₦airaland Forum

tintingz:
So there is nothing sympathetic or empathetic that triggered Lincoln's feelings freeing slaves?

I found the following:

His family attended a Separate Baptists church, which had strict moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery.

So I say his family (and church) taught him that slavery was immoral. And it could have been empathy for slaves was on the curriculum. Or that it wasn't economically viable or some other reason. I really wouldn't know. But whatever it is, it seems he learnt it. If the statement above is true.

I have a lot of belief in you all. If you are not free yet, you will be one day. When the burden enslaving you is so tight a round your necks, you will stand up and say "enough!"

Meanwhile, happy independence (for the tiny amount of it we currently have).

vaxx:
lolllllll, someone advice you to let it go when the heat became unbearable....

Maybe you will make sense another day....let it go bro.

There's no heat here vaxx, so don't you worry about me.

vaxx:
it an emphasis on natural judgement

P.s. I only ignored this because, as usual, it's just meaningless!

vaxx:
who press the control p (personal ) plus shift and the E tab?(Emotion).

Is causing a lot of unneccasry ranting here.anyway I

Augh, you poor sod. I feel for you.

vaxx:
budaatum The pussy cat, stop.ranting , I will buy you chocolate

O poor you. See what you have resorted to. It's such a pity. We had hope for you vaxx. A great pity indeed.

vaxx:
basket case on the run..... And let me help you, if you want to understand that deutch very well. Switch to deutch fallacy. It explain far better than wiki you quoted.


I once called you a pussy right? And you are on it again.

Call me whatever you want. We all know you'd be the first to scream ad hominem too. The facts though, have quite a lot to say. It's the beauty of the written word. Like broken eggs, you can't fix it, just as you can't possibly go back and wipe out all the evidence you've left behind showing the poverty of your ability to reason or even discuss with a modicum of honesty.

vaxx:
Even before clinical research, auto cash are payed and some hospital even insured you should be incase it goes opposite.


As i said provide a science journal to validate my premises is wrong, if not I consider what you put up there as someone speaking from ignorance.

I have chipped in what clinical trials is all about, but if you care to know. Read again.

You can assert as much as you want and assume buda is ignorant (as if this would be the first time!) People ain't that stupid vaxx!

In the meantime, stop lazily assuming you are the font of knowledge on here and go find journals to read and educate yourself.

geldingsdrang m (plural geldingsdrangen, diminutive geldingsdrangetje n)

compulsive need to impose one's will and gain respect, ambition, self-assertion.

Did you miss where Obi1kenobi said exactly the same thing about you? Just look a couple of posts down, you won't miss it.

Let me assure you that there are some very intelligent people on here who can see and reason for themselves, and if I do what you claim, you won't be the only one saying so. And to be honest, if I find myself doing as you claim, I will be very ashamed of myself when it becomes obvious to me that I am. I have left a long trail of it by now that I'd have to be stupid not to recognise that's what I do, especially if I am capable of identifying it in others.

So please, expose my ignorance. You will be doing me a favour by providing an opportunity for me to improve myself.

vaxx:
This is 'Geldingsdrang' . it is a German word for such an individual like you, it is a disorder people suffer from - an extreme compulsion to draw attention to themselves - positive or negative - in order to be acknowledged or valued while making the person you are correcting look awkward


Don't appeal to my emotion. it is a coward trait....i almost expose your ignorance but thank Buddha you save it for another day.

vaxx:
Have you ever be involve in clinical trials? Have you ever read and update yourself on what involves in clinical trials? Have you ever seen a documented report of clinical trials? Do you honestly aware of medical procedure regarding clinical trials?. If not, then you are the liar, if yes, provide evidence that refute my claim in any science journal even if it is unsound. I will acknowledge it.

No you wouldn't acknowledge it vaxx. You have never acknowledged it in the past so I'm not going to bother thinking you would this time. You have a record of not acknowledging any position that opposes yours!

But just so you don't mislead others, if a person was participating in clinical trials and dies in a car wreck, an autopsy would be performed to determine the cause of death. If the cause of death is unrelated to the medical trials, like say a drunk driver just drove into one, it would not be listed as a side effect of the unrelated clinical trial!

Just imagine walking out of the trial and someone off the streets stabs you to death. How does you stabbed to death relate to the clinical trial such that it becomes a side effect? If it were, then one could just go ahead and sue the clinical trial people and not the person who caused the car wreck or stabbed you!

Besides, there must have been drugs that got to market which during clinical trials, someone on it died of a car wreck. Please tell me how many drugs have "car wreck" listed as a side effect!?

