₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
What you do not seem to grasp is, it is all subjective that is why there are all these differences. If there was some inherent universal human value then animals would also value humans but there isn't. Your human
perspective and your empathy for other humans makes you value them. That value is not universal. Heck even your own family members don't have the exact value for others as you.

you seem to assert that; values are subjective and differ between individuals, therefore there are no universal human values. this is wrong.
no one is arguing that values do not vary across cultures and individuals, that doesn't mean there aren't any universal values. Some values, such as valuing life, fairness, and seeking truth, are widely observed across our societies, even though our expressions might differ.

Animals vs. Humans this is a logical fallacy as we are not the same. trees are living things that do not harbor the intelligence of animals. animals can bond with a family or a mother/offspring relationship. Furthermore, your argument suggests that if we have universal human values, animals would also value humans. Wrong!!! category errrrr, two fundamentally different types of beings are being compared as if they should operate similarly. That is the crazy error you are making here. we do not share the same cognitive capacities, emotional frameworks, or social structures. we are very different. Universal values among humans don’t necessarily imply that animals would adopt or recognize those values. Animals operate based on instinct and survival, not on moral frameworks.

Heck even your own family members don't have the exact value for others as you.

Another fallacy, I don't know which fallacy it is but it is a fallacy. individual values don't negate the existence of universal principles. Even highly diverse societies often share core moral beliefs, like the wrongness of murder and you know why the nazis tried to hide their crimes.

Your human perspective and your empathy for other humans makes you value them

oversimplification of moral and ethical systems leads to reductionism. again, this is crazy. there are many other factors why I value human life not just empathy. I do not have empathy for many people but I value their lives.

There is an overlapping factor in this. you have no middle ground just a monolithic belief. that is a false dichotomy either values are subjective or they're universal, with no middle ground.

IjeBos:
The guy who lives in a rabbit hole gets cooked by actual facts and now says he has no time for rabbit holes.
The FBI agent the Government called as a witness in Hunter's trial said she did not verify all the contents of the laptop.

Yes, only a sick person would believe the Russians would perpetrated an Operation on the son of Presidential Candidate they don't want elected to help Trump who personally calls Putin, by stealing Hunter's info from other places, placing it on a laptop, then giving that laptop to a partially blind Computer Tech who didn't have a surveillance system in his store who somehow got it to Rudy Giuliani. Yeah, totally unbelievable Russian op.

So Trump bought a laptop and forged Hunter's email and voice notes. olodo hahaha

LordReed:
I am not. I am showing you just how subjective it all is. You kill other animals but if they kill a human you get angry, why? You have more value for a human than any other animal. Do you think animals should value members of their own species above humans?

this is false equivalence and an absurd statement from you.
your argument assumes that human beings valuing human life more compared to animals is the same as animals valuing animals or their species over humans. This is so wrong as we know animals do not possess the same moral reasoning or ethical frameworks as me you or budaatum do

animals might consider ethical questions about species preference the same way humans do? you ignore the fact that humans, due to our advanced cognition and societal structures, hold themselves to different ethical standards than animals.

so what are you talking about?

LordReed:
If it was our normal verbal sparring, I won't be bothered but this was supposed to be a polite conversation. Do you know me to be reticent about lobbing insults back at people on here. Even you can attest that I have done it to you. This was supposed to be different. Maybe I misplaced my expectations.

No one sets the rules here. you should expect what you can get from a forum like this from what you have been seeing on this thread for months now. And again, no one insulted you, they only called your idea or statement ridiculous. that is fine. if you find it offensive, then you should not be discussing it with xavier5 in the firstplace

IjeBos:
The problem is you spend your life watching youtube videos, being told how to think.
Like Raumdeuter, you don't read and have 0 reference of the US court system.
You don't even seem to be a competent tech person. Not understanding data.

The laptop was admitted into evidence solely for a few documents they were verified.
The judge probably made a bad ruling as there should have been a forensic report filed authenticating the laptop. There wasn't.
The FBI agent testified that she didn't see any tempering, but she didn't even look and she has a small understanding of it.
She only looked at the documents she was given to look at.
Again, the laptop has not been fully verified. People can't even say that the info on the laptop didn't come from other places.

