distract you from the stark reality of your situation. You will hear silly things like: "Igbos are the most successful businessmen", "Yorubas are the most educated ethnic group", "Hausas are the most honest people", and similar crap. The truth is that there are only two tribes in Nigeria today, and you will know them by their economic situation: The proletariat who do all the work for crumbs, and the bourgeoisie, who exploit all these fake ethnic and religious divisions to keep the proletariat poor and desperate enough to work for crumbs. Wake up and know who your real enemies are, comrade!

Obi1kenobi:
The reasons Nigerian immigrants do better than black Americans is a simple matter of self-selection. The most driven, most educated, comparatively affluent Nigerians are the ones who tend to travel abroad either on student or work visas. They've invested their futures in their emigration and must then summon up the pluck and drive to make it work. Immigrant groups always have that pluck and drive. That is not what the general Nigerian population is like - else, Nigeria wouldn't be a shiithole competing with the likes of Somalia and South Sudan for the most wretched country on earth.

Don't allow yourself be used as a pawn to undermine black Americans. Their struggles in the US fighting for equal rights paved the way for black immigrants to enjoy the fruits of this struggle. Candace Owens is a vacuous mooron who will say anything her right-wing paymasters want her to.

Thank you so much! It is gratifying to know that there are Nigerians who see through this sh!t.

cococandy:
I also agree with this.

No good praise for minorities ever comes from the Republican Party. There’s always an ulterior motive

It is so exhausting having to explain to people that you can't just isolate current affairs from their historical context as if history just exists in a vacuum.

stdammis:
What debt? They dont owe them shii.

I'm surprised my first response to you got deleted. I'm not sure what I wrote that warranted its deletion. I think i made some pretty compelling arguments as to why Slavery and Jim Crow laws are responsible for current predicament of black Americans. It would have been useful for Nigerian immigrants to see and understand how white folks try to avoid responsibility for their past sins by using them as validation seeking pawns so as to isolate black Americans. Now, I can't be bothered to rewrite it.

Jesus Seun, what's wrong with your zealous moderators?

Don't fall for this crap!! This is a brazen divide and conquer tactic to shame historically disenfranchised black Americans into believing that it was they, themselves, not slavery, not racist jim crow laws, that caused their current situation. The American society owes black Americans a debt that must be repaid. To blame them for the situation in which they find themselves is to play fast and loose with history, and it doesn't help solve their situation.

MikeBetty:
My View Is Cattle Breeding Is A Personal Business, Therefore If They Want To Do It Down South, They Should Buy Land And Ranch Them. Not Govt Dispossessing People Their Inherited Land To Give To An Ethnic Group.

Cattle breeding doesn't have to be personal business though. In fact, the whole food industry shouldn't be personal business. It's the privatisation of food production that's the cause of rampant poverty, despite our capacity to produce enough to feed hundreds of millions of people. In the space of only 3 years, Thomas Sankara was able to achieve ~100% food productivity in Burkina Faso by taking over all means of production and carefully planning agricultural output based on the wholesome needs of the population. Farmers and herders can be encouraged by collectivising excess production and selling it in the international market, and then crediting each farmer/herder with rewards that are proportionate to the excess they produce, but first, we must meet the consumption needs of 200 million people, and this cannot be attained by a private food economy.

For all its noise about capitalism, even the USA heavily subsidises its food production; and beef production takes the lion share.

In Nigeria, I don't think there's such a thing as private lands ownership. When you think you're purchasing land, the government is merely leasing it out to you for a maximum period of 99 years. The idea of inherited land is therefore absurd.

In summary, I think the government should immediately repossess arable land, carefully plan required output that will feed the country, lease out lands to farmers in such a way that they can produce at least, three times the national requirement, control the price and ration distribution, heavily subsidise farming by supplying productivity enhancing equipment to these farmers and training farmers on best practices for free. Finally, reward any farmer that produces excess by giving them credit that is proportional to the excess they produce and sell it in the international market. Same principle should be be applied to cattle breeding and other aspects of the food production industry.

