₦airaland Forum

The beef is still clear on Omisore's face.

basilico:
Democrats folllow their leadership blindly. There is no room for dissent and no room for independent thoughts.

+
How rich from any Trumpist. Do Trumpists have any thoughts of their own outside what Trump says?

chieveboy:
There is basis for criminal law because that's a play of Agreements we spoke of.

Technically, Agreements are the interoperability interface which must be established for one or two Subjectives to have some form of objective experience (in a community, state, relationship, group, religion, etc.). These agreements or laws are derivatives of the Subjective experiences of the participants which are not or may be universally applied--but not necessarily based on objective reality, which may be written, unwritten or even genetically programmed.

Lack of exposure to deeper levels of causative variables like past life and reincarnation, or even genetics may see someone who takes out a life because the "victim" took theirs in a past life usually resulting in criminal law/enforcement making bad decisions by escalating a universal criminal case using communal or state laws. Subjective or man-made laws are limited and do not have all variables and factors accounted for even in the case of the expertise of the investigators and that of the human judge.

Despite the limitations of criminal law, it however is grist for the mill of the grander, comprehensive and perfect universal laws which seem to be enforced rather too slowly, but then they is enforced more wholesomely.

+
You are speaking well but you are still missing the point.
To make it clear as briefly as possible. -

- It is not an agreement with those who disagree with it. Laws are made by a government usually by an agreement of the majority - if morality is subjective then there is a minority that does not agree with those laws and for them, there is no basis for those laws as you did not get their agreement. So it is not by agreement for them. However, there are also cases where laws are decreed by one person (for example in a dictatorship or absolute mornachy). So again, if morality is subjective where is the basis for any criminal laws.

Criminal laws only make sense if certain things that are objectively and rationally evil or bad.

Otherwise its just your opinion vs my opinion and you have your way because you have the might.

chieveboy:
You will recall in the earlier thread for lord.reed where i mentioned even what we accept as reality is not objective, I said what we have are 'agreements to reality' in the sense that subject objects of perception are used to perceive what the observers call reality. That the fact that subjective eyes, neurons, brain cells are used could never birth objectivity in its 100% state, hence its just us agreeing that yes, blue is blue even though for all of us, no one is seeing the blue as exactly as it might be.

Having not to accept implications would then mean I lose myself completely body and mind, else, it is impossible to not have a choice from right, wrong or neutrality. Objectivity all of the time is not possible as far as the human experience is concerned--no contradiction here. What a human would call Objective or when a human goes neutral, they cannot do that beyond the subjective feeds they get from their sensoria.

The real way of having objective perspective is only when a human strips themselves of their sensoria (eyes, nose, skin, tongue or mind generally). Reason as you know is the limits and capabilities they impose.

These sensoria are mathematically equal to opinions even before the match begins. They are also equal to implications, definitions and sides. In other words, our senses are equal to Subjectives. There is another way however to have actual (human) objectivity: All souls using the human body of a single person. This way, whatever is observed is using same electric wire and wiring, so the experience will be one and the same for all, giving us a human objectivity.

We have two ideologies presented in the above statements...

+
Again, I don't have any problems with the above. It's just that the implications don't go away. . .so do you for example agree that there is no basis for criminal law?

victorazyvictor:
Are you expecting free fair election under Tinubu ?

Mind you, Obi never win primaries ooo!
North will betray him as they did to Wike. They only took him off the way for Atiku to face Tinubu because only Atiku has the temerity to question Tinubu after election.

+
What do you think of an Atiku Obi Ticket.
You are right though that a free and fair election under Tinubu is almost impossible.

spiceadole:
In my opinion, there is nothing like sexual incompatibility for adults who have no medical /health issues. Fornication does not confirm sexual compatibility,it's a mindset thing.
Men will say they are testing sexual compatibility by sampling different ladies ,then turn around to shame ladies for having high body count.Lol

Secondly, I wasn't a virgin. Despite, maintaining sexual purity all through my teenage years till early adulthood,I lost my virginity in my final year in university in a painful and heartbreaking manner. It took a great toll on me and I had to see a psychologist.