From Hunter Biden's attorney's cross examination of the FBI witness on the Stand at Hunter's Trial

only a sick person will believe Russian collusion and question this.
i don't have the time to go into the rabbit hole of what is a fact. Hunter dropped his laptop in a repair shop and the contents of it are legit. no one hacked Hunter's phone to get all those photos, voicemails, and emails.

IjeBos:
Hunter's laptop was never verified. It can never be verified. The chain of custody has been broken.
Did Hunter have a laptop? Yes.
Is that the physical laptop the FBI has? Maybe.
Is every bit/byte of data on the laptop Hunter Biden's? That is unverifiable.
Some of the info on the Laptop was not originally on the laptop, someone put it on there after it left Hunter's possession.
No forensic analysis can be done that says the laptop is Hunter's as the chain of custody was broken.

You say you are in Tech. But every even a basically competent tech person understands the difference between a physical device and the data stored in it.
You deal in basic misinformation a rational tech person would understand.

that is disgraceful
then tell us why the government submitted it as evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGost-Df23w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO8qtkYaqrU&t=90s

LordReed:
Good. Understand that I was contrasting how both saw the same event differently to buttress my point about subjectivity. I was not endorsing genocide.

Babies will kill other living things not of their own species.

We eat other living things. you are overreaching. Babies usually fear other living things, roaches, spiders, etc.

cococandy:
1) Just because you said it doesn’t make them true. Hunter’s laptop did what? What exactly is that statement. Is that a complete statement? Or you’re being ambiguous so I can fill in what you’re trying to say?

2) Babies aren’t being killed after they’re born as a form of birth control or for even any reason at all. No mom is changing her mind last minute after giving birth and decides “welp I changed my mind. Here you go doctor. Pls kill the baby”. And the doctor obliges. That mom, the doctor and all assisting staff would be in jail before the shift is over

Pls tell believable lies at least. These people can really get yall to believe anything. I don’t know how we got here but it needs to be studied by future generation of psychologists.

And now I remember afresh why I don’t even bother going back and forth with right wingers on the internet. Thanks for reminding me.

Go watch the 60minute interview. Trump talked about the Hunter laptop and Lesley keeps saying it was not verified. it was, Newpost Verified it and it was there for any media interested to verify it. what did they do? they covered it up and lie to the people it was Russian disinformation without verifying it.

trump said what the previous governor of West Virginia said and they fact checked him. saying it is a lie. this is what they fact checked Trump on.
who discusses or debates if a baby should be killed after delivery? So where is the lie from trump on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xD8cPgcZ3E

cococandy:
But republicans governors are on record stating they’re getting all the help they need and the govt and FEMA are responsive to them

What do you y’all gain from such blatant lies. This is a level of mind numbing bold faced fvckery that I can’t comprehend nor will I try to because I don’t want my brain to shut down.

What’s y’all’s problem? Good lord!

Yeah right.

LordReed:
Are you forgetting that I also said the Allies saw it as murder?

I am not forgetting. It is the universal truth that makes the allies see it for what it is and it is also the universal truth they makes the Nazis want to hide it.

Again, have you witness where a baby was taught not to kill? It is alway the other way round. A baby is taught to kill.

LordReed:
Then don't be offended when they in turn begin to use such words against you.

LordReed stop with this pettiness. You know how this forum is and if you cannot handle the energy here you can just watch. I don't expect this from you.

Someone saying your post is ridiculous is not attacking you. He is attacking your idea. You should not be arguing this

cococandy:
Yes and the earth is square. Since we are now allowed to say whatever. Even the ones that don’t make any sense.

Trumps truth changed to lies? I’ve heard it all

60 minutes, fact heck, Trump on Hunter's laptop. They said it was a lie but it wasn't. Why should he go back?

During an ABC debate, he said a governor says they can kill the baby even when it is born on the topic of abortion. They fact-checked him, saying it was a lie, but what he said was true.

So a truth can change to a lie to the uninformed who rely on the media. When a truth is told and the media says it is a lie, the uninformed will believe the media.

LordReed:
Simply reporting what the Nazis did doesn't mean I said it was right. That much should be obvious.

So you don't believe what you are preaching then?

LordReed:
The real question is if there was some universally known intrinsic human value why would the Nazis have killed so many Jews. Because there isn't is why. All value is subjective.