As to the rest of your twaddle, we've done this to death, and you couldn't even accept that scientists are bound by ethics, and for a reason. Or did I not ask you what stops scientist engaging in stem cell research in Germany?

vaxx:
Every symptom a person has must be written as a side effect, even if the two incidents are clearly unrelated. For example, if you're in a medication trial, and you die in a car wreck, death will be put as a side effect of that medication, even though it clearly wasn't the medicine itself.

Why do you lie so much! It is not true that if a person is in a "medication trial, and you die in a car wreck, death will be put as a side effect of that medication" !

Science does not work that way!

vaxx:
Let me gist you how a Muslim named bilahi Philip justify suicide bomber ,

""When you look at the mind of the suicide bomber, it's a different intention altogether ... The [enemy] is either too heavily armed, or they don't have the type of equipment that can deal with it, so the only other option they have is to try to get some people amongst them and then explode the charges that they have to try to destroy the equipment and to save the lives of their comrades. So this is not really considered to be suicide in the true sense. This is a military action and human lives are sacrificed in that military action. This is really the bottom line for it and that's how we should look at it""

I am not advocating for this , but once you look at the premise of his argument from another angle, you may conclude that he has a point ( arguably ).

At least looking at it pragmatically innovation that kills and save can be justify, at least car innovation has eased movement and connect longer city very fast and at the same times it has send million to early grave .

When you focus so much on the negativity of this innovation, you may actually not appreciate it's purpose.

Speak for yourself. Go ask the Palestinians how many people see their side, and they are people who could possibly claim justification for it! Most people would never see justification in suicide bombing!

I get to say I'm an atheist, despite there being the "prefer not to say" option. I live in a country where discrimination due to religious belief is illegal. But then I've never been afraid to state my lack of belief even in Nigeria and can say that apart from some willing to convert me, I haven't faced any problems

vaxx:
No i don't know, so can you make me to know? Budaatum.

No, not really vaxx. If you can't be intellectually honest you would never learn, not from me anyway.

But if you want to learn, just go over some of your own writings with some honesty. Read it as if someone else wrote it and you would at least see how you come across.

chemystery:
Christians recognise other gods as nonexistent. Any other thing you are saying is indicating that Christians regard Satan as a god which is not true. There is just Yahweh and his enemy Satan whom christians don't recognise as a God or god. Other standalone gods are nonexistent to Christians. Even after showing you a common christian song that clearly indicated that christians believe all other gods are works of men yet you still prefer to be lying to yourself. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You can keep lying to yourself if that gives you a satisfaction that you won the argument. Suit yourself bro.

I should learn from you. He does this always!

vaxx:
come to rethink about this. isn't this line of thought sound irrational, so because Dele giwa was killed by a letter bomb as make him alive concerning other potential causes of death (fire, stab wounds, illnesses, gun shoot etc.). Such a way of thinking is absurd.

Yes, this way of thinking is absurd, if just because of the implied false equivalence! Isn't there a fallacy for that? What killed him is not the issue here but whether he is dead or not!

Do you know that bad writing reflects bad thinking?

vaxx:
The bone of argument here is, do christain recognize the existence of other gods? In which I answer in affirmative yes. Whether it is demons or satanic , it is just part of teaching embedded in Christian theology.

Christain recognise[b]d[/b] other gods and term them as smaller gods(maybe in form or Satan or or demon).that is while there is this unique way making letter g in capital for the bigger God while small letter for the smaller gods.

I'm beginning to think you intentionally don't proofread what you post because it gives you wriggle room when cornered.

Ask any Christian and they'd tell you there is only one God. To them, there are no other gods but God. And they will inform you that god is not God, which is illogical, but that's Christianity for you. And satan or the devil is most definitely not a god in Christianity!

Obi1kenobi:
Oh, and you're not here to learn. By your argument style, you're here to shove down preconceived notions down people's throats. Nothing you've argued shows you're opening to learning anything other than what you already believe.

It's very obvious isn't it. Despite his claim to the contrary!

vaxx:
i am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

I am afraid. I am very very afraid!

vaxx:
Your opinion Buddha,

Of course. As is everyones', except when they speak objectively.

A classic show of irrational unreasoning!

vaxx:
if you don't have proof for either side and you have no bias, wouldn't the most rational opinion be ambivalence And if you are ambivalence, Will it not be rational to cure it, since it is caused by a simple “LACK OF CLARITY”.You can get rid of it by “GETTING CLARITY”.that’s all.

simple, because faith is all that it needs to have knowledge of God.

Athiest claim there is no God because there is no compeling evidence.. But for you to be bold to reject this claim, you must speaking from knowledge which means the athiest must have known everything since the beginning of time, must have checked every nook and corner of the vast (infinite) universe, must known everything that exists, must have studied every bit evidence that has been produced or will ever be produced, to unambiguously reached the absolutely correct conclusion: there is no God. But as for theist , he needs not know but a leap of faith.

