₦airaland Forum

May God have mercy on they soul.

I don't believe in death penalty for non-homicide crimes either, but a law be a law and they knew what they doing, going with that enterprise to a country like Indonesia. They shoulda thought of their moves smarter.

5minsmadness:
Don't believe me.
I mentioned it cos we were chatting at the time.
But it's not a lie.

It's so sad you even have to defend yo on this stuff bro.
Hope you can avoid that hurt and vindictive lady in question.

I'm against people hitting other people of any gender and age.

Reading up. Quite a big writeup going here.

Poll: Assuming I were looking for a wife, this one's pretty tough. The first implies she knows exactly what she wants with her body and life and won't compromise with life, which is attractive. The second implies she knows the same and won't compromise with judgment of anyone, which would also make for excellent long time partner traits. I guess I'd ask which them into marriage more.

Why would that worry you? If you don't worry magicks there's no way they go hurt you.

Such a tragedy. Rest in power Sir. *salute*

Shollypopzz:
Please edit your post, she meant that as a compliment.

A-okay and thank you for letting me know, I entirely missed that point. I will get the glasses for closer reading I suggested to her for myself then, seems I'm in need of them.

Don't tend to edit posts, once said word stays, but here's apology to @Chillisauce for misreading you.

Chillisauce:
Wow, FrancisTony and blackleopard. Who are you guys

Yall sure you are Nigerians

I dontbelieve.

And who are YOU, if you can't tell two colors together? Green and white aren't that difficult. Maybe you need help with that, and think about what you're going to say before you say it while your eyes are getting a fix, because there was still no addressing any point of what I said about biology. Which still wasn't my opinions about things, but opinions based in several sciences. As opposed to uneducated interpretations of religions people here pull and their own similarly well informed so called 'opinions'.

5minsmadness:
I am a member of society and I have never viewed the word like you view it. go figure.

I haven't viewed it that way either, yet how we as individuals view something doesn't change the notion in majority group of anywhere.

5minsmadness:
They think men don't want them to be empowered and yet they forget that it was the men that pushed the first wave and enacted laws that empowered women in the first place.

Those laws were long overdue. It's a shame they weren't there sooner, that it had to be this long to even get laws in effect guaranteeing basic human rights. So your statement 'it's the men who enacted the original laws' could surely be viewed as men doing a favor of sorts to women... but if you look at the larger scope, guaranteeing any minority group basic rights they have as fellow PEOPLE, it's really not doing any sort of a favor, but very belated apology after years of that other group's inmesurable suffering.

5minsmadness:
You see a poster coming here to say that it was because of feminism she got an education meanwhile her father never heard the word but sent her to school anyway and her mother was never uneducated. Their sensationalism and hypocrisy stinks to high heavens and is beyond irritating.

But look at the next many women who don't for instance even hear of having any rights, who whole their lives just hear to suck it up, it could have been worse somewhere. That sort of logic doesn't get us anywhere; it's always worse somewhere. I thought the goal is getting be better.

And what desperate people do to get their voices heard is I don't think up for judgment of those not sharing that despair. It's as simple as that. It's not hypocritical to require respect however (preferably legally) available.

5minsmadness:
Pardon my french, but if you see a naked person walking down the road with a dick swinging between the legs, what will be your first assumption? Male or female?

Neither. My first thought would be there's a naked person, who is walking, and depending the style of the walk and ocassion, it's either not my business, or my business to ask that person if they don't need an assistance, because a naked person in the middle of a street when it isn't a march specifically meant for that is surely experiencing a mental distress they better get addressed, and is requiring a medical attention.

A madman slaps a woman and a madwoman slaps a man, who are you going to assist first?

The hurt party. The slapped person.

5minsmadness:
Who has a higher muscle mass?

Individual. I can't respond to that with generic idea, there's multiple men who don't have that muscle mass and women who do.

5minsmadness:
Who has higher testosterone and aggression levels?

Ditto, it's still individual.

5minsmadness:
Are all these socially conditioned as well?

The interpretation of those signs as masculine x feminine, is. We could well be simply talking of X trait, as required for Y activity, or as suitable Z activity instead of something else. We could be talking about bodies in a different way than label gender and the informational value woulda be the same, if not greater.

