₦airaland Forum

I don't believe some women are unfit mothers?


Me who says (on several threads) that not everyone who's female was born to be a mother. Citing examples of those who even dump theirs at the waste bins in the dead of night.
Telling women not to get pressured into marriage or having babies when they are not yet ready because the society dictates so.

Like I said before,you'll keep exposing yourself as someone who set out to ALWAYS misunderstand me.

Suit yourself.
Before you go chanting your shifting the goal post phrase again:

Saying a mother is usually the primary care giver doesn't mean all women were born to be mothers. Same as saying a man is the primary provider doesn't mean all men are born providers. Some don't just have it in them.
Guess I've to spell everything out to avoid more 'misunderstanding'

As far as you keep picking parts of my posts which suit your percieved image of me while ignoring the other parts that seeks to put a balance to my general opinions,you'll keep making such unfounded comments like the bolded.


If you'd noted that my first post on this thread says I suspect the woman doctored the story,that should have been enough to prove to you I think the judge gave the man custody (even when the supposed primary care giver is alive) for reasons she didn't state in her narrative.
Which means I understand she could have been at fault.
Even my second post was dripping with sarcasm at her story.meaning I found it hard to believe

The only other optiong being bias on the judge's part. But first most likely because she wasn't fit. As is CLEARLY implied in my first post

Which means your post @ bolded is trash.

pickabeau1: It means she was not fit to be a mother or granted primary custody

But of course you don't believe some women are unfit to be mother


Appeal to female instincts never dealing with d issue

Preach the side jabbing message to yourself.

More like
I slap you and begin to preach to you against violence. Classic.

Nonso23: You see what you want to see.
Continue with the 'side-jabbing'. Your perogative.

pickabeau1: Don't give up

If she got joint custody but the man had primary custody.. Why is she complaining

After all thousands of men get joint custody but thee woman gets primary custody and are expected to suck it up

Why do u say d judge is this case is biased.. Coco?

If nothing happened that would warrant the man being the person most fit to take primary care of the kids,then she has a right to complain.

But like I said before,she could have doctored the story to suit her audience if not,then she's the wronged party here.

The judge was quoted to have said 'if I could give you more,I would'

What's does that mean?

I believe you're smart enough to know that comment didn't just up and come out from his mouth.

The woman must have been proven grossly incompetent to take care of the kids.
If not.

It spells nothing else but bias.

If I have to explain that to you,why wouldn't I want to give up?
Like who needs to get an explanation for that comment?

Side jabs and not wanting to go down that road.

Says the guy who brought up the topic and laced it with enough side jabs.
Too late to wiggle out.

Nonso23: Throw aside the side jabs biko. It doesn't advance your point by even 1 micro-metre.
This issue was thoroughly dealt with in that other thread. I'm not about to go down that road again.

pickabeau1: Again I. Ask u what is your opinion on. Homosexuality

non of your business

You. Still don't get it...

I would if you had a point

Thee same reasons that granted them rights ensure that in 20 y...incestous marriage will be allowed

and your point being that the kids from such unions even if they could turn out deformed will be overlooked to grant the license.the same way paedophilia will be granted despite being harmful to the kids but because the adults right to who he wants to sex is more important. You still think you're making sense. Baffles me

On the beating...I'm not a woman beater

I'm not interested in gay folks or gettin likes from them

no you're interested. Not in getting likes but in crushing them.


Science says they can't help who they are
Rather its selective bigots like you who r the dangerous ones.

actually you're the one dangerous to them. You think that by pointing out some hitches in their operation,hopefully you can convince others to be against them.



They feel like a woman who was unfortunately born as a man
Its a science

Read up coco
maybe you should give yourself that advice. You obviously don't reaw what I type. As shown below.



You allocate rights based on your feelings or want to sterilise them because it feels iffy to u.

and for the gazilionth time. It has nothing to do with how I feel but what my concerns about the possible consequences would be to the kids. Now I've said that like a hundred times on this same thread. Yet you chose to ignore that and insist that it is because of my feelings. Even a blind man can see why I say you're mischievous and ALWAYs seek to DELIBERATELY misundertand me.
Any comment you make about my opinion should not be taken seriously because it is obvious you see what you want to see.
Yet you claim you don't get off on antagonizing me? You just shot yourself win the foot by prving your bias and unwillingness to accept the reason I gave you for my stance.
.

