₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
Going to be at Esquire this evening for Naija Guinness and Abula anywhere aound 4:45-6:45 PM today.
Holler Muttley at the entrance to treat you to whatever they have you so desire

Not gonna make it. Enjoy.

Primesky:
At the end of the day, the truth is, Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life!. If any man have Him, he has life, otherwise no life.

See that word in bold? That's the issue, Prime. You seem to mean 'have' as in a "Lord Lord". While I am talking about a "do my will" sort of 'have'.


_Ref

LordReed:
I really don't agree that the act of creating these weapons is immoral in of itself. I rather see it as amoral, being that the weapons themselves do not do anything until they are used but the scientists who create them don't particularly care how the weapons are used.

I understand. It is a view, though not one I share. Some weapons may have dual use, say recreational hunting. And if someone then takes such 'weapons' and shoots someone with it, I wouldn't go so far as claiming the creator of the weapon was immoral. However, a nuclear bomb?

The scientist who creates a nuclear bomb knows what he's creating and its eventual intended use. No one could justify the creation of a nuclear bomb with "I only intended for it to be used to hunt deer"! And if they did, I doubt you wouldn't laugh them out the park.

My point is, they know why they create them and should care. But because they don't or might not care and may act immorally, we, the people who do care, slap a code of ethics on their asses so that when we hold them accountable for their immorality they can't just say, "sorry, but we didn't know, or think it would be used that way", like they have done in the past.

rekinomtla:
[s]Slavery of the OT differs from modern slavery. [/s]

But you say slavery is wrong because most people believe it is. What if most people believed it was right, would that make it moral?

I do not say "slavery is wrong because most people believe it is"! Please give me some credit for having a brain and being able to use it! I live in a period whereby I am privileged to have the history of past behaviour laid before me, or have you not read Kunta Kinte or visited the museum at Badagry?

Most people doing a thing is obviously not a reason for doing so myself, as you would know if you but thought a little. Most people believe in the existence of creators for instance, but I happen to know they talking through their asses. I sure as hell don't just, because everyone believes things, believe too now, do I.

Slavery is seen as immoral and ethical by me and most people, and we will fight those who don't even if I were in the minority.

LordReed:
Quite plainly in my view it was unnecessary to create nuclear weapons, weaponised biological agents and chemical substances designed to kill en-mass. While the act of creating itself can be said to be amoral, it is their use that is truly immoral.

Totally immoral! Both the creation and use of them. But they justified it. The justification for their making such weapons was the presumed notion that others were making them "so we'd better", which culminated in the "mutually assured destruction" ideology which justified further investment in weapons. As to their use, simply "to show the world our might and power so they no more mess with us".

It was, however, ethical considerations, as in "what would the world, and even our people, think if we ever mass kill people again", and not an improvement of the user's and maker's morality, that has stopped these weapons being used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

rekinomtla:
He never said don't kill.

Not sure what creator you're talking about, but one of them definitely said, Thou shalt not kill.

rekinomtla:
Like what and "who" deemed them wrong?

Like the right to own slaves, as deemed wrong by just about the entire human race today?

I know we are not all stupid and quite a lot of us have brains. I wake up in the morning and see bright futures for this reason. If I were a god believer, I would seriously sing praises. In fact, thank you gods for surrounding me with all the brainy people that surround me. Please increase their number exponentially, always. So mote!

Here is a Country List Government Debt to GDP. I was after a graph showing debt for G7 countries in 2007, just before the economic crisis that shooed Obama in, to when Trump took over, to show how most countries ramped up debt in that period. Meanwhile, here's a graph for UK debt in that period.

OLAADEGBU:
What 'State' do you come from?

Osun State. The state which that clown Aregbe has messed up big time.

MuttleyLaff:
There you go misrepresenting what I typed in order to fit whatever the agenda is.
I didn't use ''stand" at all in my remark.

You said they were behind the painting on the wall in a gallery. You ever been to the National Gallery? I suppose they can be sitting. I should have asked and not just assume. My bad.

