₦airaland Forum

a 470

racheal84:
I dont think so, lol not all. I had the sweetest boyfriend and married him and then he sucked. He said, i had to be so nice and do all those nice things cuz i was trying to win you, geez.

ouch!!!!

gabrywyl:
See your english sef. Una come from Britain abi assisting Queen Grandma Elizabeth    U make me feel intimidated jor   

Yes ooo. . . U dey call me Naija but am not naaa (as according to na2day?) cause he say that I no sabi wetin red eye mean. 

I understand well well say you no go believe that I be Asian as other peeps also say as such but no wahala. I no dey beef you.   

No mind am jare, u already sabi pass most naija sef
Red eye is simply a transliteration (from yoruba) of bloodshot eyes. It is often used to describe a state of annoyance, irritation, sternness or simply being under the influence.
For example: "Abi u wan make I show u my red eye?" or "any guy wey toast that girl go see im papa red eye o"

So if you were to have a naija name, what would it be?

@poster
I don't like what you are insinuating
Are you trying to say our own politicians would rather die with disgrace, than step down
I will let you know that in Naija, a political office is like a marriage: till death us part!!!

a 468

Wishing them a blessed married life!!!

Superego:
I apologize. But when you are rude to my entire ancestors, my parents and even me, as we all are Africa. It is we who still have colonial slavery behavior in us and instead of asking them to jail us or delay us, bribe cops , this goes on to encourage Government corruption. Indeed it is we who rule Nigeria, and it is all of us that are to blame as we are all part of the corruption.

So if you have been insulting me and mine, I think my telling u to shove your suggestion that I look outside from my majestic Africa, is nothing.

You talk as if you are the only African here, or as if your heritage is any different from mine or any other Nigerian. At no point have I insulted the African heritage, as I am proud of it as any other. To disagree with your point of view is a long way from an insult.

Life is too short to learn from your own mistakes, and if you decide against learning (which is different from copying) from others, then you will waste precious time reinventing the wheel.

Anyways, no hard feelings here, but I have lost my appetite for the topic at hand. All the best.

If you cannot engage in a discussion without being rude, then I think it is better I take my leave, as your last phrase was unwarranted.

Thanks for the exchange.

@Superego
Your topic refers to the long-term effects of the slave trade, and your deductions that we are where we are essentially because of the slave trade (which is the premise for your earlier recommendations), is wrong, given the earlier example of Ghana. We are the source of our own problems, and the foreigners have only taken advantage of the opportunities we 've provided them. 

Your proposed solutions of discarding colonial influences, renaming the nation, etc, are naive at best, and more akin of a high level of  irresponsibility. Please, name one country that has followed your suggestions in a successful bid to rid themselves of problems that are similar to ours?

The reason I commended your earlier post was that by looking at how other countries have solved their problems, you can more readily identify what the core problem was, and thus make tuned recommendation to the Nigerian case.

I think Gabrywyl deserves official recognition as a Nigerian from Yardua, as she sounds so much more Nigerian than even some of my naija born friends.
Her choice of words are always so apt that one often doubts her asian association.
All she needs now is a more 'Nigerian' first name, as the surname will be fixed once she marries that Nigerian guy.

Superego:
Of course each nation is unique. The effects are not exactly identical on each Nation, they differ based on what's on ground, just like in medicine. Congo for instance had a peculiar blow and hence they keep on cutting each others hands and displaying violence as was perpetrated on them. Kenya had a tribal issue, where by the europenas distributed land and power unfairly and hence their issue and so did Nigeria.

That said, even though Ghana got independence 5 years before us, I think only an untrained eye will separate Ghana from Nigeria by leaps. We are both progressing at a relatively similar speed. Patience, watch Nigeria. Like I said earlier, we are in good time and good speed. At least give us 100 years before you complain, for now, be very proud of who you are and how far and fast you have come with all that has been done and keeps being done to you and yours!

A bloody revolution occurred in Ghana, and though I would like one in Nigeria, that was what sped 's therapy. Please do not let us forget this. Bloody revolutions always speed up therapy, but I would love and participate in one for Nigeria, but I am not sure you will. In bloody revlutions you kill off the more psychologically ill, colo-evil-destroyed aspects of the society, to release new and relatively less infected individuals.

This is not something you can expect to understand in a da. I am happy I have sensitized you to this topic, now pay attention to it and study it a while.

Congratulations!!! For once, you posted something that actually looks at how others have emancipated themselves, as opposed to your earlier views that proposed we excuse our failings under the banner of exploitation and slave trade. You should compare your last post to the earlier ones and observe the stark difference in your approach.

