₦airaland Forum

damola1:
Bubu as always been fortunate with his vice. And usually they outshine him because he gives them that leverage.

The same thing with idiagbon and now Osinbajo

Says my papa

Bubu chooses wisely and trusts those he chooses so he can leave them to get on with the job at hand.

seunmsg:
Osinbajo is the first vice president in the history of Nigeria to exercise full presidential powers when the substantive president is outside the country. OBJ was perpetually outside of Nigeria during his first term but never for once handed over to Atiku. Even Yaradua who was rushed to Germany at the point of death never handed over power to Jonathan. When the supplementary budget of year 2009 was passed by the national assembly, it was parcelled to his sick bed for signature as Jonathan was not considered good enough to sign it.

Reverse is the case however under a president they want us to believe is a tyrant. It was the same osinbajo that signed the 2017 appropriation bill into law. Last year, he signed about 5 bills into law and he has just signed another three. This is how to know a truly democratic leader. Not one phantom hero who never allowed his vice to flourish.

You make me weep tears of joy with this your comment.

This coming election is not a battle against against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms, and only people with eyes like your own seem to see it, and I am glad that you exist.

You will surely live long upon the land!

seanfer:
Those over 3,000 people that voted for APC last week during the Obudu bye election were imported from Daura I guess?

Lol!

Gggg102:
this post is closer to home for me.

of course there would have to be self checks to ensure that we are actually seeing the objective/rational view not just a biased opinion, however, we would know that there is an objective/rational view that we would find if we are unbiased and honest with ourselves.

I find I can't be too honest with myself as far as bias and objectivity is concerned. For whenever I think I am fully honest, "O you lying buda" goes a very irritating voice in buda head, "try a little bit harder now, buda". And when I do, I discover how dishonest I'd been being, and how trying harder makes me a tiny bit less dishonest with myself.

Fun, but irritatingly tiresome at times. But it keeps me honest with myself, which is good. Pity I can't hold others to that irritating voice in my head. Whenever I try to the voice goes "forgive them buda, I only talk to you!" I wish it spoke to everyone then my "should" world would be an "is" world, and oh how happy I would be.

Obi1kenobi:
I'm not sure what the point here is. I haven't insinuated Muslims disobeyed any laws. I'm talking about the effect of fundamentalist behavior (which wearing full veils/burkas is)that violates the social contract of free societies that have given you a home. A host of European countries have banned the burka and a lot of Tory politicians favor a ban too, so it may be a matter of time before the UK follows others.

Hold it right there! There are no "lot of Tory politicians favor a ban". Only Boris Johnson has, and he faces being expelled from the party if he's not careful! It is political suicide to take that stance, and UKIP , the only party that called for a burqa ban in the last elections early this year lost 123 of the 126 councillor seats they held up until then! Don't those numbers speak for themself?

As to Europe, you've heard of Brexit, right? We are not Europe and have voted to pack our load and say "hasta la vista Europe" and go be somewhere else (except we haven't a clue where to move to yet).

Obi1kenobi:
wall off themselves from their new societies with anti-social behavior (which wearing burkas is) that aggravates their host communities.

They are not walling themselves off nowhere! And we on the whole, and apart from the tiny few responsible for UKIP holding to 3 seats out of the 126 they once held, don't mind them wearing whatever they want!

Obi1kenobi:
Not to mention this behavior is often driven by immigrant cultures where women are treated like the property of men.

Sorry, but not here in UK where your 3 year old would report you to the authorities for abuse and you lose your child how much more so the wife or older daughter you want to abuse by burqaing!

In fact, it is burqa wearing women who condemn those who wish to ban it the most!

Obi1kenobi:
I'm not British, but if I was, I am going to insist that if you want the privilege of sharing my society, you must assimilate to our free values.

It's true. You are not British. And if you wanted to be British, and before we let you, we will send you for education to learn our sacred values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs, and for those without faith, and then we will test you to ensure you really understand them, and then shall we consider your application. The entire thing cost £1,005, so you better think hard or waste your money!