Please Muttley, is the artist that is behind the picture in a gallery standing, sitting or laid down behind the picture?

rekinomtla:
The creator determines what is right and wrong. Humans are free to do what ever they want.

Do you know that some things that "creators" had determined were right have now been deemed wrong?

vaxx:
morality/law are mostly base on public opinion instead of rational thought. If today 99 percent of men decide to make eating beef immoral ...it will become immoral for any white men to still be eating beef and it will become illegal to do so.

I don't think you can just throw in "morality/law" like you've done up there! Law, is definitely not just based on public opinion, and ........*sigh

Mr intelligent person vaxx, if a country legalises and mandates the enslavement of anyone under 30, and buda refuses to enslave anyone under 30, would you say that:

1. buda broke the law?

Or/and

2. buda acted immorally?

Answer/s to this will seriously help me understand where this heads.

lathrowinger:
Yeah... That's right. All this religion seems to be scam. Ask Prophet Fela anikulapo Ransom Kuti...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y--5IlljO78

Open you eye everywhere
Archbishop na miliki
Pope na enjoyment
Imam na gbaladun

Archbishop dey enjoy
Pope self dey enjoy
Imam self dey enjoy
My brother wetin you say?
My brother wetin you say?

My sister wetin you go hear?
My sister wetin you go hear?

Archbishop dey for London
Pope dey for Rome
Imam dey for Mecca
Archbishop dey for London
Pope dey for Rome
Imam dey for Mecca

Amen!

My people them go dey follow Bishop
Them go follow Pope
Them go follow Imam
Them go go for London
Them go go for Rome
Them go go for Mecca
Them go carry all the money
Them go juba Bishop
Juba Pope
Juba Imam

kaorama:
You are the the one that is ignorant and super foolish. Obama's America advertised and exported those abominable acts you talked about but Trumps America doesnt. And you should know Obama's root.

Its true. There were no homosexuals before Obama made America gay!

Smh!

Realdeals:
If they succeded, that means we will have 1.8 billion people who are neither Christians or Muslims. Does it mean they are all going to HELL?

Satan would build a new wing. I'm sure there'd be one angel who would arrange to lease It more space, for a fee.

rekinomtla:
The creator of the universe.

The creator of the universe determines everyones morals?

Trump supporters would not understand that all that money went into investing for the economic progress they seeing now under Trump. But I bet ya if things were now fuqed up, they'd be claiming it was Obama what done it! Smh!

MuttleyLaff:
Your case is seeing a signed painting in an art gallery and still saying there is no artist behind the painting

Artists stand behind their paintings?
Can't wait to go behind to talk to Picasso!

Sound bites, right?

He was reportedly asked to leave Royal Free Hospital after refusing a request to validate his 1998 Lancet paper with a controlled study.

He resigned from Thoughtful House in February 2010, after the British General Medical Council found that he had been "dishonest and irresponsible" in conducting his earlier autism research in England.

Wakefield is barred from practising as a physician in the UK,

Twenty-four hours before the 2004 Sunday Times report by Deer, The Lancet's editor Richard Horton responded to the investigation in a public statement, describing Wakefield's research as "fatally flawed" and said he believed the paper would have been rejected as biased if the peer reviewers had been aware of Wakefield's conflict of interest. Ten of Wakefield's twelve co-authors of the paper in The Lancet later published a retraction of an interpretation: The section of the paper retracted read as follows:
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.

In the Dispatches programme, Deer also revealed that Nicholas Chadwick, a researcher working under Wakefield's supervision in the Royal Free medical school, had failed to find measles virus in the children reported on in The Lancet.

In January 2005, Wakefield initiated libel proceedings against Channel 4, the independent production company Twenty Twenty and Brian Deer, The Sunday Times, and against Deer personally along with his website briandeer.com. Within weeks of issuing his claims, however, Wakefield sought to have the action frozen until after the conclusion of General Medical Council proceedings against him. Channel 4 and Deer sought a High Court order compelling Wakefield to continue with his action, or discontinue it. After a hearing on 27 and 28 October 2005, Mr Justice David Eady ruled against a stay of proceedings:
It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the "downside" of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification ... I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims.

