₦airaland Forum

DoctorAlien:
I can't even finish mentioning all the logical fallacies you managed to smuggle into this short post: from Strawman fallacy through red herring to ad hominem.

You failed to answer my questions. I was never arguing whether the society in question could be found. My argument started with, "if such a society exists..." It is shocking that you went as far as claiming that such a society "can not exist". How you reached that conclusion I am not able to say.

I am disappointed that you could not meet logical reasoning with logical reasoning.

Am not interested in your fictional society. Am only intrested in real human societies that exist. If you want to talk about fictional societies then look for someone to do that with.

If you claim such a society can exist then point to one simple. Am not interested in empty assertions.

An example of a society that consist of 99% murderers, rapist and racist can be found where? And they have shown that their actions is beneficial to the society how?

DoctorAlien:
The question is not whether we can find such a society. The question is:

If such a city exists where 99.9% of the members are racists, murderers and adulterers, and they believe and say with reasons known to them that racism, murder and adultery is good and beneficial to them, is racism, murder and adultery not virtually beneficial to the society? If no, who said so and why?

If yes(i.e. that their actions are beneficial to the society), then you must agree that their opinions must matter because this is what you said: "Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society..."

Now, if their opinions matter, they should be consulted before rules concerning racism, murder and adultery are laid down. And guess what they will say? They will say that racism, murder and adultery are not evil and should be allowed because the racists, murderers and adulterer(which make up 99.9% of the society) believe and proclaim with reasons which they know best that racism, murder and adultery is beneficial to them.

In such a society, should racism, murder and adultery be declared good and allowed? If yes, why? If no, why?

Your question of how rape and murder are beneficial to the society should be channeled to Hitler and those who supported his views. They certainly can tell you how murder (of 6 million Jews) is beneficial to the society.

And when they tell you how murder is beneficial to the society, why should their opinion be inferior to your own opinion(that murDer is not beneficial to the society)?

Am trying to have a meaningful conversation with you but it seems you are only interested in sounding stupid and chasing your long tail.

I am talking about a real society while you are talking about a fictional one.

There is no society in the world where 99% of the people are rapist, murderers and racist. There is no such society anywhere. Such a society can not exist. That's why I asked you to give me and example of such a society and also give me the beneficial effects of racism, murder and rape to any society.

I can play you games very well if you want to act dumb and stupid. .


Don't start with Hitler because your God (and his prophets) if we are to go by the bible is NO different from Hitler. He sanctioned rape, slavery and genocide and even fell out with Saul because Saul refused to follow the instructions to competely exerminate a group of people.

DoctorAlien:
Who said that the actions of racists, murderers and adulterers are harmful? Certainly not the racists, murderers and adulterers. You agreed that racists, murderers and adulterers are part of the society. How can you say then that the society labeled them as offenders? Do the racists, murderers and adulterers, who are part of the society see themselves as offenders? If no, who said that they're offenders?

They believe that their actions are beneficial to themselves. Now, what if racists, murderers and adulterers make up 99% of the society? Are their actions not virtually beneficial to the society?

Name one society where 99% of its inhabitants are rapist, murderers and racist. How is rape and murder beneficial to the society?

butterflyl1on:
What someone "coined" is that persons opinion. Same way anyone else can "coin " theirs.

Love is not self targeted but toward others especially when others are in the equation and we have love FOR them.

This differs from self love as I said earlier. You mixed in self love with selfless love in your post.

I see a kid who is sick and bleeding, empathy draws me to him. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It's not about me. So my empathy stirs my love FOR this person and I decide to help. Not for my sake or my good but for their sake and their good. Not because I have e anything to gain but because they have EVERYTHING to gain.

Mine is simply to help out the best I can.

How did you jump from empathy to love na? You can have empathy without love at all.

DoctorAlien:
Society labeled racists, murderers and adulterers as offenders? Do they see themselves as offenders? If no, why should the opinion of the rest of the civil society (that they are offenders) be true? How is their opinion not needed? I ask again: were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions before the rules were laid down on ho the society should function?

Racists, murderers and adulterers disagree with you, and they have reasons why they believe these things are good. Adolf Hitler had a reason for the Holocaust. How is your opinion superior to theirs?

