₦airaland Forum

Magnoliaa:
No.


On a second read, actually, I got it.

Lol...it's crazy how the meaning was so simply obvious, yet I missed it because of the wording. Almost like it was written like that intentionally.

Magnoliaa:
Can you elaborate on what this means?

Theflint1:
I think it's now 10m....the money he gets from just "thank you" each month go probably pass 10m per month. Most of these high-ranking civil servants don't necessarily have to be corrupt in the strictest sense for them to enjoy from being in the position they're.

Itsrm:
And just to add, the CJN officially earns 3.5m annually . The other judges of the supreme court probably earn less.

Make of this information what you will.

Jodera:
If I were to do combined first 11 of my choice

Neuer

Alaba. Saliba. Boateng. Lahm

Partey. Schweini

Odegaard


Robben. Jesus. Ribery

OhBritannia:
Let me get something straight.
So at the time when the media were busy dismantling Greenwood, where people in this thread were nailing Greenwood on the cross 😁😁😁😁 where others were defending him.

This girl was still opening her pussssy for greenwood and they were busy smashing 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁.

Just discovered that she is pregnant for greenwood and they are now back together.

I know greenwood is probably not innocent but it looks like the girl is a Nice girl and she is really in love 💕💕 with greenwood.

I hope he has changed for good and just love and respect this girl because like it or not, she has literally saved his career.

Read from a confirm source that she dropped all the charges and even refused to testify against him, and even the photos that leaked online were leaked by her sister and she was not aware. She has even gone against the wish of her family by accepting him back. She has done well for him.

Seeing a girl like this in this generation isn't easy, i hope greenwood realizes that he has got a Queen besides him. He should do well by her and worships her for the rest of his Life.

She saved his life whether you like it or not, she saved his life.

A001:
Other lower animals communicate without the use of spoken languages. Only humans are intelligent enough to evolve languages, and if you know human history well enough, you'd know all the languages spoken around the world today came naturally from some past humans just like it was some humans (not the environment) that invented all the programming languages in use today.

That's nature. Genetics. It's the same reason why many intelligent animals can't speak a language because of their nature (their genetical makeup).

A001:
So humans learnt their languages from their environment? Why didn't other intelligent primates like the chimpanzee also do so then since they're in the same environment?

A001:
Nature versus nurture argument in epistemology in philosophy. I can see you subscribe to the nurture side of the argument.

In other words, you agree with philosophers like Aristotle, John Locke, and Ibn Sina who are proponents of the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory.

My own stance is some humans are born with certain innate knowledge (like the knowledge of right and wrong on some issues, languages) and some are not, but most humans are taught all the things they know by their parents, environment, etc.

So I believe both (not just one) sides of the argument are right.

On innatism, how do you think human languages arose from the environment? Some past humans were born with the languages we speak today.

The languages evolved from the human mind not the environment.

Also, it was some humans that first came up with the norms and moral values in use today in many parts of the world.

Thus, innatism and tabula rasa are both right.

A001:
End of discussion. No dey argue meaningless argument. Environment is just one of the factors that shaped humans. But still, humans created culture, society, ethics, morality, religion shaped by genetics, environment.

larride:
You dont know what you are talking about and have refused to learn even after you have been rightly corrected.

A001:
Your argument is funny. So the environment created culture, norms, ethics, and morality for humans? Society fell from the sky? Lols. Which kind reasoning be this

BlueRayDick:
The point is unlike US, Nigeria doesn't operate the solely on federal/civil law; so u can't use the word "illegal" when talking about polygamy in Nigeria.

BlueRayDick:
I think u are confusing urself with semantics here . Raumdeuter is right , polygamy is legal in Nigeria . Why ? Because the legal system in Nigeria includes common law( the English law ) , customary law and sharia.

That is why u won’t see anybody prosecuted for practicising polygamy except he marries under common law which bars a man from having more than a wife.

When u say polygamy is not allowed in he USA , u are right cos it’s alien to their legal system .However u can’t say polygamy is not allowed in Nigeria cos our legal system which includes customary law and sharia actually makes it legal .

A001:
Roland17 argument is very clear and has depth.

This environment you're talking about didn't just drop from heaven; it was created by some humans who were the forebears of modern humans.

Culture, religion, morality, ethics are all social constructs and man-made. These things condition humans and give us acceptable standards to behave in society.

So, past humans created the environment because they were capable of knowing what's right and what's wrong, and this environment does the conditioning and programming of modern humans.

Even without religion, you still know what's right and what's wrong. You don't need a book or a priest to tell you that certain actions are good or bad because culture, morality and ethics are enough as conditioning factors and can exist without a religion.

You're just arguing for the mere sake of it. No be everything you go dey argue.

Incest is wrong mainly because of the diseases and defects it can cause. Apart from that, most times, it messes up the child's life.

There are few exceptions, but for most people, it has bad consequences.

Roland17:
Speaking about humans and the environment, I still maintain that it is human behavior that influences the environment before the latter influences the former. Without human behavior there is no environment. Human behavior creates social constructs and acceptable standards that promote communal living.