Colar234:
RUGA has been trending lately in Nigeria and lots of Nigeria are kicking against it with lots of genuine reasons while the supporters are still to let us know their reasons. Let us know yours either way

To be honest, there was just excessive mass hysteria and opposition to the whole idea, that any attempt of the government to explain the meat of the policy was completely drowned out. In my opinion, people were more incensed by the given name of the program, "Ruga", than its actual merits because the name is a Hausa/Fulani word.

I personally have no problem with the word, or, for that matter, naming any national program with any word from any ethnic group. However, I can see how it'd have promoted the perception that the program was meant to favour only a single ethnic group. In hind sight, FG could have used a more neutral name and then put out the program to be debated on a table that included the proponents of the policy as well as representatives of both farmers and herdspeople.

I don't know enough to have formulated a robust opinion regarding the program, and I was deeply irritated by all the noise that prevented this from happening. However some of the things that trickled in from editorials seemed pretty beneficial to society. A village in which herdspeople can operate, with access to vets, schools for their kids, primary health centres, etc. And they wouldn't have to wander about and encroach on private farms. Imagine that...

Because, aunty Lauretta, the call for him to step down is independent of the call for him to be prosecuted. Nigerians are calling for him to step down because he's a poor representative of the values we aspire to, hence he should, under no circumstances represent any Nigerians in the senate. But yes, we also want the inglorious bastad prosecuted, convicted and jailed with iṣẹ kara kara

Amen amen amen!!!

johnydon22:
You are arguing now that sex can't be consensual between two individuals with apparent social disparity?

I was wondering the same. So a boss cannot develop consensual relation with their subordinates and a rich person can only be in a relationship with someone in their social class. The immoral crap we get away with in society, eh!?

Without penitence, forgiveness is hollow.

fieryy:
Offsprings with close relatives increases the risk of genetic and birth defects by significant amount in just one family. That's the reason why it's illegal in most countries.

The problem of kids being disabled might bkt be a moral problem, but you having a relationship with someone knowing the risks and implications that come with it, is a moral one.

But yes not every sexual relationship leads to pregnancy BUT every sexual relationship CAN lead to one.

I doubt every sexual relationship can lead to pregnancy. Homosexual relationships can't!

liberalchick:
Apples and oranges. One is a sexual gratification causing injury to a living animal. The other is killing an animal for survival. One is rape the other is humans being part of a food chain. Ethical vegetarians/vegans might argue killing animals is inhumane but at least most people do it for survival.

On what basis do you claim that most meat eaters eat it for survival? Yes, people 'eat' for survival, but there is a panoply of cheaply and readily available food options most people could survive on other than animal meat.

I think that language should be pidgin English, and here are my reasons:

(1) From its simple origins as the language of transatlantic slave trade to its role as a postcolonial language of resistance in West Africa and the Caribbeans, pidgin English has really come of age as the quintessential lingua franca of West Africa. This language is presently spoken by over 100 million west Africans as a first or second language, including in Ghana, Equitorial Guinea, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Cameroun¹.

(2) Given it's very patchy, recent origins, the language belongs to no one, and belongs everyone at the same time. As such, adopting it should not generate as much controversy as adopting one of our ethnic languages.

(3) As an extension to (2), pidgin English is the only language capable of simultaneously inspiring a sense of unity among every ethnic group in Nigeria while also carrying everyone along, educated or not. Imagine how much more informed the average unlettered Nigerian would be if our leaders presented their political manifestos and argued their ideological differences in pidgin English.

(4) Pidgin English is a very fluid language, which means it is better capable of adapting to the innovations of modern times than most other established languages.

(5) Pidgin English is lexified by English, which is the language of trade and science. This means the most useful modern literature in science, technology and economics can very quickly be translated to pidgin English without losing the meanings of words. This also has the added benefit of eliminating the relative esotericism of useful scientific concepts in West Africa.