You do realise he could sue for libel if all these were lies and he had evidence to prove it, right? You might wanna do him a favor and edit wiki!

sinequanon:
Once again, you are just quoting what people say, without referring to any understanding of what the claims and issues are.

"Soundbites" is what they call it.

When you assess things you should look at all sides of the issue, and not assume one side is ALL "conspiracy", and the another side is ALL "legitimate". We are talking about human institutions with all their attendant flaws and deviance.

A interesting issue that would not have come to light but for the Vaxxed lobby is that no study has been done comparing rates of autism among populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. The claim that "no link has been found" is easy to make if you are not looking for one.

Other interesting fact concerns the differential treatment of vaccination damage cases compared to other medication. Pharmaceutical companies have indemnification against claims of damage. The taxpayer pays.

Another issue was the use of inactive vaccine substrate as a placebo in vaccine tests, instead of say the normal sugar solution. This meant that damage caused by the substrate (which has in the past contained substances like mercury and aluminium) would not show a difference between the placebo and test groups. Also, they use in the analysis safe concentrations limits determined for adults and apply them to babies with undeveloped immune systems.

So, just as you have to listen to scientists to find holes poked in claims by the anti-vaccine lobby, the same is the case for finding spin and holes in the science.

EDIT: Oh, I see, you've joined the idiocy brigade. Don't bother replying. I won't be reading.

And from the same source

Religion and Corruption in Nigeria What You Should Know

Religion and Corruption in Nigeria: It is pertinent to know these important facts conveyed in this article, What You Should Know about corruption and religion and how you should view this statement depends.

Are Nigerians Truly Religious?
It is quite evident that Nigeria is a very religious country. There are churches and mosques in every nook and cranny of Nigeria’s cities, towns and villages. Loud religious chants and prayers can be heard every day from these worship centers. Religion also plays a huge role in the politics of Nigeria. If the President is Christian, then the vice must be a Muslim and vice versa.

Meanwhile, Nigerians hold a huge sentimental value to their religious faiths. However, this strong religious beliefs does not reflect in Nigeria as a society. In fact, one might argue that, the strong religious beliefs of Nigerians has played a negative role in the development of the Nigerian society in the form of corruption.

According to latest statistics for corrupt countries It is an open secret that Nigeria is among them. One would expect that a country with so much religious values will keep corruption at a minimal. However, the reverse is the case. Nigerians are very corrupt individuals and if corruption was an Olympic sport, Nigeria will win gold almost every single time.

Are these Evidence that Religion and Corruption in Nigeria is at peak?
Furthermore, the scary aspect is that the religious institutions in the country aide corruption. It is open secret that pastors and imams’ collect expensive gifts and cash from corrupt politicians in exchange for prayers and public endorsements. Some Pastors in particularly also use biblical tricks to exploit money from poor church goers in exchange for financial breakthrough.

These creates a society where pastors and politicians become millionaires whereas, the rest of the population remain poor. latest Forbes list for richest pastors in the world, 4 Nigerian Pastors made the top ten list. Nigerian politicians are among the richest in the world and there is a strong possibility that they are the richest. On the other hand, Nigerian citizens are getting poorer.

According to the world poverty index, more Nigerians are falling into poverty. This is a contrast to what pastors, imams’ and politicians are currently experiencing in Nigeria.

LordReed:
The guy is a fucking fraud, putting on airs and strutting around like a knowledgeable person. Cambridge indeed.

He said he went to Cambridge? Cambridge College London perhaps. A secondary school student would fail O'levels if they say what he writes!

rekinomtla:
I don't think cultural moral relativism describes reality.

What, or who, determines morality then?

sinequanon:
You misunderstand. I am not saying that his idea "went wrong". I am saying that his paper was probably valid, but was removed for political reasons, and the authorities in his field (of which he used to be a leading practitioner) tried to silence him by stripping him of his license to practise, for political, not scientific, reasons. He escaped to the US, where he was more free to speak.

Go read up on Professor Wakefield too. "Probably valid" does not accurately describe his position!