However if I had gender disorder n could change my sex and I love MMA
I will fight women.. Simple

no one is stopping you... Yet. One or two more of such incidences,then we'll see if such policies will be reviewed or not.


Its not sentiments...all what u've been saying is just sentiments.

I used the consequence of incesst as a pivot for my opinion on that issue.
I used the natural strength a guy has acquired in his adolescent and pubescent stage as pivot for my stance on the other issue.
Yet it is not fact to you. But sentiments

One wonders what's really your opinion about gays transgender and incestuous couples is.

Are you for or against?
All I can see is you slyly trying to pit one against another without actually making your stand know. Yet you've the effrontery to ask me what my opinion abouts gays is.

What did you type that I didn't write?
Ok
Full custody, primary custody and shared/joint custody are one and the same thing.

Happy?

I said joint custody is usually the way unless one parent is seen as unfit to be with the kids unsupervised.
I said too that she would not have been complaining if they got joint custody.

Now you u bring a text saying the same thing to use and try 'disagree' with me?

I give up

pickabeau1: And they tell you that parents with joint custody don't complain

You actually believe what u write...

Even in joint custody..the parent with primary custody makes all d calls

Read up..coco


http://singleparents.about.com/od/jointcustody/a/joint-child-custody-disadvantages.htm

And another research shows that when this gender reassigment sugery if done after puberty,it is not the same as one done before then. Because the hormone therapy may give you outward feminine features but will not undo what has been done internally before.
If so they should be growing wombs too. The female hormones given to them should be able to change them that much. But it doesn't.

So is it generally accepted science?
No.

Do I understand why the board agrees?
Yes. To avoid LGBT promoters having one on them in the law court.
Since they can now provide some study that backs their claims.



I don't call you mischievious because of your different opinion.
I call you that for reasons you know well.

Like claiming I shift goal posts when you can't bring a post to prove that.

Or suddenly becoming an LGBT activist because you like the idea that a woman was bashed that time.
Or becoming an incesst rights promoter because you thought it would make you have over gay folks.

Erm who was even shifting goal posts again?
You prolly have as many colors as the rainbow.

pickabeau1: You need to read up...coco.n stop calling other peoples views mischievous since they don't tally with yours

Your opinion.. No research backs your claim which is just Beer parlor gist

Even the Olympic committee is on board n u come here saying stuff

pickabeau1: Still u persist in this path ....now its me being mischievous....

When will u start correcting my grammar since u have no points

What do u mean by full custody

They had joint custody only that the father had primary custody
She can see her kids whenever she wants subject to the court ordered arrangements

Why do u do this...coco why

Full custody is when one parent gets the kid and the other can visit per supervised court arrangement.

Shared custody is when the kids are allowed to stay with each parent alternatively with same ratio or more less same ratio based on school schedule.

If they had joint custody,she wouldn't be complaining.


You're the one with no point.
But classic you thinks you do.

Is it my opinion that he is stronger or is that a fact?

pickabeau1: You still decide to keep one track
The transgender is a woman n the law recognises her as a woman
The mma licensed her to fight

Why should ur opinion count when the law is clear

Like I said before.
Do you know the definition of feminism?
If you do, whatever era it fits into.
There's your answer.

crackhaus: Before you start taking things personal and throwing jibes like 'over-sabi' around, we were never debating.

I only asked which you belonged to, you're the one who replied with the sea waves line which you now claim was just for humour.
But still you didn't state which one you belonged to after your supposed 'sea wave & ocean-wave' joke, leading me to believe you may not have been joking really.

So which era of feminism do you belong to?

So standing for all in this case would be supporting the judge who gave custody of the kids to the partner who wronged the other?

No one says his marriage is illegal.

Even if it was a woman who just stood up and left for no reason or wrong doing on the man's part,as long the man didn't do anything to warrant his kids being stripped from him,they get JOINT custody.

Even as a woman is the primary care giver at the younger ages.
I'll never support a man to be denied his kids for NO REASON.

Bring a quote of mine to prove me otherwise

If he was abusive or is a danger to them then it is different.

At least a fair judgement here would be joint custody if all happened according to the woman's account.
And unless there's a good reason for the kids not to be with their mother,then the judge was biased.

Admit that you're being mischievous.
Simple.

pickabeau1: No one is getting off on you..

Its your metamorphic ability to be seen as standing for all n nothing at the same time with your live and let live mantra.