(6) Despite its many fumblings, many countries in West Africa, the Caribbeans and the Americas still look up to Nigeria. By standardising and adopting pidgin English as our national language, Nigeria will be sending a message to these countries that it is time to bond over our common heritage and vulnerabilities. I also feel confident that by sheer number and influence, Nigeria would naturally influence the method of standardisation for the rest of the pidgin English speaking world.

I am under no illusions that this would be an easy task. But becoming a nation has never been easy. It just takes a very bold step by very bold leaders. Besides, Rwanda changed its official language from French to English in 2009, which is arguably more difficult than changing from English to pidgin English. If Rwanda can do it, what is Nigeria waiting for?

¹ Yakpo, K., "“The only language we speak really well”: the English creoles of Equatorial Guinea and West Africa at the intersection of language ideologies and language policies", International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2016(239): 211-233. Retrieved 26 Jun. 2019, from doi:10.1515/ijsl-2016-0010

EternalBeing:
De Broglie Wavelength
De Broglie derived his equation using well established theories through the following series of substitutions:
1. De Broglie first used Einstein's famous equation relating matter and energy:
[ E = mc^2 \]
E= energy, m = mass, c = speed of light
2. Using Planck's theory which states every quantum of a wave has a discrete amount of energy given by Planck's equation:
[ E= h \nu\]
E = energy, h = Plank's constant(6.62607 x 10-34 J s), υ = frequency
3. Since de Broglie believes particles and wave have the same traits, the two energies would be the same:
[ mc^2 = h\nu\]
4. Because real particles do not travel at the speed of light, De Broglie subsituted v, velocity, for c, the speed of light.
[ mv^2 = h\nu \]
5. Through the equation \(\lambda\), de Broglie substituted \( v/\lambda\) for \(\nu\) and arrived at the final expression that relates wavelength and particle with speed.
[ mv^2 = \dfrac{hv}{\lambda} \]
Hence:
[ \lambda = \dfrac{hv}{mv^2} = \dfrac{h}{mv} \]

You should cite your Source(s). This is basic practice you should have been taught in your physics school, but maybe you just didn't pay attention because you were too busy trying to contrive dubious links between physics metaphysics and prayer.

To start with, I want to thank ALMIGHTY YAHWEH that granted me the Grace not to miss HIS Puepose for creating me. I also want to advise everybody here to truly live a free life, you can never be free outside the Purpose for which you were created no matter how wealthy you seem to become. My heart desire when I wrote JAMB was to study Petroleum Engineering and become very rich. When it became apparent that I was likely to be admitted for Physic instead of Pet Eng, one of my good friends volouteered to take me to a white garment Baba who will help me do spiritual things to ensure I was given Pet Eng. I knew it meant that I would be tele-guided for the rest of my Life by Powers that didn't create, so I turned down the offer and accepted my Physics Course. To the glory of the Living God, my University Physics knowledge like the Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion, 1st 2nd 3rd Laws of Motion, Duality of Wave, Radiometric Effect, etc., that have helped me to understand spirituality deeply and mature as a Spirit Being, would have been missed. Gethsemane, when one's personal "beautify" will is laid down for God's "ugly" Will is where the Journey of every true Christian began. Until you, in grief accept and say "Thy Will be done" even when it clashes with yours, you've not began at all. Wealth is not everything, seek personal relationship between you and your CREATOR to gain eternal things that money can never buy.

What is "Duality of wave"?

Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to more fully develop quantum cryptography, which will theoretically allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks exponentially faster than classical computers. Another topic of active research is Quantum Teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum information over arbitrary distances.
From a classical physics point of view, particles and waves are distinct concepts. They are mutually exclusive, in the sense that a particle doesn’t exhibit wave-like properties and vice versa. Intuitively, a baseball doesn’t disappear via destructive interference, and our voice cannot be localized in space. Why then is it that physicists BELIEVE in wave-particle duality? It is because they've repeatedly experienced that that’s how mother Nature operates, as they have learned from several ground-breaking experiments.