Thankfully,I was able to overcome the bitter experience and graduated.

I met a lot of guys who didn't agree to "No sex, No spending" and after few weeks of talking / hanging out (which I always paid my bills to avoid them feeling entitled to sleep with me),the friendship will die a natural death...and I will move on quickly...No tears,you no waste my time,you no chop me.

+
There is of course sexually compatibility and incompatibility. It's crazy to say there isn't. People like different things sexually. That's a fact.

The mere fact that you succeed in having sex does not mean you are sexually compatible also. Much sex can be boring and routine like a chore. Not alive and fascinating as it should be. Not hawt.

However your case is peculiar so I understand you. The unsaid in your post should touch the heart of the discerning. It is well with you and I am happy for you.

ebubeson:
No sex before marriage is the best. If you love someone and want to marry them, and they say no sex before marriage, support it: but tell them no sex before marriage means no sex between us and any body else.

Do not let anyone tell you no sex before marriage while they probably satisfy themselves with a sex partner or whoever.

+
No sex before marriage is a terrible prescription which can lead to disasters. Sexual compatibility is key in marriage and it is advisable to be sure of it before tying the knot.

Cyberterror:
Kwankwaso who will eventually step down for Atiku. Only supporters of the agulu fraudster can be so deluded to think Kwankwaso will want to be running mate to a man he is older than in age and politics.

+
Biden.

victorazyvictor:
I be igbo man BUT the truth is Tinubu will win landslide.

+
In a free and fair election where major opposition elements are united?

SadiqBabaSani:
OK MOVEMENT is a loud one, it will be problem for Tinubu giving him and Aso Rock real problems, but it won't take them to Aso Rock, the people there in Aso Rock are hell bent on remaining there by any means necessary, only Western pressure on EYENEC can help the process to be free n fair

+
Only international pressure plus the determination of the masses to cast this giant snake off our necks can do it.

Chieveboy. By the way I really like your statement of iron being iron, neither poison nor medicine. I agree. The elements are neutral. Power and capacity is neutral. What is done with it however, is a different kettle of fish. What is done can indeed be either objectively good or evil.

chieveboy:
That's exactly what I am saying but you seem to reason that saying morality and rationality is subjective equals tolerating any. You are not looking at it from the 'originality' view point in the sense of metal just being metal and not poison or medicine.

Derive an understanding from the following and apply it to what I say about rationality and morality being subjective and relative:

A Hot pot on fire is on its own. No one says it is hot or not yet. It is the first time a pot was placed on fire in this life.

A child touches it and gets burnt. They at that moment develop an opinion (rationality) about pots on fire. What the child found could become a religion if taken further. This is how all rationality, morality etc are formed including un-aliving, grape and all what any would call such.

The pain of having one's beloved unalived is when a negative opinion of mur.der was formed. Even at that, if the unaliving of a same person brought liberation or freedom to the observer, it is good. So all unaliving are not objectively bad or good. You just have unaliving waiting for the experiencer to paint it.

+
I don't have a problem with all this. What is missing is the fact that you are not attaching an objective moral value to human judgements and acts.

So long as you don't do that, you have to accept all the implications I listed.

Because if it's all subjective, then it's fine whatever each individual believes is right for him to do. And you can only overcome or suppress it by force. Even then, you will not have changed his subjective morality. You would only have had your way. Via might being right.

chieveboy:
Spot on!

+
No worries so long as you understand the implications of this, some of which are -

1. That you should never condemn any act by anyone no matter how extreme. At best you can have your opinion of it and if you have superior might, you can use that superior might to suppress it.

2. If anyone has superior might they can also legitimately use that superior might to enforce their subjective views of what is moral, even if it includes mass murder, slavery, torture of children and innocents and mass rape.