I hope u realize that the writer of the article is a bigot and thus is biased against gay marriages which are equal to heterosexual marriage

Remember the children's best interests r considered by the judge

Remember your views on being true to yourself
This man lived a lie to blend into society
He decided enough was enough
He left
Live m let live

If this was a man speaking..you would narry spare a tear for him

From d blog



She is biased
Her personal opinions don't matter
The law is clear
Homosexual marriage is legal

Probably wouldn't have clicked on it if I wasn't mentioned.

Seems like it's becoming something of a habit around here.

Truckpusher: This is the kind of thread you'll find cococandy,bananabender and carefreewannabe etc sweating their asss out.

Ok

xoxogirl: there is no law. We are a 'family' right? No biggie in cooking. Just don't see it as my duty. Daz all this is 2014 not 1923.

Also
Just because a lady doesn't know how to cook or don't want to, doesn't mean she's irresponsible or what ever the op calls it.



of course he is


A lady is suppose to cook for her family. But when they start to see it as 'official' duty. Like its a 'must'. Then I have a problem with it.


My aunt cooks for her family. When she says I'm tired or I can't cook today. The man cooks for himself or fix a quick meal.

Compared to my sister's ex fiance ( I pity his future wife) he can wake u up in the early morning to pound yam for him and make fish Peper soup.(he always did dat to my sis) He has this a wife or lady belongs in the kitchen mentality. Before going to work 'make sure u prepare stew and rice. U MUST use chicken to prepare it. I like the taste of chicken better. My sis ran for her dear life. I hate people that reason like that

Bceause it should be pretty obvious to someone with sense that a someone who grew up as a man will be an unfair match to someone who grew up as a woman.

So like I ALWAYs say. And like y'all ALWAYS mischieously choose to ignore,rights are no rights when they affect someone else negatively.

Eesh.

I think that will do.

Nonso23: I could recall that transgender thread how they rallied together to establish the superiority of the women rights over LGBT rights. I was too amused to reply meaningfully.

The emboldened. Same with me. Unless anything that violates women rights is now a crime

I guess everyone is getting off on antagonizing cococandy today.

When you decide to be not mischievous,you can bring a quote from any post of mine that spcifically goes against whatever I've typed here today.

But you won't because you know I'll still prove how you've deliberately choosen to misunderstand it.

pickabeau1: Nonso23... Superb points


You should know our ladies only see their own right as paramount.

Astute observation on cococandy's posts going this way or that..

I will have thought she will be happy that the man can now be with the love of his life and the judge made the best decisions in the interest of the kids

Except she is now saying judges make mistakes in mostly awarding kids to their mums

Because I said who created the waves. Sea waves or ocean waves should be enough reason to tell you that line was meant to be cheeky.

If you're going to be over-sabi, enjoy debating yourself.

crackhaus: Yes adding please is better, thank you very much.

There's nothing like there are feminists and there are man-haters.
Man-haters were feminists themselves and were part of the second wave of feminism movement, some still exist till this day.

As for me knowing the definition of feminism, trust me I know. What I doubt is if you know exactly or if you do, you only know the definition associated with a particular wave of feminism.
The wave talk is not a waste of time, you are part of it whether you like it or not.
The people who created the waves are the people at the forefront of the feminist campaign at each particular point in history.

It is divided into waves to differentiate their ideologies and what they sought to achieve...and each wave usually altered or improved on the ideologies of its predecessor.

How I'm the one typing all of this to a self-proclaimed feminist who doesn't even know that there are waves of feminism is totally beyond me.

So I ask again, which one do you belong to?

A non feminist who knows more than all others .

If you're speaking of waves,

What about the first wave(the girls right to vote and education bla bla bla) which is considered outphased, but is still on going some parts the world or only just recently phased out.


Or in this part of the world Nigeria where feminists are more about women being allowed to be themselves and what they chose to do without being defined or confined to a particular role?

Can we say different waves of feminism is on-going in different parts of the world?
Meaning that no waves is truly totally phased out.

Simple points are hard for you to grab sometimes.(Or you chose not to)
My point is that wave or no waves,feminism is basically the same thing everywhere.

Else we would have to look for 3 different definitions for each.
No point nitpicking to make one seem more less different and maybe hopefully acceptable to the anti-feminists.

pickabeau1: A feminist who does not know the history of the movement..the waves are important madam

Cococandy

Ok. Thanks

Sagamite: If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

Lame excuse.