Here is a short, chronological list of those experiments:
1. Young’s double-slit experiment: In the early Nineteenth century, the double-slit experiments by Young and Fresnel provided evidence that light is a wave. In 1861, James Clerk Maxwell explained light as the propagation of electromagnetic waves according to the Maxwell’s equations.

2. In 1897 Thomson Crookes throughCathode Ray Experiment concluded at the time that cathode rays had momentum, so the rays were likely matter particles. However, later it was concluded that the paddle wheel turned not due to the momentum of the particles (or electrons) hitting the paddle wheel but due to the radiometric effect of repulsive force between two surfaces maintained at different temperatures (T1 > T2) and located in a vessel containing a rarefied gas. Which still proves, even more strongly that unseen (the force) affects the seen.

3. Black body radiation: In 1901, to explain the observed spectrum of light emitted by a glowing object, Max Planck assumed that the energy of the radiation in the cavity was quantized, contradicting the established belief that electromagnetic radiation is a wave.

4. Photoelectric effect: Classical wave theory of light also fails to explain photoelectric effect. In 1905, Albert Einstein explained the photoelectric effects by postulating the existence of photons, quanta of light energy with particulate qualities.

5. De Broglie’s wave (matter wave): In 1924, Louis-Victor de Broglie formulated the de Broglie hypothesis, claiming that all matter, not just light, has a wave-like nature. His hypothesis was soon confirmed with the observation that electrons (matter) also displays diffraction patterns, which is intuitively a wave property.
From these historic achievements, physicists now accept that all entities in nature behave as both a particle and a wave, depending on the specifics of the phenomena under consideration. ***To be continued***

Again cite your [url=https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_Physics_(Boundless)/28%3A_Introduction_to_Quantum_Physics/28.1%3A_History_and_Quantum_Mechanical_Quantities]sources[/url]. You're coming across as a plagiariser desperate to sound intelligent without knowing what they're talking about.

EternalBeing:
****Final part****
"Physics is closely wrapped up in ontology and epistemology, because the social practices within physics determine which theories and experiments are true."
1. Ontology, the study of what exists.
2. Epistemology: the study of how we know what we know.
(Epistemology is sometimes considered separately though.)
Physics is typically a source of ontology, and closely wrapped up with epistemology.

You have taken this from a Quora question. I really shouldn't be doing this for you. It's shameful!!

By the time Quantum mechanics is fully developed, man will be able to teleport from Nigeria and physically appear in America.

On what basis is this claim made?

Lower scientists are still in denial of the fact that these things are very spiritual and metaphysical because they only inherited definitions and proofs from their supervisors, famous scientists and philosophers who got the knowledge through metaphysics.

Who are these "lower scientists" that you've fraudulently introduced into the text you copied from a quora discussion?

In conclusion, words are sound waves. Physics' wave duality and the cathode ray tube experiment have proved to us that words (waves) can become real solid things that we can see and touch/hold

In what way did the cathode ray tube experiment prove that words can become solid things?

Metaphysics has shown that Prayers are words sent out to a higher Power(Universe Force; behind which Satan hides) to guarantee its transformation into tangible, holdable things.

In what way has metaphysics shown that prayers are words sent out to a higher power?

It seems you haven't an idea how waves work, and are just trying to make connections where none exists; so as to lend legitimacy to your professed belief. Since you already believe what you believe, it is not clear why you need physics to legitimise it, but I'd advise you put in an effort to actually learn about the physical concepts you've so terribly misused.

Arijude:
what of your mohammed that raped children

That Muhamed raped children is completely new information for me. But yeah, I don't think he ended well either. What was it that killed him? Poison or something?

Tyrants like Jesus?

Waylex21:
Well, we don't know that yet. The world is going crazily out of the moral sphere. If we lose our morality, we have been reduced to the level of lower animals. What happens in the animal world? Survival of the fittest. At that point, humanity is doomed. The only surviving grace is to always be morally uncompromised

Define "moral sphere" and explain how we know when the world is crazily inside the moral sphere, so we can better understand how it is crazily going out of the moral sphere.