Obi1kenobi:
No woman who appears like a letterbox with those offensive costumes would win any election in the UK.

I agree with you on this one, but I also don't think a full burqa wearing woman has won an election anywhere, so there!

Gggg102:
if there is no general standard, how do we judge one whose personal standard is completely irrational/how do we create unbiased societal laws with rational morality?

if I would answer myself, I would say rationality is a general standard since is it free from bias and objective, so we can judge/make laws from rationality.

still I would love to see your opinion.

BTW, I think there is a difference between what I see as objective and what you see as objective.

I would consider rationality as objective since it is free from bias and therefore morality gotten from rationality is objective.

Oh, I agree that rationality is somewhat objective and can be free from bias, and is adequate for accessing one's morality. Except that early this year I had a crisis of rationality (though unrelated to my morals) whereby I began questioning if I was being dishonest and rationalising the irrational.

It's something I took up years ago with my dad in the form of "lying to oneself" . Having thrashed it out for years, we concluded, that if one lies to oneself, one deludes oneself, and it is a delusion to be mindful of, hence my comment about being brutally honest with oneself, at least.

One's objectivity is something one has to be mindful of always in case personal bias creeps in. For it is very easy and commonly done to claim "Blessed am I when people hate me, when they exclude me and insult me and reject my name as evil", when the truth is, I have been being a prick all along!

Not only must one constantly try to be rational in order to maintain objectivity, one must also be honest with oneself and not lie to oneself and be diligent in checking always too.

Let me know the differences you might still see in objectivity. I'd gladly trash it out with you.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A17-26&version=NIV]Luke 6:17-26[/url]

“Blessings and Woes”

I confess that the difficulty of how I should present this portion of Luke has stumped me for so long. However, I am no clearer on what to say about it as the words speak for themself. Thankfully, I have pondered on it, and can say I have benefitted immensely from so doing. So, let me let them do what they do, is what I have decided to do, albeit with one tiny arrogant ammendment, and perhaps you would benefit too.

I, buda, looking at you all, says:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied.
Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.
Blessed are you when people hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

“Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A12-16&version=NIV]Luke 6:12-16[/url]

“You Can't Do It Alone”

Twelve, is the magic number!

Gggg102:
I can't help it. there should be a general standard. I don't know how else to put it.

I understand, trust me, and it's very noble of you. It's why I spend so much time on here trying to make the change I wish to see. And why I try to see the other person's perspective even if I disagree with it. You could not imagine how difficult it is among my own family or my own people in the Orolu Kingdom. I've spent time and money on it and almost lost my life trying, but I now understand that people have their own minds and I'm no god so "respect your limitations, buda, or you would not long meet your maker", if there is one, "for you shall be crucified" just as the Messiah who had the same idea was.

There is no general standard, my friend, and trying to impose one would only make one a tyrant, or a crucified Christ!

I think it's about time I go off and do the Beatitudes in the Gospel According to Luke!

Gggg102:
people have different meanings of the words, but there should be a most rational definition of the words that can be used as standard.

There's that "should" again, lol!

Obi1kenobi:
If your burka is that important to you, don't move to those countries and spit on their sense of social cohesion with alien behavior.

Some people in UK used to say the same thing about we black people, that our black skin was alien and we should go back to our country. The fear that we black people would take over was so rife that on 20 April 1968, British Member of Parliament Enoch Powell went on to make what is popularly known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech, leading to his dismissal from the Shadow Cabinet by Conservative Party leader Edward Heath. Now, wouldn't you call that enlightened behaviour instead of the stupid call for his ban of my black skin!?

Here's an extract from the speech:

"We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen."

Obi1kenobi:
I reject discrimination against anyone, including Muslims, but Muslims have to learn to adapt to the cultures they inhabit. They are needlessly exclusionary wherever they find themselves. The Islamic texts do not mandate anyone to wear full body veils or cover their faces. It should be an easy thing to compromise on for the sake of assimilation into foreign countries. If you're coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan or wherever, and you find yourself in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden etc, try to assimilate and interact and contribute to social cohesion, rather than putting up a wall to exclude everyone else. If your burka is that important to you, don't move to those countries and spit on their sense of social cohesion with alien behavior. These things should be common sense, but many Muslims capitalize on the liberties and generosity of their host communities in the West to seek to impose their own will. Yet, they do not compromise on their values in their own societies to outsiders.