One could as well ask why he married. He would have just kept having strings of girlfriends to conceal it.

Which society? Their pro gay society forced him to conform?

pickabeau1: Cococandy


What do you have to say to GSKing point

The man was being forced by society to conform hence d deception

Can't u see he was d victim

Who created the waves?
As in sea waves or ocean waves?

Do you know the definition of feminism?
That's my stand.

All this wave talk is a simple waste of time.
There are feminists and their are man-haters who use feminism to promote their cause.
Summarized.



Yes I'm serious
If it sounds like an order,no vex,add this at the beginning before you read it again: 'please'. Hope that settles it.

crackhaus: There are three waves of feminism, which do you belong to?

Hint:
One wave was all for dealing with women suffrage, voting and education rights, etc..

One wave was mostly about allowing women the freedom to express themselves artistically, sexxually, etc...

Another was about fighting patriarchy in the society, these are the radicals.

Each wave is peculiar to a particular time in history, hence you can only belong to the one that's in your lifetime.
Choose wisely

The emboldened text in your post sounds like an order

Good point.
I'll remember that next time.

Sagamite: It is very simple.

A human's identity is very fundamental to their mental well-being and psyche.

Where you are from? Who are your ancestors? Which country or tribe do you associate with? etc are very fundamental to a complete package of your identity and important to self-worth.

As two homosexuals cannot procreate, a child will always feel something is missing. Hence homosexual parenting is inferior to natural parenting. So it is really child abuse and not in the best interest of the child (contradictory to the normal claim of western philosophy) to create them to be raised in an unnatural family setting.

As for adoption, the one man/one woman model is that natural and societal norm and a better setting than homosexual setting.

It's too hard to get around here.

andromida: It is important to be aware that being a feminist is not about being a man hater and trying to dominate men in the world.

@ crackhaus,I've seen this a million and one times before.
I remember in that my other thread that I stated it is for speech like this that some people think all feminists hate men because it actually gives them a nice cover to practise their man hating.

Just like culture, christainity or islam gives misogynists a nice cover to oppress and silence their women.

(I hope some obtuse person doesn't misunderstand this too: for their sake let me add. That they use a well meaning movement/religion to achieve personal vendetta)

But
That is all it is. a cover for some people to play out their innermost hidden agenda while hiding under the umbrella of a well meaning crusade/movement.

And you would do well to not mention me in the same thread with OP anytime in the future.
Dude cries blood at the mention of feminism.
Reminds me of dinachi.

crackhaus: I still fancy you, so don't think I'm witch-hunting you, same as you cococandy

pickabeau1: I accept your points...
Let's leave this for now..I will get back to you


So let me ask u this

Do you believe gays should be able to adopt a child or have one by surrogacy

No.

I did have a debate with one of them some time ago and she won the debate by having more points.

It didn't change my POV but I only stopped arguing about it because I could not prove with facts that such kids are affected by having gay parents.

The most award winning point being that since straight parents raised gay kids,so who are we fooling by saying gay parents will only raise gay kids.(That one got her a million likes)

I still believe every kid needs a dad and mom.
I won't debate that with them again until such a time as when it is PROVEN that kids are affected by gay parents.

Then I'll have substance to back up my stance when next I go against them.

You're the one who quoted me to say the disgust thing.
If you read it elsewhere, your bad.

I've answered your question a thousand times. A very genuine answer that transcends the right to have sex between two siblings.
If you can't give me a reason how locking up drug dealers is a denial of human rights,then you should have by now seen why ince'sst is outlawed too.

Because for the zillionth time (it affects the next person-the child- negatively).

If you're too stubborn to throw in the towel,your cup of tea.

One wonders if you believe you've to be right all the time.

pickabeau1: I never said the word disgust.. You did or if not you carefree then....my bad if not you

I don't have any hatred for gays but I wonder if you do

You have not answered any of my q...all u e doing is being defensive

If gays are free and enjoy human rights to love and be loved why should transgender, zoophiles and brother-sister lovers be dened their basic human right

why can't you live and let live


You are seeing your position is becoming tenuous hence deflecting

Its not about me or you


Its about human rights and equality

Or are u not a proponent of equality again

Isn't the husband included in the family?

xoxogirl: my dear. African mentality baffles me.


The lady is suppose to cook for the family?