Thanks, moral sphere expert.

Actually, Bobrisky is more than a cultural ambassador. He is a cultural icon, if for nothing else but his brave defiance of heteronormative tyranny!
In a few decades from now, when history is reviewed, Bobrisky's face will adorn the higher denominations of our cultural currency while Runsewe will not even enjoy the immortal grace of an irreverent mention in the footnotes of history.

It is rich that Buddhists, whose religion only gained a foothold in Mongolia in or around the 13th century (according to the documentary) should complain about Christianity trying to do the same now. Of course, influence is wielded by the group in whose favour the balance of power is tipped! I find it a bit absurd to claim that one, and not the other, is rooted in Mongolian identity, as if to suggest that Mongolian identity never existed before Buddhism.

Aaronsrod:
Never!!

The white man will ever turn us into gay!!

If that day ever comes God will kill us!

You see, the white man can't turn or unturn anyone gay. Only god can. After all, "thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven"! As it turns out, god loves gayness so much, which is why god keeps them gay people cuming (pun very intended).
So, unless you're claiming the white man is your god...

Aaronsrod:
Forget this your 'facts'!!

Read the Bible, my friend!

I should forget my facts and read the Bible!?

Lol...that statement is more instructive than you imagine

Shukusheka:
Who asked you for explanation eh oga Muhammadu?

No one asked me! However, factual information is important for making good decisions or formulating informed opinions. Given my utilitarian disposition, I need not be asked before I maximise the spread of factual information or minimize misinformation.

It's gay sex, not gay marriage, and it was decriminalised, not legalised. There's an important distinction between both. Decriminalisation means exclusion from legal regulations, whereas legalisation entails regulation. For example, killing is legalised but not decriminalised. This means there are circumstances where killing is legal and there are circumstances where it is criminal. Gay sex on the other hand, is not in and of itself illegal in Botswana, under any circumstances.
Well done Botswana, I hope Nigeria follows suit someday.

9jaRealist:
1) It is NOT the UAE, because it is NOT any sort of democracy at all...

This is not an answer to my question at all.

2) Largely spurious question because “good government” is NOT a universal principle. What may be “good government administration” to some people (eg, the ability to vote and to have or say in their own governance) might not necessarily be the same to others. Nonetheless, if you are merely going to “expose” folks to so-called “good government administration” be specific rather than deceptive. After all, there are many people who could rationally argue that a system whereby one person can simply snap their finger and deprive you of your property rights or even your liberty could not be rationally described as “good government administration” despite a higher material standard of living.

I don't agree that my question is spurious, but I agree with the rest of what you've typed here. Despite my agreement, I still don't see what makes good governance the exclusive preserve of a yet undefined "real democracy". This is the problem I am currently facing with your objection. I don't know what is meant by "real democracy"! It would help to cite some examples so that we can work from there.

Anyway, do not intend to further belabor the point, but it has become glaringly obvious that neither you nor the author of the letter quite grasp the basic nous of democracy. The essence is NOT about outcomes and/or results, but rather about PROCESS.
>

You may very well be correct that my grasp of the nuances of democracy is lacking, which is why I keep asking you to define what is meant by real democracy and provide examples of such, but it seems you aren't interested in helping me solidify my grasp because you have so far avoided answering my questions, which I find curious.

From your claim that "the essence is not about outcomes and/or results, but rather about PROCESS", it is either you are claiming that democracy, in particular, is self-evidently good, irrespective of its outcome, or you are suggesting that in general, the merit of any process should be judged independently of its results. Either is an especially absurd positions to take; the former being frightfully naive considering democracy is known to produce some spectacularly destructive results, and the latter being odd since results/outcomes are the point of any intentional process.

9jaRealist:
Why would you go to an absolute monarchy to be “exposed” (since you seem to preferring chasing the shadow of nomenclature over substance) to the “practices” of “advanced democracies”. Perhaps, the letter writer (and presumably you as well) do not know that many “practices” of local governments in “advanced democracies” are subjected to PUBLIC debate and vote. Dude, you cannot put up a street sign or change the days of garbage collections (for example) in most “advanced democracies” without an open local council hearing and vote.

