₦airaland Forum

Pussyisgud:
I mean budaatum your moniker

"Mean", is the wrong word to describe it. Stand for, or represent, or signify, would be more accurate.

buda signifies a fruit eating Bodhisattva.

Atum is an Egyptian god.

Now, do some alchemy.

helinues:
@ emboldened is just one of the reasons why I I said real good life for average people in Nigeria is questionable even with money. You have the money to buy something but it's not available.

The internet providers would also tell you they have unlimited monthly package which by 25th , they would tell you it expired not to talk of bad network sometimes.

Oga bank still dey there oo, ATM palavas, bank queuing on the money you struggle to save

Why must you use internet when you can be engaging with those around you?

And why must you even use atm when you can stuff your money under your mattress?

My point is, you are complaining that you can't live a certain kind of life you need to struggle for instead of just live the life you can live, and my sympathy for you is zilch.

Dude, please! You got legs, so walk!

Xavier5:
So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

I never said you were "objectively wrong" (another subjective misrepresentation of yours!), because you can't exactly be objectively right or wrong when you are subjectively stating your subjective opinion just as I am.

Your statements made me cringe because they were jumbled up word salad that made no cogent sense, and would require detailed discussion to flesh out, which this thread is the wrong place for due to its inherent subjectivity.

Just think. My Lord asked for a thread on your view on abortion, indicating he intends to discuss it in depth, and your response made me question your understanding of objectivity and subjectivity, which alone would generate like 5 pages of to and fro. Do you seriously think that can objectively be discussed here, especially when you seem not to understand what you read and claim one said what one never said?

You might as well ask us to discuss in Oyingbo market, which is not what serious people will do unless they want to confuse poor basilico instead of seek to understand one another.

Please know that the only reason I did engage you is because you claimed to be liberal, which you defined as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", but you have shown you can be untruthful, and you haven't exactly reasoned, and you are not open minded at all not to talk of all those other grand words you listed, which I'm doubting apply to you or do like hot is 0⁰C.

And on this note, Ijebos, please accept my most sincere and profound apology. I was speaking theoretically, but you were right where this individual is concerned, and I was very very wrong.

For your information, Xavier5, dogs don't sleep on this thread, because someone is bound to kick you awake whether you like it or not, so long as you post here.

helinues:
The definition of good life even with money in Nigeria is questionable

I disagree. Good life is living contentedly, which one can do with little money.

What's 'good' for you is not necessarily what's 'good' for all. But then you are not a Buddhist, and likely know nothing of Dharma.

Pussyisgud:
What's the meaning of badaatum

I haven't got a clue what badaatum means.

Is this all average Nigerian you do, you very lucky git?

Most Nigerians are not average, and this is in no way their routine. Most of us must find time to go shop for food and queue for petrol and educate our children and ensure they do their homework, and we must have time to deal with the unforeseen wahalas and joys that come our way, and sort out our side gig too or we will starve.

There's also that irritating neighbour we must deal with, and the extended family who turn up unannounced and whom we can't avoid.

Xavier5:
So if I'm not objectively wrong, why did my statement make you cringe?

This is the American Politics thread, Xavier, and most don't appreciate it being derailed.

Start a thread.

LordReed:
His definition of Liberalism already had me shaking my head so vigorously it was about to pop off my neck.

I accepted his definition myself because he gave one, my Lord, but what he's done on this his latest is just throw out an incoherent word salad and think he was making sense. And to make it worse and cover up, he strawmans and gaslights, which is a clear sign of a lack of objectivity and the unawareness of his own subjectivity.

He in fact makes me feel I should go and apologise to Ijebos whom I think felt I was defending humptydumtyism when I was merely pointing humptydumtyism out.

Xavier5:
Okay, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry if truly you're not an Absolute Subjectivist 😊

Now back to the question I asked, what is it I said that makes you think I'm objectively wrong? This is like the fourth time I'm asking this questions... if I'm not mistaken 🤨

I never said you were "objectively wrong", Xavier5, so your question is strawmanning and not worth answering.

What I specifically said was your "universal objectivity is making me cringe". And the truth is the entire post made me cringe, and having discussed with you so far, I cringe even more.