My dear person, UK has no laws against what anyone chooses to wear! We strongly believe in the sovereignty of the individual person and would not deign to assume to legislate for such things. If people don't obey the law, we know what to do with them and would not allow anyone not to. But people, including Muslims, do obey the laws, and respect others, so a whole London with a non - majority Muslim population does not mind electing a Muslim Mayor nor does Birmingham, Leeds, Blackburn, Sheffield, Oxford, Luton, Oldham, and Rochdale! (Source), nor would we allow them to hold influential positions as shown in this list, and in no instance has anyone advocated the adoption of Islam where they rule!

Even our Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who is responsible for the internal affairs of England and Wales, and for immigration and citizenship for the United Kingdom and matters of national security, the Security Service (MI5) and who would be responsible for the banning or imposition, though part of the ruling Cabinet, is a Muslim!

I put it to you that if anyone does what some are alleging they do here in UK, we are either stupid, or the allegations are very wrong indeed and lack no merit!

Noise cannot drown out the facts and concrete evidence!

Gggg102:
I believe everyone have a scale. but not everyone uses the same scale.
my scale is a form of empathy.
others may have another scale.
a universal scale would help in progress. for example education leads to rationality and rationality causes progress.
empathy and love are good scales. my opinion is that they become the standard scale to judge all humans.

"Empathy", "love", same thing, Jesus Christ.
C.f John 14 (buda's understanding)

But people even have different meanings for those words within Christianity. How much more everyone else.

Shukuakukobambi:
A lot of possibilities

1. The crises was sponsored by those who wanted to blackmail APC so they can have a legit reason to dump the party

2. Those who decamped were being used to sponsor the crisis before and since they left, APC and buhari no longer have anyone on ground to continue the atrocities

3. Buhari wanted to use the crisis to frustrate some out of the party and he killed their people until they got tired and left

4. PDP forced the defectors to do so by killing their people so now that they've succeeded, there's no more need to continue killing the innocent citizens

Many more theories can be adduced but these are the ones that I could think up at short notice

Thank you for at least thinking. Even if you might be wrong, it's much better than jumping to some silly conclusion with no thought.

Gggg102:
we both have our subjective opinion about the text, but the objective truth about the text remains.

one of our opinion is the real truth, the other is false. or none might be true and the real truth about the text remains unchanged.

Truth is a very tricky concept. But Jesus set a good scale to measure against by the way. If "love" is lacking from any decision, opinion, and most especially, behaviour involving people, there is nothing godly in it regardless of how much "I am objective", "I believe!" or "Lord Lords" one utters.

I have found that as long as I hold that scale up to check on myself, my failure rate is significantly reduced. I know you to be patient and long suffering, so if you try it and find it works for you too, let me know so I can say I have a second opinion.

Gggg102:
seems we have reached an agreement here.

your objective opinion might sound subjective but, it remains objective. my opinion on the opinion does not change the objectivity. your opinion would be right and mine wrong even if I feel that mine is right and yours wrong.

Forgive me. I am a bit of a pedant! My opinion is subjective to me, however much I wish to claim objectivity! I can only try. But it takes another (and not my always subjective biased self) to truly determine how objective I am being according to that other as you seem to have done here so your opinion somewhat matters, provided you also attempt to be objective yourself. Just think, I could have been screaming "I am objective" all through our discussion, but all you'd have seen is my subjectivity!

Either one of us could hold the right opinion, and in some instances, both of us can. But it is up to both of us to put in the effort to see the other persons perspective without being blinded by ones own perspective which is a lens we wear that distorts reality. We must, allow our eyes to be cleaned by mud spat on by Jesus, so to speak, so that we can see.