Racist, muderers and rapist are already labeled by the society as offenders because their actions are harmful to the society as a whole if allowed to go on checked. Their opinion is not needed because they haven't shown how their actions are beneficial to the society and it is on that basis that they are tagged as offenders whose opinion does not matter at all in the scheme of things.

I can play your games as well and say that the only society that accepts rape, racism and murder is the biblical society that had your God as it's law givery.

Remember when Moses and his fellow chosen men went about sharing virgins that belong to the other people among themselves and murdering off the non virgins according to the biblical tale? Civilized societies do not accept that and if Moses the prophet of your Gof were to live in one he'll be labeled an offender.

butterflyl1on:
The reasons for violation come later and the pressure can be greater than the agreement itself

Then you simply cancel the agreement if you are under any pressure or have any reason to break it.

Once an agreement is made violating it is wrong. If there is any reason to opt out then the agreement needs to be canceled. Remaining in an agreement and violating it is never justifiable.

butterflyl1on:
Gbam for you too and let me buttress this based on the context of the OP.

If a man is married to a woman who is sexually active and the man cannot measure up to her sexual demands and she decides for the sake of her sanity and her satisfaction not to break up with her husband but to seek sexual satisfaction from a capable partner outside her marriage, to her she has a perfectly good reason and would not want to hurt her husband in the process so kept him in the dark about her activities.

When she is with him, she pretends to find sexual satisfaction just so she would not bruise his pride and the man is happy even though he is being deceived.

She would say as long as her home is happy due to ignorance she would keep at it.

The man can say this is wrong but she can claim she is right. Afterall she protected his pride through pretence and only went about seeking satisfaction only where he failed but she has always acknowledged his other areas of success.

And if they leave you you'll say you've made sense with this pile of hot thrash abi? Sometimes you truly need to read what you are posting to see of it makes sense at all.

Once she has violated the agreement to remain faithful to her husband then she has no justification for her actions. It is that simple.

butterflyl1on:
The point is that those who violate these agreements have their own perfectly good reasons for doing so. (in their own eyes).

Same way the one who upheld the agreement has his own perfectly good reasons for upholding them (in his own eyes).

Why make an agreement in the first place if you have good reasons to violate it?

DoctorAlien:
Who makes up civilized societies? Are racists, murderers and adulterers not part of civilized societies? Were racists, murderers and adulterers consulted for their opinions on racism, murder and adultery before the laws concerning these things were made?

Who said that you cannot violate an agreement?

They are part of civilized societies but they are considered as offenders. Society has labeled them as offenders as such their opinion is not needed and doesn't matter at all based on laid down rules and principles of how a society should function.

Racism, rape and murder have been shown to be evil to the society as a whole if allowed to go unchecked purely based on reason and logic, as a whole it is detrimental to the society if allowed to go unchecked . No benefit of racism, murder and rape have been shown to be good or beneficial to the society as a whole based on reason and logic.

DoctorAlien:
I believe you're saying that violation of agreement is wrong IN YOUR OWN OPINION, not that it is necessarily wrong.

Which principle do racism, murder and adultery violate?

Its not my own opinion but laid down principles.

Racism is wrong because it violates the principles laid down by civilized societies that all humans are created equal and should not be judged or discriminated upon based on the color of their skin.

Murder is wrong because it also violates the principle laid out by civilized societies that you shouldn't take the life of another human unjustly.

Adultery violates the principle and agreement made btw two people to remain married and commited to each other alone so long as the remain alive.

butterflyl1on:
You focused on the agreement and not the act. To you it's the agreement or breaking the agreement that makes it wrong but the act itself without any agreements isn't wrong. This is what you are insinuating.

My friend why do you like running meaningless commentaries over simple issues?

The act is wrong because the act is a violation of an agreement. That makes the act wrong. Nothing will be considered wrong if it doesn't violate a principle. Stealing is wrong because it violates a principle, racism is wrong because it violates a principle, murder is wrong because it violates a principle, adultery is wrong because it violates a principle. If no principle is violated then nothing can be said to be wrong.

Proudgorgeousga:
when you make your point leave em with their foolishness unless you enough time to engage in nonsense arguments till thread gets to 50pages of nonsense.

Roger.

butterflyl1on:
So the agreement is what makes it wrong but not the act itself.

