₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
Bro, this is not law
No need to argue stupidly as u do
Go and check ICD, (thats if u know what it means)
they are classified.
Stop deceiving yourself

See, as always all mouth and nothing to back it up with.

Wilgrea7:
Hopefullandlord must be happy right now

Why?

felixomor:
Haha haha.
This guy is ignorant.
Incase u dont know, cancers caused by human papiloma virus are now full blown STds
Fully classified

Please educate yourself

Papilloma virus is what is transmitted, not everyone​ that has papilloma virus will develop cancers, so, no, cancer is not transmitted sexually.
Hepatocellular carcinoma should be in the list too since Hepatitis B and C are also transmitted sexually.
Rubbish.

felixomor:
Oh so its now a risk factor,
I thought it was no where near with the way u were shouting before.
And for your info, risk factor can be the cause of a disease.
Once other etiologies are excluded.

I pity u sha.
U thought u found something today again.

Risk factor is etiology? I'm done bro.

felixomor:
You can see your mouth is changing now?
As usual ba?
Please can heterosexuality transmitt rectal ca?
You see how your argument is exposing u now?

And cancer is not transmitted Sexually.
What have you been smoking? Bath salts?

felixomor:
You can see your mouth is changing now?
As usual ba?
Please can heterosexuality transmitt rectal ca?
You see how your argument is exposing u now?

My mouth change? Nigga you're delusional.
Homosexuality is a RISK FACTOR for anal cancer, not a cause. Heterosexual people also have anal cancer.
By your logic, being white is a cause of skin cancers.
Nigga, there's a difference between etiology and risk factor, try and understand this.
Maybe them no teach you am for your Medical school

felixomor:
HopefulLandlord my student
And 3 idiots: CatfishBilly, adepeter26 and akintom

Learn diseases associated with homosexuals here
https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm

Felix, stop doing this to your self.
Every disease that could be gotten through homosexual sex can also be transmitted through heterosexual sex.
The common factor is SEX.
I know say you dey claim doctor, act like one naa, I beg you. This your display of ignorance is getting too much. I'm ashamed for you. If shame no dey catch you, e dey catch me for you.

felixomor:
Just shift abeg.
If you dont know the relationship between homosexuality and Human papiloma virus and other cancer linked organizms and HIV sorry,
I will not take the pain to educate u here.

Sorry

See, don't even start. I'll just disgrace you here you and your half baked medical education.
Take your L in peace and just go.
Fuckinggggg retardddd.

adepeter26:
what do you expect before Dr CatFishBilly from an emeritus who allegedly and confidently claimed & said the brain does sleep....

Homosexualism is among factors that induces cancer of the sleeping/hibernating brain.

Billy, better go and read your pathology again or better still, plead with Dr Felix to borrow you his own Robins

Lmao.
See as Felixomor take kill this thread with his rubbish.
Thread that had potential for Intelligent discourse.
He totally killed it.
[s]I'm sure KingEbukasBlog is terribly ashamed of him[/s]

felixomor:
And i guess homosexuality that causes HIV and cancer are not public hazards in that same country?

Anyways, these things have been foretold.


John 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

Homosexuality causes HIV and cancer? Felix why naa? Why are you doing this to us? It's not fair ooo.
Adepeter26, akintom, randomperson, realmindz, dalaman our favorite Nairaland "doctor" is at it again

After going through KingEbukasBlog posts, there's only one conclusion. God of the gaps is the only argument he has, nothing else.
The summary of his posts are It has to be God, then he'll go right ahead and make up qualities for his imaginary creator including being immaterial (what the fuckkkkkkk does that even mean?) and all his jargons.

And for you to put up this, seems like it's only God of the gaps argument that you have going for you and it's been shredded continuously, that is why you put up this lame defense.

God of the gaps argument is a lazy cop out.
Since that gap has been filled with God, it will prevent critical thinking, analysis and experiments using our natural world to fill those gaps.
That's why people who are in search of knowledge/want to know, reject the God of the gaps argument.
Imagine it like this, if the whole world thought that malaria was from God and refused to carry out research to find out the cause because it's been attributed to God, odds are you won't be alive to type this.