5minsmadness:
Have you watched the movie "The Blue Lagoon"?
Two children stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean, one male, one female. Total abscence of the guidance or restrictions of society. Both grew to adolescence and eventually adulthood together. The boy naturally took on the leadership and protection and hunter role. The girl naturally took on the carer, nurturer and home-maker role.

I haven't - thank you for the movie recommendation and I will ammend that as soon as possible, it certainly sounds as an interesting movie to watch.

However, that some people are inclined to do this or that role, still doesn't speak about biological determinism, more shared cultural values passed through genetically, if something, but the beginning of that division was still cultural, somewhere along the way, and then deciding it works out just well, let's do it repeatedly.

5minsmadness:
It is movements like feminism and gayism that is forcing us through societal, legal and political pressures to perceive them as normal when we all quite clearly know they are not. If i ask if you are gay you will deny it yet in a bid to be politically correct you will immediately add that you see nothing wrong in it and they (not you) are free to express themselves however they see fit. Anyone who makes an anti-feminist statement is called a misogynist and if he holds public office he/she is called upon to publicly apologise or possibly risk not being re-elected. It goes on and on.

You're entitled to your views, but you're still owing fellow people a basic respect, and a way for them to not feel threatened around you. Which spreading hate everywhere one goes, indeed isn't. This isn't just about being politically correct. This isn't about rhetorics. This is about lived feeling of safety. About being a decent person to fellow people. You don't have to adapt the same mindset, values, lifestyles. But to restrict people's right to live their lives in peace, with who they are happy with? Yeah, I do see an issue with that.

5minsmadness:
Cool logic.
Misplaced, but cool.

It doesn't make women "less worthy" as you so erroneously believe.

The only issue with this: I wasn't in fact speaking about myself. What I believe or don't believe; what I spoke of was societal notion of the word effeminate and how it's used in colloquial use.

5minsmadness:
Effeminate, according to Webster's dictionary, means having or showing qualities that are considered more suited to women than to men.

If you on your own now feel that the qualities displayed by women are "weaker", or "less worthy", that's your problem.

There is a dictionary definition for everything, yet the practical use (and common idea when certain words are spoken) still need to be taken into account when discussing this. Though I'm thankful you've provided with what definition of effeminate you're operating, that can certainly help us reach a common ground.

And again as stated above - I wasn't speaking about my beliefs or lack of. More the language and associations as I've observed them in use. Which of course would differ from codified version as outlined by a dictionary.

5minsmadness:
p.s
The average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Fact.
Yet with her beauty alone she sent nations of men to war and ultimately to their deaths.
there is nothing wrong in a woman being effeminate, it is their nature.
There is everything wrong in a man being effeminate, it is against his nature.

I beg to differ. There's nothing as biologically determined nature of men, women, or other people. How we perceive manhood and womanhood is a social construct, it's not nature that places these limitations, but societies, and societies raised with a particular doctrinal (and outdated) biology view (yes, I just called Darwin outdated.). Findings in other sciences past half a century have found actually biologically, in hormonal structure, in brain structure, in chromosomes, we're very alike, and the differences are rather fluid. Ditto appropriate behavior for male and female roles - that's all a question of social conditioning, more than hard wired predetermined traits.

cococandy:
well

No I'm with you, smoother pictures if available would do them better justice, just poking around.

cococandy:
Op you couldn't find better pictures for Ibadan and Enugu?
See how horrible those pictures look in comparison to the other cities.

On another hand, maybe people go fly from 'so ugly' cities and we'll have more space for enjoying them. Seeing the glass half full.

FrancisTony:
Meanwhile, I'm not her fan freak because she's a feminist.

I love her writings and yes! We hail from the same state.

Her name doesn't lie, she's truly a gift from god, I'm more surprised there isn't more people in open admiration of Chimamanda to be honest. In my eyes it's a rather respectful stance to awesome woman, awesome person, and awesome writer, nothing worth shaming.

5minsmadness:
Wait, let me understand your last statement well. By calling francistony effeminate, I have insulted women?