IMO Nigeria suffers from a T-junction error: a traveler on reaching a T-junction, erroneously turn to his left instead of to the right. After a while he observes he is no closer to reaching his destination, and thus decides to double his effort. The more effort he puts in, the farther he goes away from his destination. He has no chance of reaching his destination until he sets off on the right path.

I have no intention of waiting for 100yrs before trying to make things better. I have done studies on the development process of other nations, and have seen countries turn things around in much less time than a century, while, after half a century of independence, we are yet to set off in the right direction. Ghana, like so many others are moving in the right direction, and I ask that you do your due diligence before trivializing their achievements and/or underestimating our short comings.

I am less interested in the ills of the past, and more concerned with laying foundations for a brighter future for coming generations.

Superego:
1. I do not agree that a psychologically problematic individual or society can easily of its own, repair itself. He/It needs full stage-wise therapy.

That said, 2. I do not think Ghana is so far ahead of Nigeria, and Ghana's colonial problems and challenges do not in any way come close to those of Nigeria. Our population size, the number of unique cultures combined to form Nigeria- 500 unique and highly contrasting cultures/languages, and the continued western exploitation of our black Gold.

It's like comparing Hitler with a candy stealer.

Now you seem to be grasping at straws.

So who was Ghana's therapist?

One moment you say the problem stems from slave trade, and when confronted with facts to the contrary, you quickly run for cover under the auspices of other factors like differences in population size, ethnic diversity, and natural resources. The fact that we  are blessed with more human and natural resources is your excuse for our failure? That is ironic in the least

If one follows your argument, then each nation is unique, and thus your results are unfounded, as the several differences between each nation makes it erroneous to bring them under a common umbrella in order to reach a common conclusion of cause and effect.

Ghana is probably the nation that is most similar to Nigeria in history till recent times. Nigeria is definitely far more similar to Ghana, than Hitler is to a candy stealer. In fact we share one or more ethnic groups.

The reality is that we were once like Ghana (in fact at a point we seem better off) , but now they are ahead of us. The difference is not in what happened, but what is happening. Ghana was also exploited like us in the past, and are now taking successful steps to cogent steps to better themselves, while we wallow in our inadequacies.

BTW there are more than 250 languages and dialects spoken in Ghana. that is enough ethnic diversity IMO.

Superego:
And the psychology behind our still wallowing in it is the reason for this article. If you torture a child from birth till he believes he is incapable, until he sees a therapist he can not ever get over it. This is fact. Slave trade was the source and not a symptom, if you can prove that we were messed up before the slave trade then you win. Ever heard of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Ever heard of Post Slavery Tress Disorder?

Google.

While your analogy of child torture is way off point, even if I was to accept it, it is the child's choice to believe he is incapable, and while a therapist may help, one is definitely not required (but I digress).

The answer to your question is much simpler - Ghana!
Ghana shares similar slave trade stats with Nigeria (check your plots),  yet they are making strides in development and are almost a decade ahead of us in in the process.
If your postulation of slave trade being the source is true, then nations with similar slave trade stats should be besought with similar problems and thus exist in similar states.

@superego
I did not read all your posts, but from the few I read, it seems you have a few things mixed up.

The question was never if we were (or are) being exploited. That is obviously in the affirmative. rather the true question is why? Your argument that the fact that we are being exploited is because we were exploited is circular, as in at some point in time our level of exploitation was same as some other countries, who have succeeded in getting over the issue while we still wallow in it. To support your position is to admit that we can never rid ourselves of our problem, a point I vehemently disagree with.

The fact that we were exploited, and continue to be exploited is simply our fault and no one elses. As much as we hid under the guise of civilization, the world thrives on basic laws, e.g. the stronger get stronger at the expense of the weaker. Several nations have been exploited in the past and have managed to rid themselves of such, and grown to be self reliant or even dominant. One can cite examples of Korea, ulkraine, india, and so many other nations. Even the jews were supposedly slaves to the Egyptians and yet they have emancipated them selves to become a relevant nation.

The reason for our problems has always been at home. After all , how did Ethiopia escape colonization from the same people that colonized the rest of the continent. The reason was not the failing of the colonial masters but the strength of the Ethiopians.

I like your scholarly contributions, but I doubt its relevance to solving our festering problems. Slave trade was not the source of our problems, but simply a symptom of it. Our problem originates from our societal structure and values. The kings of old that sold their people to foreigners, or their present day counterparts who pillage the nation on behalf of foreign interests, are yet to be held accountable by society. On the contrary, they live large and are applauded by the same masses they took advantage of.

We need to learn to solve our problems ourselves, and not sit on our asses waiting for a foreign party or a deity.