3. There is no basis for criminal law as that amounts to forcing subjective views of morality on others who may disagree with such.

4. If in my subjective view it is right to rape and torture your wife for no particular reason, I am right to do so, and your own subjective view of such an action is your cup of tea.

chieveboy:
No, its an action primarily with several permutations of effects.



Those affected and those emotionally or "rationally" invested are the ones who would say it is evil and also good. Note how what you think was evil, the perpetrator believes its good.

+
All morality is therefore subjective in your view and no act can bee said to be objectively or rationally good or evil?

cococandy:
These are the times MAGA wants to take is back to. When America was great.

The times bemeruca and basilico are praying to go back to because according to them, life was better for black people in this era.

Shame leave una catch me.

+
It is pitiful when ignorant racists like Kirk insult the Civil Rights Act and what it represents, the struggle and suffering that led to it. It is lamentable when people play down the intensity of the human agony we are talking about. And when that is done by black people, who would turn around and defend the most egregiously racists acts and words, one is left in a state of despair and confusion for these people.

I often wonder if it is that they dont read or watch history on these matters. Because surely, no one who has even a remote clue of the things that transpired could ever defend an inch of racism - or an inch of the ignorant and racist abominations uttered by Kirk.

Those who lived through apartheid in South Africa may understand better. And for those who retain the thought that we in Nigeria would have been better off had the British remained till perhaps the 80s or 90s. They just dont understand anything. They have been spared the feeling of growing up as second class or third class citizens so they dont get it. Here in Lagos, they dont understand that the Island for example would have been a virtually white only area.

May heaven help them all.

cococandy:
There has never a more disingenuous set of people like MAGA in the history of the universe.

Let this have been a Democrat in power while all this craziness is going on. They would’ve split the earth in two.

Democratic administration are so drama free and prosperous that these no-good republicans have to find stuff to make up, just so they can have something to complain about.

Tan suit. Mustard in cheeseburger. Salute with a drink in hand. They quite literally have to fish in the farthest corners of the earth to find something wrong with a democrat.

But here we are hour after hour with record breaking idiocy happening by the minute and irreparable damage yet they have nothing to say.

Disgraceful hypocrites!

+
One only imagines what would have happened if an Obama said one millionth the profanities Trump has said.

Clearly, the world would have come to a sudden end. Megiddo, the apocalypse, the rapture, nuclear winter, sun flares, civilization ending meteors, all join, would have occurred simultaneously.

basilico:
Ill keep talking about election fraud of 2020 until I see proof that Joe Biden got 81 million votes.
Why are states mostly Democrat run hiding electoral data.

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. 29 states are HIDING voter roll data from the Trump DOJ...

...which has ALREADY found 350,000 DECEASED people on the rolls in multiple jurisdictions

AAG Harmeet Dhillon has referred 25,000 people with NO CITIZENSHIP records to DHS to see if and when they voted… pic.twitter.com/Ha4xv4QfoG

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 19, 2026

+
Nemo Judex in causa sua.
This is a Latin maxim in law which states that no one can be a judge in his own cause.

Cc: cococandy

GloriousGbola:
There are churches in Lagos here with statues of jesus. Let a Muslim fanatic attack one of these and you will see all these defenders of desecration and graven images start screaming for Donald trump to protect Christianity.

I saw this picture yesterday and at the time there were still debates as to if it was real.

These ignoramus don't know judaism and Islam have far more in common than Christianity.

Friday is the day of rest, they also reject pork.

In Islam Jesus is a prophet. In Judaism he is rejected as any kind of God and in some interpretations is a fraud. To the average jew a Christian is at best a misled idolator and at worst a bumbling fool worshipping a discredited charlatan

Give the Jews they are famzing enough power and they will be even nastier than Muslims.

+
Spot on.

I can never get over the spectacle of Africans worshipping and defending those who despise them and look down on them either in terms of race or religion.

Sadly, one must say that in itself is only more grounds for them to be looked down on.