If you can not see the object I wrote in words, and instead input your subjective understanding and then claim I said what I never said, I find it difficult to accept you can conceive of an objectivity that is universal. And that's apart from us not getting to the point where I ask what you mean by "universal objectivity", which I would for starts as soon as you or my Lord create a thread for the discussion of your post.

No one is an "Absolute Subjectivist", whatever that means. No matter how subjective one wants to be and make up crap in one's head and believe it, as I call it, the objective reality will quickly awaken you from your subjective slumber, just as the objective reality of what I said has awakened you from the subjective slumber you claimed I said. Basically, alternative subjective made up facts are not objective facts.

And no one is an absolute objectivist neither, as the mere fact that we are subjects precludes us being that objective, as you've already shown.

Subjectivity and objectivity are subjects that interest me due to their complexity, as you must have seen from my thread on the subject, so I'm curious when I find minds I think might sharpen mine. I can live with the disappointment though.

budaatum:
Baby tomato, ketchup!

Xavier5:
Somethings are subjective, but you cringed at my "objectivity" statements. Is that not you subscribing to the idea that everything is subjective?

But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry.

Really, Xavier5, "But let's say I'm wrong, I made it up, I'm sorry"?

No, lets not say you are wrong. Admit you are wrong if you were wrong! That's the objective thing to do, considering you repeated that lie and others more than once!

And be aware that buda does not entertain the dishonest and the intellectually lazy.

Xavier5:
So everything is no longer subjective, ....

When did I claim everything is subjective such that you can input on me that I changed my mind?

Xavier5:
You've not answered any of my questions, I see you're trying to avoid them. Always typical of relativist. Contradict themselves, and avoid the questions.

Now, if everything is subjective, .......

I see that you not only label yourself, you also like labeling others.

You question is strawmanning! Show me where I claimed "everything is subjective" before you "if" me!

Xavier5:
What is objective evidence if everything is subjective? 😏

Everything is not subjective! The post you are currently reading which contains my subjective thought is very objectively in front of your subjective face!

Xavier5:
And isn't the statement that "everything is subjective" subjective also? So what's the truth in that?

I see you've put "everything is subjective" in quotation marks. Is that to imply I said somewhere that "everything is subjective"?

Show where if so, as I can't find it. And please note that if I never said so, its the second and a half time you've claimed I said what I never said.

Xavier5:
Secondly, so your problem with all I said is because I briefly brought in religion

No, your religion is not my problem. And in fact, nothing about your post is a problem for me.

Your use of words like subjective and objective was of bigger interest than your religion, along with a lot else. But now you've gone and added assumptions to your subjectivity, i actually have no more interest unless in a thread of its own.

Xavier5:
Is this an objective claim or a subjective one? 🤔

#Xavier

The fact it's a claim made by a subject makes it a subjective claim based on the objective evidence before me that you subjectively provided.

How objective subject you see my claim is entirely up to subjective you.

Xavier5:
The topic of objectivity is a discussion for another day, but when we get to that, I just hope you have good reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY whose opposing view makes you "cringe" 😏.

And for the record, I'm not pro absolute objectivity, because in life we have both objective and subjective morality and truth. But when the time comes for such discuss, we will have it.

Secondly, religion indeed... despite Xavier staying secular. Religion was briefly brought in to give further details, but the explanation reverted back to secular, and stays that way.


#Xavier

Do note that you are asking me for "reasons for your ABSOLUTE SUBJECTIVITY", which I never said I have except for this one particular instance.

A religious person can not stay secular, or at least you certainly haven't! By your own admission, and as is clearly obvious in your post, you reverted after diverting, and if this is what you did with your liberalism, I can see why Ijebos went off on one with you, and I'm very tempted too.

An objective person would know the subjectivity of this thread makes it impossible to objectively discuss either here.

Baby tomato, ketchup!

dawnomike:
Raise the buba behind you and sit on the trouser... That way, if you get to sit on a dirty chair or what have you, your buba will cover your dirty backside.

Also, the wear and tear of constantly sitting on your trouser bum will be hidden by the buba and agbada and prolong the attires use.

LordReed:
OK. Go ahead, tell me your reasons for holding your position on abortion.

My Lord I hope you form a thread with Xavier5's response so it can properly be considered. Preferably in the religious section where it rightly belongs!

His "universal objectivity" is making me cringe.

WhizdomXX:
Obama is known for choosing older white men to support younger black candidates.