Gggg102:
rationality can be helpful in addressing differences in subjective views, as it is the most devoid of bias. I think rationality is objective (enough) to make morality objective (enough). still, will everyone or a majority agree to base their morality on rationality so that morality would be more consistent?

Oh, look at us lol! When you and I began discussing we were biased, irrational, subjective and an ape jumped in too and distorted everything. But now here we are, patiently and diligently reasoning with one another and seeing each others subjective perspective.

Everyone will not base their morality on rationality, or the proper rationale for that matter, because everyone is different. And you will not have consistency either. People would always be people and some will insist on taking undue advantage. That is why objective laws are passed. Whatever morals an individual chooses to live by must remain between the legality of the law or we all shall agree they shall be arrested and punished.

The more knowledgeable people understand that the more advanced the individual's in a society are, the more capable of reasoning they become and the more rationale their laws will become too. It's why the more advanced nations spend a lot of money on educating their people so as to reduce ignorance. The fewer the ignorant people in a society, the more wiser the society becomes; the more their ability to reason increases the more rationally they behave.

It is at that point that a God would have said "let there be light!" And there will indeed be light, and everyone will see, and it will be good.

Gggg102! My atheist self feels like saying "Let us pray"!

Gggg102:
if better is determined rationally, then the one where it is legal is.

No! I'm not having you go lazy on me now after all this work we've been doing!

How please did you come to this conclusion?

Gggg102:
we both have our subjective opinion about the text, but the objective truth about the text remains.

one of our opinion is the real truth, the other is false. or none might be true and the real truth about the text remains unchanged.

Possibly. But one of us would like to claim their subjective opinion about the text is the real truth. So you know what each of us does? We both show the fruits of our opinions and let providence, or our impatience, decide.

Take the laws on homosexuality in the two nations we've mentioned for instance. Now look at the "fruits" of each nation. Which is better?

Gggg102:
you did not change the meaning.

stripping of all personal bias makes a conclusion objective.
what makes something subjective is that it is subject to personal bias.

so is rationality an objective standpoint(even if not 100% objective)?.

Thanks. We try to be objective. It is more a matter of degrees than 100%. And then that trying is according to one's subjective self, and one has to bear that in mind.

Take me, for instance. Objectively speaking from my subjective position, God's, are figments of the imagination. But, does that statement not come across to you as my subjective opinion? I can assure you, and as we've both shown here so far, that whatever evidence I throw your way to prove my objectivity would sound subjective to you and vice versa. You can't impose your subjective objectivity on me, and I can't impose my subjective objectivity on you. So what do we do, since we have to remain neighbours?

Herein comes the realisation that Christ made and many other enlightened people like him, and which many have missed despite so much teachings. We have to become "born again" as in literally abandon our preconceived ideas and biased subjective opinions and look at things afresh.

My neighbour may worship satan according to my subjective opinion, for instance, but how does that affect me if they do not make me worship their satan, or negatively affect my existence in any way by their worship? Yes, it is true that if I worship say Yahweh, I would believe that I may be punished for my father sins generations over, but surely my Yahweh will not punish me for my neighbours sins, or would he? If not, I can just go ahead and love my neighbour as much as I love myself and let my neighbours live as they chose to live barring breaking the law and murdering me or stealing from me and the likes. My God Yahweh will deal with their asses themselves, though, I should not even think like that if Yahweh were truly my God, for his Son said I shouldn't!

I haven't quite focused on the issue of rationality of objectivity here, but you might see how attempting to be rationale alone might help me and my neighbour. After all, my Yahweh has promised me I'll reap whatever I sow, so I better sow love my neighbours way so I'll hopefully reap love from them in return. I know if I hate them, they are less likely to love me in return, that's for sure!

Gggg102:
the humptydumptyism is not my concern for now.

to Christians, god does not lie. that is an objective fact for Christians.

so if god said Adam and eve will die if they ate the fruit, then they definitely died. god does not lie.

they might not know the definition of the death, but since it is an objective statement that god doesn't lie, then Adam and eve definitely died.