@gabrywyl
changing your gender - that just so kills the fun 

It seems you misunderstood my earlier statement. The obvious consequence of my limited vocab, as I am not as good with words, as I am with my hands (or a few other parts too).
I would suggest we rendezvous off line, so that I may clarify any misconceptions my earlier statements may have caused.
You should be a bit wary of such a meeting (and rightly so) as you may suspect I have ulterior motives, but let me assure you that, while I am not an officer, I am definitely a gentle man, in all ramifications of the word, and would never do anything that would make you think any less of me <scouts honor!>

@ Backslider
The cost of education in other countries should never be used to plan our own system, as there is little to no similarity between any two cases i.e. they are different educational systems, in different societies, in different economies with people of different purchasing power. For example, quality university education is over priced in the US as the cost is well above the means of the average family.

ElRazur:
But your original post will suggest so, unless of course am wrong.
Oga, just because it takes do two to make a baby [pregnancy], do not mean she needs to seek the consent of the other party. In most part of the world, a woman is allowed the final say about keeping a pregnancy or not, Not the man or spam donor.

If you feel my initial post suggests sex equals to pregnancy then I have been misunderstood.
A question for you is who owns the pregnancy - the woman, the man or the couple? as your position seems to assign full ownership to the woman.

Oga as for effective contraception, you do not want to dwell in to this area jare. None of the methods are marketed as 100% effective/safe. Women have been recorded to get pregnant just from using all forms of contraception. From your under-arm injection, female condom, spermicide, injection down to contraceptive pills. Even IUD have resulted in pregnancy. You see nothing is 100%.

Hence my use of the word effective. If you feel contraceptives are not enough (as I feel you are just nit picking), I hope you would agree that a woman can't be impregnated by a man that has undergone vasectomy?
The point I was making is simply that the man has to be in a position to contribute the sperm, a situation he can limit (or bar ) by taking certain step on his own. Hence is cooperation is needed for the woman to get pregnant.

Again you have moved the debate. Allow me to point it out to you. This is a debate about "Abortion and whether it should be legalised". Now, an unborn foetus is NOT a child. Hence, your point above have nothing to do with the debate. What you are showing a classical signs of how a lot of people get things wrong by using the wrong term. Oga please tell me you do not work as a UN translation lol. Getting the translation wrong in certain situation can lead to world war three you see.

If you re-explain your points above, then I will make my reply.

I have not moved the debate. My initial statement  was that 'Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother' and I explained that the man should also have a say in the matter, to which you disagreed. I did not say the foetus was a child (even though that is simply semantics as some would call it an unborn child).

To buttress my point, I made reference to the three relevant stages in the introduction of a child to the society: copulation, pregnancy, and post birth. I was supporting my position by stating that while the man is a co-party in the first and the last stages, your position seeks to suspend him in the middle stage. If a man has no say in if a pregnancy should be carried to term, why should he be held responsible for the child when it is born? Let the mother who had the sole choice, take the sole responsibility.  You should not expect a man to be responsible for the sole choice of the woman.

It is her body, she can do what she wants. The final "say" lies with her an no one else.

I am all for your position, if the woman is willing to bear full responsibility for her choices. She should not expect any form of support: financial, emotional or other, from the man. Authority should never been in a vacuum, and should always bear a commensurate responsibility.

Please go back to my post where I illustrated a story of how a woman was raped, what will you have this woman do?

The woman is free to seek abortion, as the fact that the pregnancy was the consequence of a criminal act denies the father any rights he might have in the matter.
This is still well within the confines of my position, as the rights of either or both party can be suspended or superseded if the situation warrants.

gabrywyl:
Ah hah! U go heat em up first make me watch.

(Un)fortunately, I lack the requisite skill set, as my limited 'heating abilities' are best applied to one (or more) of the feminine gender, preferably in a more discreet setting 

I didn't say you had banned people in the past, nor said you were going to in the future, it was just a question to help clarify what i sought.
I am only trying to find out why you feel same couldn't be accomplished in the existing translation thread.
I have read your posts a few times over, and I just don't see why the ills of the old thread would not plague this.
Unless you restrict responses, people will always post their own version of a translation, being correct or otherwise. If you intend to correct them when they do such in this thread, then you can simply do same in the existing thread (as you did with one of the posts).

ElRazur:
Here we are again with common misconception. A woman agreeing to sex, do not mean she wants to get pregnant, talk less of having a child. A woman do not need the to have a permission of another human to do what she wants to her body. Or do you come from the school of thought that sees the need for a woman to "seek permission or consent" before doing certain things?

What in my post suggest in anyway virgin conception, or asexual reproduction? Please let us stick to the debate at hand shall we? Thanks.

The reference to virgin conception was just to state my intention to keep the discussion within bounds (before one of my fellow NLers quotes me as a bais for setting off down a part of a futile  philosophical exercise). It was not expressly directed at you. I apologize if you take exception to it.