But even if that is the case for atheist - doesn't that imply that the atheist who made this superb claim is himself/herself God? Thereby contradicting the basic premise of atheism (There is no God) which is base on ignorance.

The bone of argument here is atheism lack faith in the existence of God , anything you are bringing to it is a mere conjecture

The lack of faith here is limited to God, atheism does not mean lack of faith in the existence of everything but God. The faith we are talking here is limited to God.

You do it a lot vaxx! Maybe its innate in you.

vaxx:
Get a book and read budah

You really must think I'm Internet age like you.
You are funny.

Penkelemesi Junior

First, thank you. You really have treated this with honesty and respect and I will respond in coin.

Primesky:
To be cannaly minded is to look, approach and explain things with the physical sense and reasoning alone!.

To be spiritually minded, is to look, approach and explain things mostly from the spiritual perspective.

Alone? Why, "alone"? If one has talents and abilities, should one hide some of them and just use two of them "alone", or one, "mostly"?

There is a clear lesson about a person who hid one whole talent, I think the same would apply if one uses one " mostly", or just two and hid all the other perspectives one bothers to become aware of. Doing so may give one a parochial view.

You mentioned three perspectives, the physical, reasoning and spiritual, and got me wondering what other views there are. Do you know of any other perspectives?

Primesky:
For instance, what is your approach to wealth?. Is your definition of wealth, the definition of God about wealth?

I don't know God's definition about wealth, mine though is that everything is valuable and worthy of consideration. And I say this as probably the most minimalist person you would know. I don't own much. I did use to collect and value books but when I found a community that had fewer than I had, I gave all mine to them. Wealth is things that one values, and for me it is understanding. My wealth is my ability to understand.

What's yours? And God's?

Primesky:
It's only a man who walks in the spirit, that can approach life from the perspective of God.

What, please, is the, "perspective of God"?

P.s. You are 'wealthy'!

vaxx:
And that change the status quo of the concept of Buddhism, which elites folk has describe to akin with atheism.

Which elite folk describe Buddhism as akin to atheism?

vaxx:
self will means a willful adherence to one's own desires or ideas.And It is also akin it to personal decision . What is confusing you here?

How does "personal decision" relate to "innate" ?

vaxx:
You are committing etymological fallacy...

Gods are irrelevant in Buddhism, although some Hindu deities appear in Buddhist scriptures. They are there as frauds in some cases, as ignorant beings subject to the same law of karma as humans, and i am suprised that you being a students and defenders of Buddhism. Still believe in such crap. This tales of religious ritual are later additions to scripture composed in the spirit of upaya, Skill in Means, for the benefit of those still mired in superstition.

I would agree if you called it a "reality fallacy". There are sects in Buddhism that acknowledge the existence of deities, and the majority of Buddhists worship those deities even if by doing so they have misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha himself.

A similar misunderstanding occurs when some Christians say God approves of the killing of sinners. A false doctrine I'd say, but one held all the same.

vaxx:
i still don't understand what you are trying to prove here. Because that post you quoted was demonstrating a self will which is synonymous to innate. I am talking about personal decision there.

You were "demonstrating self will is innate", and also that it was "personal decision"?

I do not think you understand yourself!

vaxx:
Buddhism is synonymous to atheism.

No it isn't! Perhaps you don't know the meaning of synonymous!

While the contemplative elite may deny the real existence of gods and demons together with the rest of phenomenal existence, the majority of Buddhists from the earliest times in India, and in other countries where Buddhism has spread, have never neglected indigenous religious beliefs.

Gggg102:
it seems you were calling him imbecilic because of his 'theistic' comment.

I think you perceive wrong. I was extremely careful with my choice of words!

budaatum:
O Lord God I thank you that you made me an atheist or I might have turned out a stupid imbecilic cretin!

Besides, that comment quoted Aaronsrod whose god tells to kill people!

bknight:
Someone here may need to read ‘The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics Of Morals’ by Immanuel Kant.

It's free too, so no excuses!

vaxx:
The mechanism that support walking is already there (inbuilt on proto human)if not no human will walk.

Here you go again with the 'buda fallacy'!

Please explain to me how what you've said above does not mean "early humans could already walk upright, they just needed to stand up"!

Should we change it to the "vaxx fallacy" perhaps?

vaxx:
We all born with some basic traits but how we are brought up deeply influences us too. Different factors in our surroundings , parenting etc also help in shaping us into what we are.

There you go again. Are you now claiming empathy is a trait? Well, you at least admit that shaping (education) has to happen to develop that "trait" .