If the Nazis knew what they were doing was good, they would not have tried to hide it. so it either you don't understand what you are talking or you support what they did when you 'Ask which law did they break to kill the jews'

LordReed:
I could have equally used insulting words to describe your ideas but I didn't because I thought I was discussing with a mature respectful person but since it it not the case I don't wish to continue. Have a good day.

You will be attacking his idea and not him which is fine. I encourage you to do that. When you see an absurd idea, attack it, call it nonsense

LordReed:
Again where did I say the Nazi killing the Jews was ok?

I am explained this, your way of thinking and conflating and what you said about no laws stopping Nazis from killing the Jews say all we need to know. You don't think it is a problem because objective belief does not exist only subjective belief.

nedekid:
Oga, there are laws passed by the national assembly, I think those laws have to do with cyber crimes including defamation bulling etc online. So there seem to be grounds for burna boy to involve the police. Of course he can go the route of informing his lawyer to sue speed Darlington. Also he also has the current option he took (which is also legal) to petition the police asking the police act to avoid public breakdown of law and order. The police will then investigate the petition and where it finds merit, then charges the offender to court for prosecution.
So in this case, sentiments aside, under the cyber laws, burna is within his right, it is not oppression but him following the right process.

The court can decide what crime was done. Burna should be serving him through his lawyer and let the court decide not going to arrest him.

So he can still sue Burna because no be who first call police dey win case.

Xavier5:
The issue here is that he might be dealing with a pricked conscience after realizing he just misfired with that statement, hence the complains that I called his statement ridiculous. Anything to distract oneself from that reality is welcome.


#Xavier

He all makes mistakes, and we can be contradictory, given we post a lot here. I don't see why simple things like acknowledgment or ignoring are a problem instead of saying someone is insulting him.

LordReed:
Do you understand English? Where did I say there is nothing wrong with the genocide done to the Jews because I think it is lawful?

Here and I can go deeper and quote more. You seem to not understand subjective and objective morality

LordReed:
UNLAWFUL. Which of the Nazi laws stopped them from killing the Jews?

If a government make a law to kill people does not mean killing people is okay. You are conflating things when you asked what law stopped the Nazis from killing Jews.

LordReed:
I thought you are someone I can have a good conversation with but I see you are just too emotional to get your points across without insults. Check it have I used any words like ridiculous to address any of your posts? No but you feel you should use such insults to respond to me. Not going to bother responding to you any further.

It is okay to say someone is ridiculous or a post is ridiculous. That's not an insult. You are being petty. And if you think the Nazis subjective truth in killing the Jews is okay as objective truth does not exist. Why do you care someone calls your post ridiculous?

Xavier5:
Bro nobody is insulting you, I'm just surprised at your dehumanizing and ridiculous reasons to kill a human life. That's it. Anybody with a conscience will squeeze his or her face at what you just said. That's just it.

Imagine blaming a fetus for something that isn't his or her fault and using it to justify their killing. Imagine calling for the killing of a fetus when it stands as no threat to the woman's life. Is that not something to squeeze one's face at?



#Xavier

Imaging saying there is nothing wrong with the genocide done to the Jews because he thinks it is lawful. How? How do you go about killing a particular race and another person says, well, there is no law stopping that and the Nazis don't see it as bad or murder so it is fine.

Anything you think in life is the right thing because it is your belief.

LordReed:
UNLAWFUL. Which of the Nazi laws stopped them from killing the Jews?

You argument is not making sense.

If the Nazis can see the below as murder, it means there is objective truth. Like Xavier5 tells you, subjective truth also exist.

You can say doing one thing is right when one person do it but wrong when another person do that same thing.

LordReed:
Define murder

What does defining murder has to do with this?

But: Murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another with malice aforethought. It typically involves premeditation or a deliberate intent to cause death or serious harm. In legal terms, murder is distinguished from other forms of killing (such as manslaughter) by the presence of intent and the unlawful nature of the act.

Let the speed, or whatever his name is, take Burna to court. The police in this country are very useless. A person will walk up to them and ask them to arrest another person. They will say mobilize us and that's all it takes. They won't ask you what happened and see if a crime or a law has been broken.

basilico:
Obrigardo

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1843389785832075754

He shouldn't be making such statements. Even when trump was running against Clinton they were with the base that has the media backing.