Agentofallah says he is Okay as long as their is consent and you say you are not Okay because an agreement was broken. But would you be Okay if there was consent? Would you be willing to give consent to your wife for her to bed another man?

If you say breaking the agreement is wrong (though not a crime) then can giving her consent be right despite being married to her?

You deliberately want to keep misunderstanding my position.

The act itself is wrong and I've stated why it is wrong.

I am not Agentofallah.

butterflyl1on:
You are missing it dalaman. The focus is not on the agreement but on the act of fornication and adultery.

Is it wrong? The agreement seems to be your focus but not the act of adultery or fornication itself.

Take away the agreement is fornication and adultery then right?

The act is wrong because the act violates an already laid down agreement. When you are in a monogamous relationship it simply means that you have agreed and promised to stay away from other partners and be commited to one. Engaging in sexual activities with others means you have broken your promise or vow. It is always good to uphold your promise and it is bad when you fail to do that. It is a very simple thing and I don't know why you are wasting your time arguing about it.

butterflyl1on:
Verbal agreements are broken daily. The law only recognises black and white.

How can breaking a verbal agreement be a crime when another verbal agreement was entered between the man/woman and someone else based on consensual sex?

There is no written document in marriage or a relationship that has your Dos and don'ts listed out in marriage or that relationship so what then is your legal backing to the agreement that makes breaking it wrong?

In marriage in the church or in the courts you get given a marriage certificate and nowhere on that certificate are rules guiding the marriage and the attached penalties for breaking them according to the law written.

So how then is it wrong?

Breaking an agreement is wrong end of story. The fact that people do it always doesn't make ot right. If you enter into am agreement and you break it then it is wrong. It doesn't have to be spelt out by law.
Agreeing to remain faithful to a partner and failing to uphold it makes it wrong end of story.

butterflyl1on:
But why would it be wrong if the law supports them especially when it is consensual? Is it that we formulate our own morality and often times do not subscribe to those provided by our governments?

Of course we formulate our own morality that do not agree with that of the government. The Nigerian government doesn't care about people marrying outside their religion but many Nigerians will not even agree to marry outside their sect or denominarion talk more of marrying outside their religion. Many consider marrying outside your religion a bad thing even though the constitution and government allows it.

When you enter into an agreement that you are going to remain faithful to a partner in front of everybody on your wedding day, it then becomes very wrong to violate that promise and go against it. Its so simple and doesn't even need to be debated on.

butterflyl1on:
Abeg make Una no vex o but let us talk to ourselves.

Today I read something on Nairaland from someone about masturbation and also noted how quickly atheists jumped to his support without critically analysing the other details that were attached to his masturbation and this got me thinking about the stand of atheists when morality is involved.

Now we as Christians know that morality is subjective (this means we follow Gods divine law about morality) but an atheist would tell you that it is not. They would say that morality is objective (which means it is subject to the laws given by the government in that country and how they are interpreted) .

Based on this I wish to ask a question directed at my atheist nairalanders

We know that the constitution of Nigeria and every other nation does not recognise fornication or adultery as a crime so does not legally frown at it. However they frown at rape. As long as the sexual act is consensual between two adults be they married or not, according to the law this is not a crime.

So a married woman can have consensual sex with someone who is not her husband and vice versa and not be seen as a crime as long as both gave consent as adults.

Also a single guy or girl can have multiple partners as long as it was always consensual and the person is an adult according to the law.

So here is my question to atheists.

Is Fornication or adultery wrong?

If you believe and follow an objective morality would you say it is wrong for your wife or husband to sleep with another man or woman besides you as long as it was consensual?

If you are single, would you say it's perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with your girlfriend or boyfriend sleeping with other people as long as it was Consensual?

Would you get angry if you saw your wife or husband or boyfriend or girlfriend sleeping with other people even when this was consensual?

I need answers please.

Cc Felixomor, dalaman (Abeg call the others for me)

This your OP is dead on arrival because it's not an honest one. How can you say that atheist follow an objective morality? Which athiest has ever told you that?

Here is what you wrote.

[They would say that morality is objective (which means it is subject to the laws given by the government in that country and how they are interpreted) .