From the evidences and testimonies, it's pretty evident that Nairaland debates made a lot of people embrace their lack of belief.
So, the debates should continue and let everyone reading think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

dalaman:
As much as it pains you, but many atheist don't beleive in evolution. These are scientific postulations not atheistic ones. The Catholic church for example accepts evolution as the process their God used to create the diversity of life and living things we see around us.

I do not know how Matter came about. You claim you do so why don't you tell us?

And God said, let there be matter and there was matter.

I had my doubts about religion.
Reading Nairaland debates/arguments especially Hardmirror and Lennycool made me embrce it, made me become more confident with my ideology and belief (lack thereof)

martinsfm:
This is an argument that wont end, lets just see when we all die, who believed the truth, atheist or theist....if truly God doesnt exist, I havent lost anything serving him....cos he doesnt ask me for anything...

Not even demanding you worship him else he'll burn you for eternity? Is that one not demanding?

The fear indoctrinated in them won't let them.

Stewie101:
How do animals practice morality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk
Check this out and tell me what you think.

Stewie101:
So the justification for what's morality correct is more of what society deems as morally permissible than an individual's personal view of morality as it applies to him, based on his uncontrolled inability to conform to the shared basis that informs the general public's notion on morality?

I tend to see certain problems with this idea. Let's use a hypothetical psychopathic sexual sadist as the focus of our debate. As you know, a sexual sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on other humans and this need is entirely not within his control. And as you rightly stated, due to his psychopathic characteristics, he'd also lack the ability to express empathy for his intended victims. Now, going by your argument, isn't it a clash of moral values, if the promotion of a certain moral value, violates another moral value, since society also espouses the moral value of not infringing on the happiness others?

And isn't your argument implictly nested in the notion that the moral values that society promotes are the values that are founded upon traits that are expressed by majority of the population, excluding amd stigmatizing that of the fringe minority?

And I also find that the pathologizing of certain traits like psychopathy and redefining it as an anomaly, and even constructing moral systems that disfavor and completely criminalize the behaviors expressed by these individuals by dint of traits that are predominant in society, a bit problematic. Because if this is the case, and hypothetically, say hundreds of years into the future humans evolved a new brain structure that promotes psychopathic traits, which leads to the prevalence of these kind of traits over empathic traits, across global populations, under the framework of your argument, it would be morally permissible to kill.

What if I told you that animals exhibit morality?

Mind or brain capabilities?

MZLady39:
Brother,
You definitely blow your "own" trumpet...loud & clear.
I'm surprised you don't need earplugs....

See what you did there, I did.
Savage, you are.
Damn girl, you just killed him

There you have it ladies and gentlemen, never allow ebuka and Felix into a thread where intelligent discussions are ongoing, they'll derail it like they've just done.

KingEbukasBlog:
Seriously man you really have a problem with comprehension . Why would anyone even think that God created Sarin , a chemical weapon ? Sir , Dalaman see your people Come carry them comot abeg

You're no different from Felix. Caught in your lie and now you're running up and down.

KingEbukasBlog:
MAN (who is conscious and intelligent ) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same as cars and generators . You clearly missed the point



This guy . I am saying one thing and you are saying something entirely different .

Sarin was intelligently designed by man? This is your quote.

Sarin is a dangerous chemical weapon and was recently used by President Assad on the Syrians . Because it has devastating effects on the health therefore Sarin is not a product of intelligent design ?

If you still insist that with this quote, you were arguing for man as the intelligent designer, then you're a bigger liar than I thought.
When has man made inventions been ever described as intelligent design in history?

KingEbukasBlog:
*faceplam*

You missed the point or feigning ignorance like the rest of them . And where did I that Sarin was designed by God

Fine tuning of the universe of the existence of intelligent life means that the range of life-permitting values of a constant or quantity are so precise that it is impossible or highly irrational to assume that they are a product of chance or even physical necessity . Plus , the universe was not designed solely for human life or for earth , you presumed so . Your carcass is food for the vulture ; your carcass is food for bacteria ; your carcass when it decays would make the soil fertile for crops to grow well on . You are part of the cycle of life . The universe does not revolve around human life neither is it centered on it . Your loss is another's gain . Think before you pontificate .

Sarin was intelligently designed, your words, by who? Don't go shifting the goal posts on me now.



The mass extinction events and the impact of the asteroids affected only humans abi?
The things theists say, man.
Just stop, you'll just embarrass yourself further if you continue speaking.