LordReed:
Heterosexual people do that that too, so?

They don't. They don't do it as a display or show or parade. When they are with less cloths it is at the pool or beach.

They dance exotic dance in front of adults in a strip club while the lgbt do it in front of kids in their schools.

LordReed:
The real question is if there was some universally known intrinsic human value why would the Nazis have killed so many Jews. Because there isn't is why. All value is subjective. And to answer your particular question, the Nazis didn't see it as murder, the Allies did, once again showing that it is a legal matter that expresses the subjectivity.

Is capital punishment murder? Is killing of enemy combatants in battle murder? Is killing in self defense murder? In killing someone accidentally murder? The answer to all these questions is NO because murder has a narrow definition that does not encompass all forms of killing.



What conclusion did I make?





Point out where I said the fetus isn't a human life and hence has not the right to live except some superior power say so.

The fetus does not have the right to use the resources and body of another human without permission. Nobody has that right.

Nope in my view I subjectively value some humans over others, just like you value your mother's life over mine. And when it comes to choosing you will choose according to your subjective value.

Also point out where I used the words superior and inferior.



Like I already said the fetus has no right to use the woman's body without consent. It's her life the fetus has to depend on, it literally has to live off of her blood. Do you think somebody should have the right to just come take your blood without your consent?






If you can find a way to preserve a fetus that is between 0-5 months old outside of the woman's body that would be great. Till then the owner of the body should have the right to agree or disagree with growing something inside her.

The Nazis didn't see it as murder?
When you take God out of the equation, you take objective morality out of the question.

News flash, if the nazis did not see it as murder, the rest of the world wouldn't see it like that. But there is this thing called objective morality(universal truth that transcends human subjectivity), which is why people are willing to fight and die to stop Germany.
What is even funny, is that people were sent to jail in Germany for murder before the killing of the Jews started. So how can they not see it as murder?


I don't know a parent who teaches his kids at 3 4 or 5 years not to kill. That is ingrained in us. Children in the womb of their parents knew something is out there that can kill them as well.

LordReed:
Wait you think LGBTQ people are having sex in public?

What he means is them walking naked in public and show all sorts of explicit behaviors in front of kids with impunity.

cococandy:
Backing out of an interview because you’ll be fact checked is wild.

So we’re just okay accepting the right as the party of lies? Okay.

When you are fact-checked, and each time they say it is a lie, it ends up being true, yes, you should back out. Kamala is allowed to lie and not be fact-checked; Trump says the truth he gets fact-checked, and the truth changes to a lie to the uninformed watching.

budaatum:
You are not talking about rape because you say it is rare, and "most women who are doing abortions are not doing it because of rape", but you want to talk about abortions up to birth, despite that being very rare and what hardly any woman would do?

Hope you see why I call you an si?

The stupid idiot here is you.
They talk about human rights and bodily liberty as part of liberalism. That applies to abortion to the point of birth. The discussion is about if you oppose abortion, you can't be a liberal because human right and liberty.

The exception is when it is rape, a woman should he free to abort the baby, when the pregnancy is life threatening. That's the exception I am talking about.
Even this she still has a window to think about it n do it.

budaatum:
You obviously can "have sex with a woman if she does not agree", just as your pussy grabbing idol does grabs pussy without consent, but then we have agreed that you don't know what consent means, so no surprise there.

Do it will change from sex to rape?

What, next you are gonna tell us the sky is blue?

wirinet:
As a liberal, I don't believe in and certainly won't advocate for LGBTQ. Having said that, I believe sex is a private affair and what two consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is non of my business. My problem is when they do it in public.

Exactly, after saying this can you agree to Xavier5 calling himself a liberal?

basilico:
I've never seen such lunacy. Because you don't agree and it's all over the news about FEMA diverting funds, Mods should ban you. I had posted this image below a few days ago.

Bemeruca. Never reveal your details here. This lunatic if he got hold of your address is the type that can call FBI and claim you are an ISIS terrorist or something like that . Or call your employer with a fake story just to have you fired.
Obrigardo though mentally incompetent would never do that. Resident idiot is capable of that.

Don't worry about my details, it is crazy to follow. You end up nowhere.