Ian Lipkin, professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, writing in The Wall Street Journal, said: "If Vaxxed had been submitted as science fiction, it would merit attention for its story line, character development and dialogue. But as a documentary it misrepresents what science knows about autism, undermines public confidence in the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and attacks the integrity of legitimate scientists and public-health officials".

Anyone is free to talk nonsense in America. Their President does it like 10 times a day!

sinequanon:
His peers removed his work after substantial political pressure. That is not evidence of ethics. It is evidence of politics.

You are either being intentionally dishonest, or you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Science, and society in general, learnt not to do what you're suggesting was done here way back in the 16th century with the likes of Giordano Bruno, Galileo and Copenicus. You might want to read up on them.

vaxx:
I am pointing error instead of contributing since you failed to see where you shot yourself, I can't be arguing in a blanket.indirectly you are now advocating for objective morality instead of relative moral which you subscribe to . Double standard.....

I am not advocating anything objectively moral. I've told you many times over that I do not necessarily agree that morality is objective and that linking both words gives a meaning I am ambivalent to! A society may impose certain moral codes on it's people but that does not imply objectivity since they may simply be pandering to sentiment, or even ignorance.

A case in point is the attitude to homosexuality in different societies. Nothing objective about it! Its relativity is obvious in the fact that every nation makes it up as they go along subject to relative time, place and understanding. The fact that some nations accept stem cell research and some don't is another case in point to show relativity!

However, not one single society I know of would accept that any single persons subjective morality is acceptable if such morals go against what is generally accepted! especially where issues like murder, paedophilia and scientific research is concerned. That is why there are ethical codes that apply to these activities! They show the standards that are accepted or you shall not be tolerated!

sinequanon:
Take vaccines, for example. Did you read what happened to Andrew Wakefield, whose work was published in the respected Lancet and then removed after a political storm? He was stripped of his license to practise, too.

In many fields, peer review doesn't work. People are too afraid to lose their jobs. A couple or notable examples are Andrew Wakefield and Professor Nutt (who published a paper on the relative harm of cannabis and other drugs.)

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a discredited former British doctor who became an anti-vaccine activist. He was a gastroenterologist until he was struck off the UK medical register for unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud. In 1998 he authored a fraudulent research paper claiming that there was a link between the administration of the polyvalent measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.

Note that he was struck off from the UK medical register (it is run by his peers) for "unethical behaviour, misconduct and fraud". More evidence of the importance of ethics in his field, I'd say!

Professor David Nutt was dismissed from his ACMD position by the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson. Explaining his dismissal of Nutt, Alan Johnson wrote in a letter to The Guardian, that "He was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy. [...] As for his comments about horse riding being more dangerous than ecstasy, which you quote with such reverence, it is of course a political rather than a scientific point."

As in, dismissed for not doing the job his employer paid him to do!

sinequanon:
Ignoring your egocentric perspective, the fact is that you are anonymous, as far as I am concerned. I am not really communicating with you, per say. I am just broadcasting to anybody reading this thread. If communication in our local communities had not broken down the way they generally have in towns and cities, I would not be broadcasting. I would be having a connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous. It is the erosion of those connections and of related community cohesion that is the failure, for which the internet is part and parcel.

You are not communicating with me per se? Yet here I am responding to you 'not exactly" communicating with me per se. Wonder, isn't it!

By the way, are there no people around you that you can go and communicate with without science created technology? Do accept my apology for allowing science to erode your ability to have a "connection and much more meaningful conversation with somebody less anonymous".

sinequanon:
Now tell me, link me to the last topic and post where internet discussion has educated budaatum, changed his mind and enhanced his life.

Question. Do you not learn anything from communicating on Nairaland? Please do not insult yourself. Even though I may not agree with your points or adopt your perspective, I still learn about your perspective from you and just about everyone I discuss with - well, except vaxx, sometimes, that is - and my life is significantly enhanced by the understanding I gain of your perspective.

Without having heard your perspective, my perspective would be a lot narrower, and I consider that a bad thing, so accept my profound gratitude for further enlightening me.

sinequanon:
As I have told you, the healthiest people on Earth are not where the doctors are or where science is practiced.