Nobody ever said that sex equates to pregnancy, but she needs the man's sperm (not necessarily the man himself), and hence his cooperation, to get pregnant. If the man uses an effective contraceptive, there is no way the woman would get pregnant. Both of them are complicit (by commission or omission) in the making of the baby

The society sees both parents as being responsible for the born child, and thus the mother should not be able to jeopardize the interests of the father at simply her discretion. You cannot require his cooperation for the conception, suspend his rights for the duration of the pregnancy, and then reinstate his responsibility after birth - that is inequitable. If she has a right to withdraw her support for the pregnancy, then same should be extended to the father.

She is free to exercise are sole right to take precautions against getting pregnant, but the moment she is pregnant and carries the child of another, she can no longer claim autonomy on the matter.

My earlier question was why you felt you needed a separate thread and why would it turn out to be any different from the existing thread?
For example, would you ban others from posting their own translations?
I am less interested in the goals, but more in how you intend to achieve it (that necessitates a new thread)

ElRazur:

Days of the week

Monday = Ojo Aje [This is called Ojo aje - the day of sales- as Monday marks the time people usually gather for the begining of a new work week. There are money to be made on Monday, hence the name.

Tuesday = Ojo ru

Wednesday = Ojo bo

Thursday = Ojo eti

Friday = Aba meta

Saturday = Aiku

Sunday = Ojo Isimi Or Ojo isegun [It simply means the day of rest/Day of conquer. Probably as implied by the fact that not much is done on this day lol]

Erm my brain is dead here and I can fill out the rest of the meanings, If anyone knows then please let us know.

Your translation of the days of the week is wrong

From sunday to saturday are aiku, aje, isegun, ojo ru, ojo bo, eti, abameta

ElRazur:
Please educate me as to why a woman should not have a full say on what she wants on her body?

Simply because (at the least) she needed the consent of another to get it in there (unless you are making a case for virgin conception). The human race is not capable of asexual reproduction.

I have never understood why Nigerians seem to equate an election to a democracy, when empirical evidence from most parts of Africa points to the contrary.

Abortion should be legal, but the choice shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the mother.

<bookmarks thread for later viewing - hoping things heat up soon>

and why would this be any different form the normal translation thread?   restricted translators?
I think it would be better if you participate and post your ideas and/or corrections in the existing thread, instead of starting a new one.

Orimili:
And yet, you're making a sweeping statement based on only your own experience.  A lot of people, including my sister (who is also nearsighted), have different lenses. Usually, what they would do is place each contact in a separate container and label them accordingly, much easier than tints, and there's usually no mix-up. Going outside to drive with mismatched lenses speaks more of carelessness, rather than issues with lenses themselves, as you could have just as easily found out, by going outside, that your lenses were mismatched before going into the car.

Besides, I think you miss the point of what I have to say about color contacts, because I never spoke of visibility tints to begin with, which doesn't affect the person's eye color. I'm talking about dark, opaque contacts that only serve the purpose of making your eyes seem a different color.

Please, which is the sweeping statement that was based solely on my experience? All I gave was a scenario under which colored contacts would be desirable. I never said that it was the only reason people wore colored contacts. In fact, the scenario I stated wouldn't apply to someone who wore the same color lenses.

You, on the other hand, swept it away as not being valid, stating "This entire statement reads more as an excuse to justify such items, rather than a sensible reason". Subsequent posts were just to correct your erroneous position.

You already admitted that your sister also mixes up her lenses (even if only occasionally), and thus your argument for the easier but unreliable 'labeled lens case' is flawed. I prefer the safer method to your assumed easier one.

Not all of us are disciplined and/or methodical enough, to always take out (or put in) the same contact lenses first, or always have the presence of mind to put them in the right compartment, or are rich enough to discard contacts once they get mixed up. You may find me guilty of carelessness in your own view, but I also reserve the right to take needed precautions against my flaws. I do not waste my time testing my eyesight using landscape views that I have seen before (fixed scenery are unreliable for periodic testing for astigmatism) neither do I have interest in running outside in my bathrobe just to confirm that I have my lenses on right. Given a choice between colored lenses and daily eye testing, I would always take the former.

You have your issues with colored lenses, which is your prerogative, but I would rather have you abstain from generalizing that everyone that wears colored contacts does so expressly for aesthetic purposes.

BTW not all colored contact lens wearers are female

This thread has been quite a pleasurable read. (though some comments were quite disheartening )
Posts by some reflects the truth, that each person views things using his/her own paradigm.
To the ant on a table, the world is flat

I don't lie about my age, but often don't correct people who get it wrong.

Did you know that it is humanly impossible to kiss your own elbow

Rwanda