Just as one would look down on a person who betrays his brother even if the betrayal is done in favour of the person looking down on the traitor.

badoh:
Northerner ko, American ni. Two core Northerners have held INEC chairmanship post concurrently and you still want it to go back to the core North. Tinubu no be person weh you can blackmail to submission, this time around, na Amupitan go conduct the election.

+
If only he can or will conduct it fairly, no problem. But you must admit the likelihood of that is almost zero.

MadamVanessa:
Nothing these satanic propaganda career won't do so that Christians will hate Israel. Israel can never be hated by any Christian, so Far they are doing God's work by cleansing the world of islamic terrorists.

+
Sigh. You people.

Mccullum:
But if it's a Muslim or pagan doing that destruction on statute of Jesus, you'll be crying 😂 but a jew soldier can even slap and split 🪓 your God's image, you're satisfied with it. Hypocrite stand for nothing only adjusting for manipulation.

+
Absolutely correct. If anyone else did it they would be upset. But if Trump or Israel does it, they will defend it to death.

Righteousness2:
Even though this is likely a FAKE photos,
If I was there, I would PERSONALLY destroy that toy/ graven Image.

Who the hell told you that is JESUS CHRIST?
You mould a graven Image and call it JESUS? That's Abomination.
That is False and should be DESTROYED.

DID JESUS ASK YOU TO MOULD ANY statue of his?
The ALMIGHTY GOD HIMSELF COMMANDED That no image of anything of such should be followed.

We live in a Generation that has no time for the Word of GOD, the Bible.
We live in a Generation that are carried away with all manner of Fables.
When you Don't Know GOD , you Don't know his word the BIBLE, then you are Finished in life.

You will be Swept away with ALL Manners of Deceptions and Delusions which will guarantee you DESRUCTION.

+
Chai. Anything to defend Israel even when they obviously desecrate the idea of Christ.

A statue is a symbol, just like a flag of a country is a symbol. When someone burns the flag he is making a statement against that country just as when someone smashes a statue he is making a statement against who it represents.

But anything to defend Israel.

I have said it many times that you people will beat Jesus Christ blue and black if he himself comes down and says anything against Trump or Israel.

And of course you will.

budaatum:
You are very wrong! Though there is absolutely no reason to start from negative infinity when one can start at 0 minus 1. Or can you not subtract 1 from zero?

The universe as known has been dated to have begun about 14 billion years ago at time zero, and saying there was no time before 14 billion years ago is like claiming the universe was spontaneously caused into existence at point zero and here we are 14 billion years later. You however can not make such a claim, but insist there must have been a causer of the universe. And by your own argument, is it not logical to presume that your causer must have existed before 14 billion years ago in order to cause the universe into existence 14 billion years ago?

In fact, whose to say your causer did not itself exist 14 billion years or even for "eternity" before it began causing and before the universe itself came into existence 14 billion years later? Whose even to say that there was no creator of the causer who existed 140 billions years before your causer was caused, if we want to make things up to believe?

An agnostic and an atheist would say, we do not know what might have existed and for how long it existed prior to the universe coming into existence, but that's not your position. Instead, deist you inserts a timeless imaginary immaterial entity at some point where your knowledge stops and you call that point "negative infinity".

Point is, negative infinity is rather pointless as far as the supposed 14 billion year old universe is concerned. You yourself are limiting yourself to the day or even second before the universe came into existence when you invoke a causer of the universe, which is just another word for god or an intelligent designer, whom you claim is immaterial and timeless, which I presume means it 'existed' for an infinite amount of time before it began causing. And you can not engage with the notion that while something big may have existed before the universe banged into existence, since something has to exist to go bang, it is not necessarily a (creator) causer. Then you confuse your own argument by appealing to an imaginary causer that you claim must have existed before the universe existed, and you call it a first causer while denying it is a creator god, lol, when it can easily just have been an increase in pressure or whatnot.