Yes because the context to the 'effeminate' used against men is to denote 'lacking in some area important for men', masculinity. It implies women are weaker, or less worthy, by default state. That a man who even remotely has feminine characteristics, is a bad man, because it's bad to be a womanly man.

5minsmadness:
No you don't know me.
Examples of women I have insulted pls.

We're on the internet, that goes for granted.

With using femininity as an insult, even if against other men and not women? You're insulting every woman out there. It's not the same as being blatantly misogynist, yet the insult is still obvious enough.

FrancisTony:
Behave? Sound like a woman? Online?

*Interesting* It's good to know that we can now see how someone behaves and sound like a woman online.

All women behave the same, didn't you know. He's expert on women behavior. I guess maybe from listening to laments of all those he insulted. But I wouldn't know, not knowing him and all.

TV01:
But Cococandy, like many of the other soi-disant feminists around these parts, struggle to reconcile their progressive inclinations with their love for piety ! And so like to form like they have equality in their relationships.

Oh you so got her. First praising a woman for how good she is and then being all 'but she's missing the big point anyway, see them, cute things? They're better sitting down and being cute, not talking about these gasp intellectual things'. Did you think that hasn't been heard for decades at least? Patronizing, misogynist, chauvinistic and pseudointellectual.

TV01:
But as I've pointed out before

1. No human intimate relationship is ever egalitarian - note we touched on lesbians having the most violent relationships.
2. Women do not want men they can't look up to. Ultimately they won't respect them, cannot love them and won't be happy to stay with them.

So we either have lots of Femininists married to Betas or we have Coco !


TV

1. That some lesbians have violent relationships can hardly be taken as a measure for all lesbians, logical fallacy there.
b. Why are you so fascinated with oh them exotic lesbians anyway? They're just women and I doubt they'd want either of us in their lives. They manage without men just fine.

2. Looking up to a person isn't a proof of one gender being above the other. It's a proof some people recognize the personhood of others fully, and strive to improve themselves, but hardly it points to any flawed superiority theory you're postulating here.

TV01:
I wouldn't have the cojones to mess with a real feminist. Only the unseeded NL types ! Have you given up making the case for homsexuality?

...why are you pleasuring yourself with his effete post - awon rent boy corps !

TV

Thing is you're missing people on the internet are real people. Hence also real feminists. (OR that in the age of social sites, what happens on the internet is often faster influencial in many areas than what is reported via other means.) So in many ways you're just following a very out of reality logic.

Attacking a poster is the only thing you can do? Not responding to thought out arguments?
But sure, continue talking about The Gayz.

If you're so curious, why don't you join the club?
And while we're at it and you're airing everything of your verbal vomit publicly, tell us who of your brilliant trained parrots you're meeting and where? I'm sure we could make a criminal case out of it, and you'd get enough of the ass you so crave as sitting in jail. Though I doubt you'd get any even there. Gays are said to have a style in who they pick.

TV01:
I see BlackLeopard has flounced off in a hissy fit. Where's that mangina called FrancisTony? Let me knock his little head !
TV

Actually not, BlackLeopard is sitting by, having fun watching you go in circles that don't make any sense
All your happy 'screwing with feminists', you should tell that to people like Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, because weren't it for her, there wouldn't be computer and internet like we have now on which you spout your 'women are so pathetic' nonsense. But sure, women like her and Ada Lovelace don't mean a thing to you, oh masculine connoissaeurs of history?

Women, and femininity, aren't pathetic. We'd be a screwed kind, weren't it for intelligent, brave, helpful, compassionate, and great women y'all keep dissing as terrible feminists.

TV01:
When the talk here is now of charging people who don't give their children a positive portrayal of homosexuality . That actually implies children taken into care, and then possibly fostered out to...yeah, think about that.

No to homosexuality, no to same sex marriage, no to same sex adoption. No and thrice no.


TV

You are very right evils should be confronted head on. Such as hate. I see a lot of it reading you.