The human brain is designed to essentially ask the question “WHY”? Do you have kids? If you do, when your kid was a baby and learning to walk and had no understating of morality, did your baby try to go touch or do something you know they shouldn’t be doing? Did your
baby at any point push boundaries trying to see your reaction?

The answer is most likely yes and that is because, the human brain from birth is designed to be inquisitive, it is never “conditioned” as you proposed. Does the environment influence humans? Yes but Human behavior is integral to defining society and the environment.

raumdeuter:
That's news to me that Polygamy is not legal in Nigeria

I've never seen anyone prosecuted for Polygamy and many people are openly polygamous

Yes I mean under traditional marriage

DeadPresidents:
If we establish a precedent, who says such inbreeding cannot continue for generations?

You’re the one that needs to research the fate of the Royal houses of Europe and ancient Egypt that had incest as a favorite pastime.

King Tut-ankh-amun was most likely a cripple based on his bone density when his interred remains were unearthed.

raumdeuter:
What is good and what is bad is determined by the society we live in

What we consider good or bad today was/is acceptable behavior in some societies

In the west it's more acceptable to have a same sex relationship than to have an heterosexual relationship that is polygamous. Those of us who grew up in Africa and other parts of the world will wonder how that even starts to make sense

Royal families practice incest in the past to keep the purity of their bloodline.

Science has shown that it predispose children from such relationships to genetic defects


We are higher animals and intelligent ones too. Our behavior need to reflect that

As a society we need to have certain standards that guide us otherwise we will become like animals that nack their own mothers and siblings

DeadPresidents:
Even though I’m not the most religious, I’m grateful for the Laws of Moses and the Hammurabi codex for their dictates around incestuous relations.

Let’s assume birth control fails and the incestuous morons conceive. A cretin is the likely product from a geneticists viewpoint.

Liberalism taken to extremes will be the death of us.

Roland17:
Sir, my original post is as easy as easy. If we are not talking about religion then why are we debating! Isn’t that what you read in my original post? You see why I said you are debating yourself? You just jumped on it first by creating your own narrative and now you see you are wrong!

Let me also correct you, humans behavior is what actually influences the environment leading to social constructs like religion, not the other way around.

Let me make this easy for you. Seun, the owner of this website is an atheist, he doesn’t believe in God (anyone with better knowledge can correct me). Does the absence of religion in Seun’s life mean Seun can’t decipher between right and wrong?

Roland17:
Sir, thank you admitting your failed attempt.

Sir, you are debating and disagreeing with yourself. Is religion the only component of the environment? Is religion a product of humans? Is religion a social construct?

Most importantly, before the advent of religion, did people make moral/ ethical decisions? In today’s modern world, those who don not believe in religion, are they able to decipher between good and evil?

Have you ever heard of “Veil of ignorance”?

Roland17:
Sir, you are disagreeing with yourself. I can not debate you when you intentionally or unintentionally removed parts of my sentence to suit your narrative.

Roland17:
Humans have the capacity to decipher between right or wrong (Morality) without religion. Morality on it's own is a social construct that defines acceptable standards and it evolves as human behavior evolves.

Morality vs Ethics is a bigger debate. What is morally right vs what is ethically right?

Roland17:
Humans have the capacity to decipher between right or wrong

larride:
Incent is wrong whichever way you look at it.

Jodera:
I thought most of you here said he's a backpass or sideway pass merchant??🤔🤔🤔

https://twitter.com/Lhastim3/status/1626974130246483975?s=20[/quote]I said it the other day Chelsea miss used jorginho. He will be enjoying his football now.

patrickmuf:
De Gea deserves a new deal...Nottingham should pay 30m for Henderson.

timay1:
So FIFA club world cup from 2025 will compose of 32 teams.

UEFA is increasing the champions league to 48 teams from 2024.


European football clubs are massively shortchanging themselves. They can create an NBA styled franchise with the Super league, where they share all the profits among themselves, just like it's been happening in the premier league.



Also, who knows if the likes of Perez that are pushing the super league wants to make UEFA to negotiate and start sharing the bulk of the TV rights revenue with the clubs , instead of giving them peanuts.

hensben:
At emboldened, you lied and it shows you didn't watch our ucl and uel win, we actually dominated teams in those wins including real madrid. Why are you trying hard to paint chelsea bad when we that support and watch the team telling you that jorg is a liability. He is a liability because he rarely progress play and cause attacking threat and defensively he is easily breezed past and dominated in the air. All what he does best i side and back passes and then to some extent maintaining temple of the game like Mikel when with the ball. Personally that type of CDM is waste of space, mostly in epl, when you can actually get a proper CDM like case, rodri and tchouameni that are defensively and offensively solid.

popizaino:
As someone who pride himself in his eyetest,i say the bolded is very very wrong.

Griffon:
Someone that weighs 80kg is being compared to a frail 68kg weighing Jorginho.

Things we read on NL.