Do you not see that your claim is no different to that made by Christians when they say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was a big bang, and there was light?

Would you argue that the imaginary made up Spirit of God did not spend a very very long time creating the heavens before then creating the earth about 14 billion years ago?

But of course you wouldn't. After all, you are a deist, you claim, so Theo could not have caused the universe into existence because your first causer Deo cause it!

You can imagine ax grinding your tea as much as you want, deep, that is your prerogative. it bothers nor concerns me not.

+
I only looked at a few opening lines of paragraphs here because I cant see the point in this discussion or devoting time and energy to it. I also believe you have become emotional about it. I will only point out that you were the one defending the possibility of an infinite regress and I am the one saying it is impossible. That suffices to collapse all that you are saying. An infinite regress remains impossible in a causal chain because if it were the case, "today" would not exist, "now" would not exist. This is iron clad logic like I said, and no amount of grammar can wish it away. Good morning.

budaatum:
I feel you do not quite realise that claiming one does not understand is agbero approach. It's condescending and patronising and rude and insulting, and you should be able to accept the coins you dish out. Or do you think I am too thick to notice?

For your information, you have not once said you don't know, despite me repeatedly offering it as way out for you here, since neither of us can possibly know what happened a million years ago not to talk of when the universe came into existence or before then!

You have in fact been claiming you do know, because, "infinite regression", and you insult me for not accepting your beliefs as knowledge! An agnostic would not peddle beliefs. At best they'd say what they think, but they definitely wouldn't be asking one to believe what they believe like theists do.

I think you are still a deist, which is really just another word for theist without the god worship. And it makes me think of my Lordreed who took a while to abandon his theist language after becoming an atheist. You, on the other hand, haven't bothered to de-deify, and still talk in deist language, and can not understand my atheist language and therefore must ad hominem and moan when dished what you serve.

+
The ad hominems are all yours and I am left suspecting you still have an ax to grind, But that is your cup of tea.
As for the infinite regress problem, nothing can change the fact that if you start from negative infinity you will never arrive at 1. That is iron clad and a million words from ignorance, hurt or pride will do nothing to change it.

budaatum:
Deep, we are not speaking the same language is the entire point! But see how you slyly imply that I can not understand "deep stuff", lol, like I am braindead or mentally challenged, when the truth is your argument is as illogical as the baseless Kalam Cosmological Argument that has been propounded since Aristotle and dumped by most except theologists who make crap up to believe.

And that's why you'd need to put effort in to understand instead of rehashing what any atheist worth the salt would just laugh at when raised. Or do you seriously believe you are the first to throw such crap at me on Nairaland?

Note I asked you to explain eternity, but you can not or at least have not. It's theological gobbledegook as far as this conversation goes and as far as I am concerned, unless you define what you mean by it but haven't.

Inserting an immaterial nonexistent entity in the gap of your knowledge and claiming it exists is indeed wuruwuru, and is no different to what theists do with their imaginary Yahweh and Allah and angels and spirits, and is what I have done with my spaghetti monster, which you can not accept. I wonder why.

Question though, because I'm curious and do not want to assume.

Do you consider yourself to be a theist?

+
Its fine. I wouldn't have suspected you of this agbero approach to a delicate discussion with so many insults and all, its just no use.

And its obvious you dont even understand the Kalam, otherwise you would never have made the hideous mischaracterization of saying that in terms of a first cause argument it is ever suggested that everything has a cause.

Lets just forget it.

As per your question, I used to be deist, but today I simply say I dont know. I am agnostic.

budaatum:
Obviously, lol. Though I do very clearly understand your point, which I vehemently disagree with.

+
I doubt that you understand it from some of the things you say, such as invoking FSM.

Nonetheless we have not even scratched the surface of the matter. Sadly we can't because as I said we are not speaking the same language. If we were, we could explore it and get to ask questions that touch on the nature of eternity, self existence and immaterial things. Those are deep stuff and when you say wuruwuru it's clear we can't have even a proper attempt at it. It's fine.

budaatum:
Deepsight, please know that I do not assume that you do not understand my own point. I think you do understand my point because I believe I have explained it well enough to be understood, and I consider you capable of understanding my point.