I am yet to see any atheist claim that morality is objective. All these while I've been arguing for years with other christians that morality is NOT objective. It is the christians here that insist that morality is objective. Ask KingEbukasBlog and other christians that have debate this issue with athiest here. It is the athiest that are always insisting that morality is NOT objective while the christians always insist that morality is objective. Even part of their moral argument begins with objective morality exist hence God exist. KingEbukasBlogalways uses that line from William Craig.

If you enter into a marriage or loving relationship with someone and both of you agree to be faithful to each other throughout and have no external intiimate relationship with others then you are bound to uphold that agreement. If you fail then you have violated it and done something wrong. It's very simple.

Ericsunday619:
you faithless atheists. So masturbation is wrong abi?

Its not. Paying for the service is what I was talking about. Masturbation isn't wrong.

butterflyl1on:
He still pretends he cannot see it

What's the 500 naira recharge card for? Explain it to me dalaman.

Didn't really pay attention to it initially. The guy fall hand.

butterflyl1on:
Of course you wouldn't see it

So seeking for phone intimacy is now promoting prostitution abi? Nothing Mr spinner no go talk.

butterflyl1on:
Which Viewer? A Viewer of his well or his tree?

Is his promotion of prostitution right or wrong?

Where did he promote prostitution? Pls show me.

butterflyl1on:
You must be needing it a lot if you were so desperate as to post an online AD seeking for a phone intimacy partner on Nairaland.

Your chicken don suffer

The choking it has been getting must have left its neck chaffed badly

Are you speaking out of experience?

butterflyl1on:
Is what he did right or wrong?

Is being a voyeurr right or wrong?

butterflyl1on:
You see no rationality behind my post about a plea on Nairaland by an atheist for a phone intimacy partner whom he would pay? You see no problem promoting prostitution on Nairaland by an atheist ba?

Of course all of Una na the same so why am I not surprised?


Such depravity and perversion imagining all the oohs and aah sounds coming from the other side of the phone line

All this while choking his chicken

I know you are a voyeurr.

The self confessed porn addict and compulsive mastubator don see work. . Felixmoron.

butterflyl1on:
Does God exist?

Stop asking me crazy questions. From asking me to locate your alter ego to falsely saying that some non existent God offends me now to this? Go and seek for medical help pls.

butterflyl1on:
See as I dey watch you dey display your chronic madness of angrily ranting about a non existent God.

How can anyone angrily talk about and accuse a non existent God of things he did that offends him?

How can something that was never there now cause offense?

Still observing you in wonder as you are displaying your madness.


https://memeguy.com/photos/images/mrw-i-look-up-the-lyrics-to-a-song-and-realize-i-had-been-singing-a-line-wrong-the-entire-time-118650.gif

More display of mental illness.

When and where did I accuse any non existent God of doing anything that offends me? No go enter bush oo. This your madness no be here.

butterflyl1on:
When I say you are mentally ill you will argue. Can you show me where and when I solicited for your help?

Do you see that the public display of your madness has started already?

Make I siddon dey look.

Why will I argue with a self confessed mad man over what he says? I've said my own, how you understand it remains your wahala. Go and seek for medical help.

butterflyl1on:
Have you located magneticminion? He will tell you better about your madness

You want me to locate your alter ego? Am not interested in your mental issues. Pls go and seek for help. I can not help you.

butterflyl1on:
Does it shock you?

Na Wetin you dey do be that

Meanwhile let me ask for your help with something. There is a nairalander whose moniker is magneticminion he says you are a fool. Find him and troll him. Ask him why you are a seen as a fool by him and let him explain himself.

How can a mentally unstable person do something that will shock me? It is expected of you to dey craze dey go. So enjoy your display it's funny and entertaining.

butterflyl1on:
You should check yourself in at the nearest psych ward because you are going everywhere slapping and accusing a non existent entity.

I am not sure the right medication for your kind of mental problem has been made yet

Na wah oo. .

butterflyl1on:
Mr man I have told you that your madness is not my own na

Am I the one angry at a non existent dog that pooped in your sitting room? Or is the poop a sign that a dog exists when you have not seen the dog?

Am I the one who is angry with a non existent fish meal you ate which was prepared by a non existent chef?

Na your type dem dey just siddon dey look as you dey perform for road. Very intriguing

Pls read what you just typed. After reading it, go to the nearest psychiatrists and tell him that you'll need his help because your mental illness has fully relapsed.