Yet, there's everyone trying to be closer to doctors and hospitals. I wonder why.

sinequanon:
What is happening is that you are taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth.

I very strongly beg to differ. If I were "taking for granted famine, disease, disaster and so forth", I wouldn't be using science to reduce these things!

sinequanon:
What you are not addressing is the fact that so much of this is caused by human activity. If you ignore that, then you cannot put anything into a moral context, because you cannot begin to question the dynamics of human nature in any depth.

Science, "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", is the questioning of the "dynamics of human nature in depth", and is something human beings have practised in one form or another since the dawn of time. I hardly see how systematically questioning "the dynamics of human nature in depth", scientifically, causes "famine, disease, disaster and so forth", except if it is done unethically and immorally, and without due regard for consequences, which is the exact question the op posed in this thread, and which I have continously claimed must be, and is, a significant and essential consideration where science is concerned.

sinequanon:
If we look at the big picture, we can see that it is failing. It is failing, not because of the way humans choose to use science, but because science can ONLY serve control freakery. Science is not a way to general wisdom, only to control freakery, which we call "knowledge" -- certainty of control. Ironically, it is this same control freakery that is mankind's biggest ailment. Science serves that demon in humans.

Science allows you to communicate with me over a distance way further than you would have been able to do by shouting. Is that a "failure" and an "ailment" that only serves your "control freakery" need to communicate with me?

Science is what people go for when they are ill and go to the doctor. Is it "failure" and an "ailment" that science gives us the "control freakery" to heal people and stop them dying young?

Science is what has helped produce better yielding and disease resistant crops which has helped reduce scarcity of food and reduced the number of people who would have died of famines. Is this "control freakery" a "failure" and an "ailment"?

vaxx:
"Tolerance", by it's very nature, cannot be imposed on an individual. It is a character trait that each person chooses to accept as inherently moral, I and of itself. In fact, it is pants-crappingly ironic to attempt to impose a concept of tolerance in an individual, because the the very act of imposing ones will on another is itself an act of intolerance.

Thankfully, the world does not seem to accept this view of yours, that tolerance cannot be imposed. You just step out your door and be intolerant to others and see what we'd impose on you! The general society seems to accept that it is okay to be intolerant of intolerance.

vaxx:
it will make you less moral, because it tends to frequently lead to the same level of dogmatism that the original status quo it combats had. I'd rather fight dogmatism without another form of dogmatism to replace it. All issues should be open-ended, not carved in stone.

Intolerance is not necessarily immoral. Not many would argue that intolerance of paedophilia is immoral, and the fact that it isn't is "carved in stone", and we are dogmatic about it. Almost all societies generally dogmatically agree that those who do think paedophilia is not immoral have warped minds, and if they are found to be practising paedophilia we will not be "open-ended" about it and will gladly show them how "carved in stone" our dogmatic intolerance of their behaviour we will be!

vaxx:
So You are advocating for consent here........now apply this to initial argument I raised and you will see how you are speaking from both side's of the mouth....

I am simply pointing out to you that ethics is a necessary requirement when engaging with others. Consent happens to be one of the ethical considerations in particular fields like scientific research.

You are free to present your own argument. Meanwhile, do point out this "speaking from both side's of the mouth". We must not allow anyone to get away with such nonsense, and most especially, not buda!

sinequanon:
The "scientific fact" itself is static, regardless of its content.

Science is the acquisition of knowledge about the "facts". Or would you rather we not bother to know about the fact?

Please tell how we are supposed to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” if we do not learn about the "facts" of our existence?

vaxx:
maybe I have to be making a list of Buda tantrum on every thread, this should be in what number?

Stick to the topic at hand vaxx, or move on if you haven't got anything worthwhile to contribute. Stop derailing the thread.

vaxx:
i always ignite the fire that power your emotions, (i only want to force you to reason instead of being to emotive)try defending yourself, instead of throwing tantrum.... anyway i am use it to bro....

Oh shut up and admit you are in above your head.