Well, just understand that your approach is from your subjective position that God wrote the Bible.

Someone else might argue from a different subjective position that human beings wrote the Bible to explain reality and that in placing Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden and telling them to work and not eat of one of the most valuable trees in the Garden, that those in charge were keeping them as slaves.

Then comes along their saviour, described as a serpent by the evildoers, telling them their supposed "God" lied, and just wanted to keep them as slaves, and that if they just knew about Good and Evil, they would be free to become like those they think are "Gods".

And so they ate of the Fruit and their eyes indeed opened and they in effect learnt of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the Gods knowing the difference between the two and went on to make laws that they themselves may live by. And only now do we reach up by the might of the "Lord Jesus the Christ" (love, wisdom and knowledge) to feed on the Fruit of the Tree of Life so that we may life eternal life.

See, same text, just a different way of looking at it and therefore understanding it.

Gggg102:
I would prefer an objective one. morality that is consistent irrespective of of human subjectivity.

But it doesn't exist! However much you prefer it! And even God knows this, confirmed with his 1+1≠2!

You ask for too much Gggg102.

Gggg102:
how do you determine the validity of a rationale.
one's decision might be completely irrational but since morality is subjective, they can apply any rationale they wish, either valid or invalid.

or is validity of a rationale some kind of objective standpoint on which one can judge morality?

I shall call this a point of progress. As in, we have leapt forward.

Let me rephrase your question. But tell if I have changed you meaning from what you mean.

"How does one determine the validity of a rationale decision?"

It's not exactly how I would have put the question, but I'm trying to stick with you own phraseology, so there.

The short answer is a simple, "that the decision be rationally arrived at". And by that, is meant, that personal bias is completely eliminated in the decision making.

Science attempts to do this with the application of the Scientific Method. Business attempts it too by doing a well thought out business plan, and we humans can generally do it by eliminating our preconceived ideas, opinions, beliefs etc from the decision making.

[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes?wprov=sfla1]Rene Descarte[/url] is the one I'd point to as a lesson of how to go about it. He attempted to strip himself of preconceived ideas so as to come to a single underlying reality of existence. But in coming to the conclusion cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), he failed to eliminate his subjective self and realise more objectively that "I am, therefore I think", which goes to show the difficulty in being objective. But I ramble.

Please reconsider rephrasing what you've said above a little clearer so I don't misunderstand what you mean.

Gggg102:
I am comparing how things should be versus how they are.

to me, in an ideal world, stealing would be bad irrespective of your opinion as an individual or a society.
I. e stealing is always bad.

in reality, the morality of stealing is determined by individuals in form of societal consensus, to be whatever they wish it to be.
I. e stealing may be good today and bad tomorrow.

Good. But mind that in the real world where subjective individuals operate, morality, and the law to some extent, is subjective, as you know, since it is determined by subjective individuals for subjective individuals.

Gggg102:
a Christian would say they did die. afterall, god does not lie.

death might not have been present in the world before the disobedience.

death might have been spiritual I. e cut off from god.

a Christian would assert that they died.

Indeed a Christian would say so. But I would say they are trying to make a banana an apple, or doing what vaxx did and which you opposed at the time, changing the underlying meaning of the words used in that law as I did with my "If 1 really equalled 937, and 2 = ⅛ and + really meant multiply and = meant minus". For they did not surely die but "became like us, knowing the difference between good and evil"! Or would you not agree that the Christian is attempting to claim that their subjective view is objective?

Objectively speaking, God's very first 1+1 did not equal 2 unless one changes the well known meaning of the words used in that law. We atheists call it humptydumptyism, and have little regard for such nonsense!

Please stop accusing me of disrespecting you by disregarding the immense amount of effort you apply in responding to me! The fact that I bother to respond back, hopefully respectfully, should be enough to disabuse you of any such ideas!

Gggg102:
I said that morality is subjective realistically but it should be objective ideally.