Is "Obama is known" your reason for not crediting Kamala with a brain of her own?

njelrapheal:
let me ask. what is a strong woman. or rather who is a strong woman? were our mothers strong women?

Part answer for the first is below. Part because that's not all a strong woman is.

Answer to the second is, my mother and my sisters. I'd include myself, but I might be lying.

And answer to the third is, yes to my mother is strong and hopefully, or rather I bet, yes to your mother is strong too, making "our mothers". Can't say for everyone else's mother though, as some mothers are dogs, as one can tell from the pigs and bîtches they spawn.

And yes, my own very subjective perspective with no objectivity whatsoever.

Do you know that Obama once spent 200million a day on a trip to India?

FEMA does not have enough money to provide disaster assistance for Helene.

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response

This is what happens to 'hot is 0°C' people, and I can't say its not deserved.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-truth-social-riddled-with-scammers-ripping-off-users-report

https://gizmodo.com/truth-social-users-are-losing-ridiculous-sums-of-money-to-scams-2000506604

Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom

basilico:
Obrigardo. Ijebos. Budaatum.

I'm making an assertion. Obama is the one who selected Tim Walz as Kamala Harris running mate.

Don't say you are making an assertion when the truth is, you are conspiracising.

Former President Barack Obama has expressed his support for Vice President Kamala Harris' decision to select Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.
https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-reacts-after-tim-walz-named-vp-1935365

Looks like you unequally yoked and should have yoked with a person who yokes like you want to yoke and are now trying to yoke him like you.

Goodluck with that, or unyoke yourself from your desires or unyoke yourself from him.

basilico:
In the beginning there there was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
You long post e reminds me of that verse.

As it rightly should. Though I'm actually saying the exact opposite. That in the beginning there were sub-humans, sub to denote their inability to speak. And then they evolved and formed words and language in order to communicate.

The difference in view is you see from a creationist perspective while I see evolution.

njelrapheal:
your two statements are contradictory. maybe you should explain what you mean by 'strong men'. and why can a weak woman love a strong woman if by your logic, she would not know what to do with him. unless you agree there are clear differences between a man and a woman which applies to the core formation of human civilization.

For the bold, respect. For reason, see here.

Contradiction? buda is guilty

And a correction. I never said "weak woman love a strong woman", though that's not exactly impossible.

"Strong men", in context used, is wealthy man, bold man, masculine man, struts his diq with multiple women, and to be exact, or in my opinion, is weak man

Strong man can also be loyal man. Think dad, I assume, who never cheats and sticks with his one wife.

I do however accept your "stronger man" definition.

njelrapheal:
why cant I also say a strong man stands up for himself and a stronger man stands up for everyone else. I mean through out human civilizations, strong men who stood up for others brought about freedom from oppression.

Indeed you can say "a strong man stands up for himself and a stronger man stands up for everyone", and no one, least not me, would stop you. But if I were to say the exact same thing, I'd say the weak man stands up for himself while the strong man stands up for everyone else.

As for difference between man and woman, I guess that's clear, as I haven't yet seen a pregnant man bar one, or perhaps two.

IjeBos:
All fair and well but at some point we have to have a generalized understanding of words to communicate.

We can not have a generalized understanding of words, I don't think, since we aren't all walking around with the same dictionary, which makes that "some point" when words one uses are understood in the context in which they are used.

I, for instance, am very well known for using words in a non-conventional way. I'd say things like "handmaid's tailing" to illustrate a point, and you'd understand where I'm going because you understand the reference, but as you well know, some wouldn't have a clue what I'm saying and go humptydumpty on me, claiming I said what I never said. Now, if only they'd ask for a definition or clarification instead of assuming what one meant, but that would involve admitting they don't know what I meant, and the gods have forbidden the admittion of ignorance, it seems.

Words, at least complex words, and moreso, complex conversations, are hardly generalized, is my point, so one must put in some effort to understand what one hears instead of assuming they're talking dictionary. This, afterall, is the American Politics thread, where lying dump is the only honest person for some, and maths is racist, and is the reason I don't let the thread's idiot occupy my time too much.

IjeBos:
And I posit that if your arguments rests on "words mean what one says they mean", it's probably not a winning argument. but ey.