And shockers, children taken into care by loving people, who happen to love them, each other, and the world, who, shock, are of the same genders! What an atrocious society to be in. Let's rather have children murdered randomly on the streets because their alcoholic daddy got tired of beating them and their mommy, that sick bitch didn't love his slaps and couldn't feed them any longer with the miserable naira he brought home from hustling.

#ForGloriousNigeria! #marchesOff

coogar:
pedophilia & homoerötica are all subsets of sex deviance. colour it how you like, homosexuality is a sexual deviance. this is why heterosex folks are called straight & the other types deviate from the normal type of sex.

Actually, the sacred geometry, that of a DNA, is double helix. Straight is a line of heartbeat when a person dies
This is whole just language and not telling anything about normalcy, and when you break it down deeper to biology, it wouldn't even work.

coogar:
just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. homosexuality harms everyone....it has the highest risk of spreading the incurable HIV infection.

And just because something is not legal doesn't mean it should be, only that people didn't move to that stage of understanding, yet. And you're wrong, because HIV broke out greatly due to infidelous straight people and also medical negligence of straight medical community while treating their patients. If we want to get technical. Gay communities are rather aware of the risks, and the reputation you're citing, and are rather paranoid about their health, last I knew. So the risk of spreading diseases is decreased. Who bleeps around are straights.

TV01:
No, I absolutely care about children being the father of 2 lovely ones. No one is shutting anyone up. State the case for legitimising homosexuality, normalising it, and embedding it into the culture. There is simply no case. I will rebutt any case you try to make point for point- with no fuss. Keep calling me a closet gay or secret pedo all you want .

Dude stop equating homosexuality with pedophilia, it's tiring. Child abuse is, I think we can agree on, wrong. Regardless of who does it to children.

Legitimising homosexuality? Let me see. For one, most of the civilized world respecting human rights moved on. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone, and legitimizing it doesn't really increase sexual abuse cases because plain, abusers aren't by majority homosexuals.

And in fact, I wasn't calling you either of these. I was just saying it's a thing each should consider on their own when being so strongly against at least one of those issues (homosexuality, the pedophilia is I think we can agree a different basket of fruits.)

pickabeau1:
Speaking cryptically at times does not necessarily bestow intelligence on posts

I'm merely saying requests to be left alone are personal and to call a decision of another about their well being histrionic is undeserved. As simple as that.

pickabeau1:
Are u her appointed mouthpiece

Have u finished your schooling on bestiality vs consent vs moralcy(sic!)

Ow KAY

Actually nawh, I'm my own disappointed mouthpiece the obvious isn't obvious.
There was no schooling, just discussion we're all free to do as we deem fit.

pickabeau1:
You could have made your points without the drama and histrionics
You have your moment of fame
lol

Politely stated boundaries aren't drama and histrionics, miss/ma'am.

coogar:
if you think 2 siblings above the age of consent should have consensual sex then you need deliverance.

I'm not saying SHOULD. There are things that are preferable to be done and that are not preferable to be done. Doesn't change this is something that falls into the individual's own consideration. What two adults do, unless it harms them? Is not my business. People have freedom to do as they please. Saying there is freedom is nowhere near endorsing some behaviors; only acknowledging they may be more harmless than societal groupthink leads people to believe about them.

coogar:
you were the one that used the only difference in your comment to separate what is moral or immoral. if anything, you were the one posting from a black & white position.

It may not be the only factor. However, it still stands consent is crucial in a variety of situations. Pretending it can be simply ommitted, is endorsing immoral behavior.

coogar:
are you too big to admit you were wrong or is it until i force-feed you?

I don't have issue admitting to mis phrasing. However, don't fan yourself, believing you can force feed me anything. (By the way bro, why are you so stuck on these metaphors of force? There is no need for that sort of speech. We're just conversing about human issues, don't be dragging force into this where everyone sees you're doing it only to feel better about yourself. We can be having discussions without this sort of rhetorical bollocks. It's arguments deciding, not force.)

coogar:
you don't have a prayer......

Quite the contrary, I've been praying for you for two months to wisen up. Alas, what even God(s) combined cannot do, cannot be done.

coogar:
so you wouldn't see anything wrong if your kids at age 22 and 20 are having consensual sex? you see - when you people try to be smart, you get caught out.