KingEbukasBlog:
Let me deign to your level and think like you just this once . Our cars generators produce carbon mono oxide which is deleterious to our health . Because this harmful gas released as waste can even kill us therefore cars , generators have no creators ?

Sarin is a dangerous chemical weapon and was recently used by President Assad on the Syrians . Because it has devastating effects on the health therefore Sarin is not a product of intelligent design ?



Its an honor to be in the same category with felixomor . Thank you

Carbon monoxide is poisonous when inhaled in large doses, only an idiot would stick his nose in an exhaust pipe or stay in a room not well ventilated to inhale the fumes. In your analogy above, the human has to make a conscious effort to get killed.
Unless God designed asteroids and mass extinction events as a waste product, then he isn't really an intelligent designer. There's no conscious effort on our part, you'll just be sleeping with your wife, bang, an asteroid hits you and you're dead.

And, no, sarin wasn't intelligently designed by God, humans beat him to it and it was designed to bring death in multiples.
See, don't say things you don't know.

Stewie101:
So the justification for what's morality correct is more of what society deems as morally permissible than an individual's personal view of morality as it applies to him, based on his uncontrolled inability to conform to the shared basis that informs the general public's notion on morality?

I tend to see certain problems with this idea. Let's use a hypothetical psychopathic sexual sadist as the focus of our debate. As you know, a sexual sadist derives pleasure from inflicting pain on other humans and this need is entirely not within his control. And as you rightly stated, due to his psychopathic characteristics, he'd also lack the ability to express empathy for his intended victims. Now, going by your argument, isn't it a clash of moral values, if the promotion of a certain moral value, violates another moral value, since society also espouses the moral value of not infringing on the happiness others?

And isn't your argument implictly nested in the notion that the moral values that society promotes are the values that are founded upon traits that are expressed by majority of the population, excluding amd stigmatizing that of the fringe minority?

And I also find that the pathologizing of certain traits like psychopathy and redefining it as an anomaly, and even constructing moral systems that disfavor and completely criminalize the behaviors expressed by these individuals by dint of traits that are predominant in society, a bit problematic. Because if this is the case, and hypothetically, say hundreds of years into the future humans evolved a new brain structure that promotes psychopathic traits, which leads to the prevalence of these kind of traits over empathic traits, across global populations, under the framework of your argument, it would be morally permissible to kill.

Like I pointed earlier, I said my view would raise more debates and that is exactly what you're doing right now.
The legal framework of what's morally acceptable is rooted in empathy, but it's also a democracy, what the majority says, that's what would be adopted.
It sucks, yea, but it's a democracy. Majority beats individualistic ideas.
Psychopathy is classified as a mental illness by society, so we shouldn't let the mentally ill define our morality and make morality rules for us as a society.
It's not a perfect system, but that's what makes the most sense.
If in the future, psychopaths become the majority, yea, the laws of the land can be changed to favour them, it's a democracy.

dalaman:
He said God is the best argument for why there is intelligent life in the universe. . The same universe that is completely out to destroy life. Life can not even survive outside space talk more of the universe as a whole.

He doesn't even realize it.
Does he even know that there are 5 proven mass extinction events on Earth?
Or they're are 190 impact craters of asteroids on earth?
If God kept us on Earth, why is he repeatedly trying to kill us?
Intelligent design my ass.
I'm starting to group KingEbukasBlog in the same category with Felix.

hopefulLandlord:
I seriously wonder what concerns a "deist" with a question thrown at "Christians"

He's a deist that "believes" in the book of Genesis.

KingEbukasBlog:
1. Because He is the creator of a finite physical and material world .

2. If God were to be material it would preclude Its omnipresence .

3. There is no such thing as an immutable material object . Anything material is subject to change as we clearly observe .

4 To preclude infinite regress which is illogical .

There are so many other reasons too



1. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

2. God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

3. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

4 God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe

And these are on the basis that God is an eternal conscious unembodied mind

If you want me to expound these then we have to open a new thread .

God of the gaps argument
Argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Now, where have I seen these before?

Stewie101:
So are killings by psychopaths justifiable on this basis?

Nope. They go against the societal views of morality/empathy, even if they can't connect to that empathy due to their personality, it still doesn't justify it.
I know this view would lead to some more debates.