And here's a classic example of you assuming what I meant instead of understanding what I said. And to be honest, its why you and I argue so much.

I never said "words mean what one says they mean", or at least that's not what I meant. But if I give you my definition of a word, you should at least consider my use of the word as I've defined it if I have. That in no way means words must mean what I say they mean, since it is very possible I'm ignorant and just talking from my ass or intentionally using words in my convoluted way.

An example is if I define hot as 0 °C. You could bother arguing that is not hot, but I'm very certain you'd not bother making tea with my "hot" water despite all my protesting, and might just watch me make a fool of myself serving tea with my 0°C 'hot water'. It in no way means hot water must be 0°C for smarter more knowledgeable you now, does it, since words don't mean what I say they mean, but whenever I say hot, I'm certain you'd know I ignorantly mean cold.

Xavier5 defined his liberal values as "truth, reasoning, progressiveness, open mindedness, liberty, human rights and value, equality, democracy etc", and the only argument is if one wants to claim he's none of those things, which one would need evidence for, and which I don't think we have apart from his support for slimy Vivek I suppose, slimy being my own subjective opinion.

Words are hardly objective, is my point here, so one must consider the subject's subjective use of words too if one wants to understand what others are saying, least if one cares.

IjeBos:
But what I do see quite frequently nowadays are people saying stuff like "I'm a Democrat but" than take a 180 degree opposite stance.
My antenna goes up when I hear that.

And good for you and your antenna. But why should I or anyone care about your antenna, especially if, after all is said and done, I go and vote blue, or even vote red?

Consider the flip side. A certain Ms Cheney is a Republican, but I hear she's campaigning for Kamala. Would you argue she's gone Blue therefore, and is no more a Republican?

IjeBos:
Why can't one just argue their positions and views, without labeling themselves?

Because we live in a labelling world, I'm afraid, where labelling is simpler.

If left to me, I'd label myself buda, but you must have heard me labelled all sorts here. Thankfully, labels don't stick because I don't care what idiots think or say, probably because my antenna is made in China. And by China, I mean fake, with apologies for the ignorant stereotype.

And on that point, I've just discovered Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom. The first line is "I never said Barack Obama is a socialist", but that seems to be what was heard. The question was then asked, "do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or an Independent?" And the answer was, "I consider myself a New York Jets fan, Steven". I think I'm going to enjoy this series.

She's free fuq it seems, or at least can become free fuq, though I'd personally be concerned at what she sells me unless I condomised her.

The following comes to mind. I thought of choosing a line for you, but just about every one fit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hx4gdlfamo

njelrapheal:
why is it one sided. a weak woman cant love a strong man.

You have a point, but I must disagree, as "strong men" do tend to mostly have more than one weak woman loving them.

The women who are not weak often have that strong man to themselves. And he is even stronger because she is beside him.

IjeBos:
Liberalism is an ideology. An ideology has tenets/beliefs.

Have you not heard of humptydumtyism, where words mean exactly what one says they mean? It wouldn't be a thing if everyone lived by one recognised dictionary and word meaning.

IjeBos:
Do you think if you don't align with those tenets/beliefs of an ideology, that you can say you are part of that ideology?

Like I can't call myself a Christian despite not loving my neighbour and murdering her husband whom I covet and not believing in Christ? I wish humans were that logical.

You yourself mentioned Bush's "compassionate conservatism". I went further and looked up "fascist liberal" for its sake and was rather surprised, though its just the title of a book. Liberal conservative surprised me much less. I've after all heard some define liberalism as socialism, and even communism.

Words may matter to one, but it is, in my opinion, illiberal to assume words matter or must matter equally to everyone else. Such thinking leaves no room for idiots and fools who don't know what words mean and those who just see things different to how oneself might.

And I repeat. I'm not talking about anyone here in particular, but people, generally.

Humans cultures that had no atheism had no thinking people. Such cultures likely accepted their gods from, or just copied, others, and are more like ignorant Adam in the Garden of Eden, and not at all like disbelieving Eve who used her own senses to free them both from slavery. Such cultures today don't produce much technology or ideas, and are more likely to yell "Nepa!", than "there is light", as light production requires brain use.

Atheist meant, not accepting the prevailing state theos, and people who didn't accept the state's theos have always existed everywhere, despite their suppression, as no one can stop people using their own minds, thank Gods.