They're adults. That it would have possibly other consequences - biological for their possible offspring, societal to strong tabboos, etc, is a different thing. We were weighting in solely the age difference and consent, and for THESE TWO factors pinned, it indeed isn't wrong. What you're doing here is black and white thinking for something that's an issue of all sorts of grey.

coogar:
just because 2 adults consent to do something doesn't necessarily make it right. your point that consent is the only difference between morality & immorality is highly flawed.

If you eliminate the need for consent entirely, you're in the lawless society. In which something like free will of an individual means nothing. It's not possible to simply shrug it off as irrelevant and social construct, because to the idea of consent tie in other crucial ideas - like freedom of choice.

coogar:
don't play smart, kiddo!
you said the only difference between what is moral & immoral is consent.

i gave you a scenario where consent was given & i asked you if its moral & you are starting to choke on your own vomit.

how old are you, 4?

Because you're only derailing to something that's totally unrelated to our discussion. The talk wasn't focused on peer relations or families, but on wide age caps and if it's possible children can consent. Yet you derailed.

Moralcy is always relative to culture and time and also subjective; speaking in terms of biology and other factors like learning would make more sense if we want to make comparisons. Not subjective assesments. Not religion, either.

But with those two teens? They're of the same age, assuming they're of similar experience, and both agreeing with what they're doing? Then yes, it's moral. It may seem despicable to some because they're siblings, but from the age/power/consent balances? They're good to go.

TV01:
A lot - not all?

Exceptions exist to every rule, that doesn't really prove the average of something is invalid.

TV01:
Adult brains aren't fully developed till around 24 on average.

Homosexuals are notorious for campaigning for a reduction of the statutory age of consent

You're using manipulative rhetorics here, in which statement A is true, statement B is entirely unrelated to the issue and untrue, and the supposed conclusion you make of that should be 'true', but logic doesn't work that way. Truth implying falsehood means the whole implication is untrue, in other words, try again, what you're doing here is bad logic and argumentation.

Homosexuals continue to push for increasing sexualisation of our children - I posted liinks earlier - legally consent is merely a statutory concept, not a biological one . Who are you tryong to dribble

You're also shifting focus here.
The only people who fetishize children are sexual predators.
Which may or may not be homosexuals, but on average? Most are heterosexual men (look up the average statistics, the figures speak rather clearly on this globally.) Not closeted homosexuals. Not even pedophiles (as in oriented toward children.)

Consent, choices, word sophistry does not make the deviant right, or the immoral good.

You're arguing 'right' and 'moral' based on bad science. I could well tell you that on itself is wrong.

Show us the studies. Is it the same one that says people who are disgusted by homosex are closeted gays . I guess in lieu of a moral compass, sound science, or intellectual honesty, tropes must suffice .

It's not really tropes, it's common sense.
Besides, you're using wellbeing of children as a straw man here. I doubt you care for well being of children, you're using children as objects in your hypothetical debates when you need to shut someone else up.

TV01:
Go and find yourself an anus to rummage around in - your choice
TV

Which further proves my point, so thank you for showing me talking with you, reasonable people are just losing their precious time, because you cling to your own hate and bad science like a life rope

coogar:
in other words, you are saying consensual sex between 2 adolescent siblings is not immoral?

You learn to read, Coogar. I was talking about adults/adults, adults/children. Nowhere in the post I talked teens, where so much is blurred, and the only one bringing incest into all of this is you. Derailing for newbies.

Actually yeah, the only difference between a lot of moral vs. immoral IS consent. (If I take someone's thing? It's theft. If they agree with me grabbing it? It's totally not.) So not only moral vs. not, but whole the legal basis from that point in most states as well.

Children cannot consent. It's not a question about wordz even. It's a question of biology. They brains aren't developed to grasp mature matters on adult level, therefore they cannot consent, period.

But continue equating choices between two adults to all the abominations like child rape.

(By the way, there was some studies out there the only people so obsessed with thoughts about what's pedophilia and not, are pedophiles themselves. The rest of the society don't give a flying Bleep. So, present gentlemen being all about kiddies? This speaks volumes about you.)