Can't the man cook





Don't get me wrong. When I'm married I'll cook for my family. Not my hubby. But when he starts to see it as my 'official' duty. Then there's a problem



Cococandy I'm i right?

You presume?

Let me put it this way.

I don't support abortion.
But I support it when a woman is molested
I support it when the child could be born severely deformed
I support it when it poses a risk to both mother and child.

Yet I don't support abortion?
If I would support it under these conditions,why should call myself an anti-abortionist?

Some people who say they don't support abortion would support it under those conditions. What does it make them? Supporters or non-supporters?

At least I like to tell myself the truth. That's the difference between different types of people.

crackhaus: Glad you corrected me.

So after all that you typed here, you would still support abortion I presume?
The exceptions you listed in your reply to saga does not even account for up to 20% of all abortion cases, so why should it not be made illegal?

If even at 100% chance of kids being born normal, you won't support sibling relationships... then at just 20% of abortion cases being related to those exceptions you listed, you should also not support it.
Both are borne out of the instinctual need to speak up for the unborn child, don't you think so?

First 10 percent is a big percentage.
Second did you study genetics?
Third if the law is allowed,what stops the brother and sister born of the same brother and sister union to mate or marry?
( They most likely might want to since their brother and sister parents were happy together)

Which increases the chance to 80percent.

What stops the grand kids borne of this same brother and sister mating/ marrying within their own nuclear family or from the next branch of the family tree(cousins)?

Does the law now make sense to you?
Or will your hatred for gays not let you still see it?

You're the one speaking from a position of disgust. Stop projecting.

I'm amazingly detached from what other chose to do.as long as the next person isn't affected
You're clearly not.
This is all about gayism

pickabeau1: So with all the facts that only 10 to 30 percent of kids from an incestuous relationship are at risk of congenital defects..you continue spouting this your line?


Do u think kids raised in a 2 father or 2 mother scenario are better than those raised by a man n woman who JUST happen to be related

Are u advocating sterilisation of couples with genetic issues so they don't have kids who will be a disturbance to you

Heck..why not make laws to sterilise parents who could have genes with downs syndrome since it affects the next generation

Coco's.world..where disgust determines which laws reign

There's more than a 50percent chance for the child to be born normal.(First filial generation that is)
Even at 5 percent chance of abnormality,I won't support it.
Because as it goes,it increases.

If there was a hundred percent chance of the kids being born normal,I won't support it. I'll only mind my business.

crackhaus: I have read your response to him, you did not humour me.

If there's a 50% possibility that the offspring from an incestuous relationship will be born normal, would you support it then?

pickabeau1: Who r they hurting

I am waiting for cococandy response

For the millionth and one time. The kids to be borne of their union.
If that's not a good enough reason for you,you and I shouldn't be debating either

You're the one going in circles.
Maybe you need to take a break and come read again.

Homosexuality doesn't affect me or anyone apart from the couple involved.

Inceest affects both the couple and their next generation.
If allowed,the soceity will receive a healthy dose of deformity which will be passed if it continues.
So the law isn't about how the law makers feel about it.
But is based on the possible consequence which they are trying to avoid.

If that is not logic to you,I wonder what is.

Who's talking of making decision based on disgust?

You're the one using disgust as your yardstick here.
Homosexuality disgusts you so it should be banned.
Incesst disgusts you so likewise.



Both to me are not desirable. But what appeals to me shouldn't be the basis on which laws are made.
What makes you even think either of them disgust me?
I'm more about consequences than how I feel about them.
I've learnt my feelings shouldn't decide how others live their lives.
So my point against ince'sst isn't based on feelings but logic


If brother and sister can mate without producing a kid. Then knock me if I try to mock them.
(I go just face my front)
Sadly it will affect everyone at large. Hence this.

You on the other hand are all about disgust. Trying to use incee'st to paint homosexuality black. So don't try to turn tables.

You've been given a good reason why ince'sst shouldn't be allowed.
If you decide that reason isn't enough,(because that reason can't be applied to homosexuality) the good for you.

You stop at the line where it hurts the next person's existence duh

pickabeau1: You r still going roundabout in a circle

1.How does incêst affect YOU
Simple q

2. Does homosexuality affect you.how

Explain please....


Using disgust to determine another's human rights
I expect logic

As sagamite has said he is more disgusted with homosexuality than incëst

So where do we stop