We all wish we lived in an "ideal should world". Thieves would not exist, no one would be murdered, everyone would have enough to eat and we'd all have proper functioning minds in my "should" world. But I live in the real world where no amount of "shoulds" apply apart from my own powers to make it so.

Morality could be spoken about in an "ideal should" sense. But the morals of subjective individuals is not subject to such pie in the sky notions. By golly, do even I fail to morally live up to the ideal I cook up in my head, how much less can others live up to my ideals! I can't impose my "should" on your morality, and nor can you impose your's on me. We both have the willpower to make choices for ourselves and do.

Do let me know if we are talking about how things "should" be as opposed to how they really are. I'm sure I can be sufficiently versatile as to somehow imagine a world where pigs fly.

Gggg102:
as truth is irrelevant, anything can become moral and anything can become moral. there is no right or wrong in what is moral or what is immoral. this is my point exactly.

one's morality cannot be righter than the other.

a society that believes homosexuality is moral and one that believes it is immoral are equally right.

They may be equally "right", but that in no way implies "truth"! Nor are both societies equally moral or immoral in this instance. The rational reasons for either's stance have to be considered before one jumps to such a conclusion.

In UK, a nation that has a whole lot of history condemning homosexuality, it has been found that the fact that a person is a homosexual does not make them a bad person or a threat to society. A look back at how laws banning homosexuality have been implemented have also shown how ridiculous it is to police those who engage in the act. Then there's the harm that has been done by accusing homosexuals of being immoral and imprisoning them. And there's the fact that resources that are best used elsewhere are wasted in finding, judging and imprisoning homosexuals. And there's the bigotry promoted against homosexuals for having such laws! And besides, being a nation of Christian heritage, should one really be casting stones at homosexuals when the stone casters themselves commit sins of their own which may be doing way much more harm than the homosexuals do? UK determined that the answers to these questions all fall in the negative so they made a decision to abandon such laws on moral grounds.

Nigeria, I am sure have their own reasons for instigating such laws about a hundred years after UK abandoned it. But who out of the two nations, is right depends on the subjective view and criteria of the person deciding. And in my subjective position Nigeria is wrong, and in your subjective opinion UK is wrong. But I expect Nigeria to behave the way they have, after all, Nigeria, to date has not imprisoned a single person for homosexuality, which does not mean people do not engage in homosexuality in Nigeria. Nor does Nigeria have any historical data on homosexuality, which goes to show how difficult and absurd it is to assume to police people's bedrooms! I expect this silly law that Nigeria has passed against homosexuality would lapse for this very reason.

Nothing 'true' applies apart from the validity of the rationale behind their decisions.

Gggg102:
=bad.

Let me help you. The =2 is specifically that "for when you eat from it you will certainly die" !

Now, tell did Adam and Eve die when they disobeyed God and ate of the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil"?

Did God's 1+1 actually =2 here?

Gggg102:
god made the law that eating from the tree is bad.
the serpent convinced them that eating from the tree is good.

assuming morality is subjective, eating of the tree would be good because that is their new opinion about the tree. they made eating from the tree moral. they made 1+1 to equal 3 as there is no fixed standard that give 1+1=2.

but since god was a standard, eating of the tree was bad even though they believed it was good. they can't make eating from the tree moral. same way they can't make 1+1 to equal 3.

Just state what in that law could be the =2 first please, so we know you understand!

What was the =2?

Gggg102:
there are two underlying assumptions in my argument.
1. the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists.

2. the existence of god is not an objective reality I. e god doesn't exist.

There is only one assumption in the position you have held all through this discussion and we both know that it is "the existence of god is an objective reality. I. e god actually exists". You don't need to deny it nor try and make out it isn't, you will fail!

However, it is not a premise I share, and would propose a separate thread be started if you have the desire to engage in a discussion of it. You know I'm good for it and never tire.

My position regarding gods, in case you don't know, is clearly stated and goes as follows:

"Gods are the figments of the imaginations of those who create them in their minds. Gods do not exist outside the minds that create them."

Do note the various references to the "subjective" in that statement please! And also, that it is my subjective opinion!