Taking folks to the UAE to supposedly “expose” them to the practices of “advanced democracies”...
Is akin to taking someone to a basketball game to “expose” him/her to the practices of table-tennis (ping pong).
>

I'll not pretend to know what you mean by "chasing the shadow of nomenclature over substance", but I've given two possible scenarios that may validate going to an absolute monarchy to learn about government administration as practiced by "advanced democracies", and in so far as you haven't invalidated those scenarios, you haven't made an argument for why one shouldn't go to an absolute monarchy.

From your response, it seems you are attempting to invalidate the first scenario by claiming that most advanced democracies practice a system of administration in which decisions are usually put to the consideration and vote of a vaguely defined local council. So, I expect that:

1) You can define what you mean by "open local council hearing and vote". I.e. Is this hearing necessarily put to public vote, or just among council officials?

2) You can list these advanced democracies where you cannot put up a street sign or change the days of garbage collection without open council hearing and vote.

3) You can show that absolute monarchies are inherently incapable of operating local council hearings and votes or any other kind of secondary democratic processes that inform decision making.

Finally, even if you answer all those questions convincingly and can successfully show that absolute monarchies cannot incorporate democratic processes within their frameworks, you will still have to show that the other government administration processes that aren't subject to local council hearings and votes cannot be learned from monarchies, since by your own admission, it is only "many", and not 'all' "practices" of local governments that are subject to such votes.

9jaRealist:
Because the letter approving and authorizing the trip stated that it was to learn from an "advanced democracy" (see letter below)...

www.nairaland.com/attachments/9591483_fbimg1560113337178_jpeg8ddf3ac34456fcf55af8e075b8f4efc3
>

Okay, I've read the letter and I do not see where it was "stated" that it "was to learn from an "advanced democracy"". That is a concocted interpretation you have imposed on the letter. In fact, UAE might not be an advanced democracy, or a democracy at all, but may still practice government administration as is being practiced "in advanced democracies worldwide". Likewise, despite its lack of democracy, UAE might be host to some sort of institute that prepares administrators for governance similar to what is practiced in advanced democracies. As you see, there are other ways to interpret that letter which don't require one to assume that the UAE is a democracy at all.

Now, I do not claim that these other ways of interpretation capture the intent of the author. The fact is that since I have not spoken with the author of the letter, I don't know what they meant by that statement. Neither do you, I assume. There is simply not enough information to make one come to the conclusion that you have come to.

That said, none of this addresses the questions in my original post. Again, they are:

1) What is a "real democracy"? Give examples of such.

2) What is the link between good government administration and "real democracy"?

9jaRealist:
The UAE is NOT a democracy at all (“real” or otherwise)...
Democratic government is premised on the ELECTION of leaders. The UAE is a MONARCHY!
>

Did you read my questions? That UAE is not a democracy is a foregone conclusion. I am less concerned about what the UAE is or isn't, as I am about the presumed inherent properties of a "real democracy" that makes it a more qualitative alternative for learning government administration.

To simplify my quest for clarification for you, I am trying to understand why the commenter believes that it is better to learn government administration from a "real democracy" as opposed to a Monarchy. But first, it is necessary for us to understand what the commenter means by "real democracy", following which we can then examine these so-called examples of real democracies for internal contradictions. If all checks out, we can then discuss what exclusive properties of real democracies make them the best examples of good government administration.

Do not assume that I favour one system over the other. My ignorance allows me no such privilege. Therefore, I'm open to being convinced one way or the other.

dukie25:
Is this a joke?
Instead of sending them to where real democraciy is practiced they're sending them to emirate of Dubai? Why not just send them to Iran?

Two questions arise from your objection, so I ask them to allow you the opportunity to expand on the validity of your alternative:

1) Define "real democracy", then tell us where it is practiced.

2) Describe the necessary link, if any, between government administration and true democracy.

Thank you