You disagree with my point, and that's okay. It would be very stupid of me to think you are stupid and or don't understand my point just because you disagree with my point.

Do note.

+
It's obvious it's not useful to press the point. We are not even speaking the same language.

chieveboy:
There are relatively objective forces only. What paints any as good or evil is the third party.

+
I mean there are acts that would be evil. E.g: the holocaust.

budaatum:
I do see your point, Deep, and do not have a problem with your point, since I simply see it as pointing to how you think and reason. What I do find amusing however, is your attempt to create me in your image to think and reason and point like you do, which I do not.

Did you hear him say "there must be a first cause". And then jump to "there was a first cause"? Logic does not work that way, and thinking it does is plain îgnorant, and for the foolish.

+
I think your post shows that you dont quite follow the first cause argument and also that you make some very wrong assumptions about it. I will explain.

The world that promoted first cause ideology did not know about the number zero, and was more ignorant about negative numbers until relatively recently. They started counting from 1, which was their beginning, and went 2, 3, .... x. Humans eventually learnt about zero and were able to go backwards to -1, -2, -3, -x. Both go to infinity, but I wouldn't bother using that to prove anything about gods or first cause or even an infinite regression to you.

+
Zero is not a number per se. It is just a concept we use to indicate nothingness or an absence.

What you do not get is, even if there had been a big bang about 14 billion years ago, that moment would not have been the first caused event even though we count it as point 1 or even zero. Because a period must have existed prior to something forming to get big enough to go bang, and there is no reason to claim that forming did not take a further 14 billion years. And instead of just admitting that I have in no way exhausted regressing to 14 billion years ago, not to talk of whatever period might have existed prior to the start of that 14 billion years ago, you demand one insert some imaginary first causer that spontaneously came into existence all by itself, while avoiding the flaw in your own rational that claims everything must have a causer. And note that word please. It means creator.

+
Here are the assumptions and wrongs in your understanding. I will keep them brief.

1. You assume that all believers in the first cause argument see that first cause as the beginning of the physical universe or the big bang. I for one dont. For me, the first cause would be immaterial and self existent.

2. You imagine that a first cause implies that one thinks such a cause spontaneously came into existence in itself. This betrays a deep misapprehension of the argument. If you look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a reference, it very carefully states "whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause." It does not say "all that exists has a cause."

This difference is extremely critical.

When the truth is more likely that everything must have a cause,

+
Some things are uncaused. They are necessary and self existent. What would you say caused eternity for example?

as in, a reason for being.

+
We have to be very careful with words here (while appreciating that the words we have are limited in such a delicate matter). Because a cause in this matter would be different from a rationale. A cause would be a trigger whereas a rationale will simply be an explanation. A trigger would necessarily be an event while an explanation may not be an event, it may refer to a static state of things or reality which does not change.

You are aware that 14 billion years ago, and the imaginary further 14 billion that I am suggesting might have preceded it is still not infinity, right?

+
Of course and pivoting to the real question: surely you agree that we could never arrive at today if the causes of today rest in an infinite regress of causes, same as you could never arrive at Number one if you are counting from negative infinity.

This is simply put enough to be absorbed.

Sorry, Deep, but no mathematician worth their salt would talk the sort of rubbish in the youtube above to attempt to prove Gods. Just reading the comments shows the sort of people such 'logic' appeals to. It's not my "point", but I can understand if it is yours.

+
What he said was simple and true (the second argument) unless you want to show me how to arrive at 1 counting from minus infinity.

MaxInDHouse:
There is only one Christian organization on planet earth we preach and teach the same thing globally {John 17:22; 1Corinthans 1:10} so if any group claims they are also Christians but not willing to operate the same way as we do we will not honor their gathering let them pitch their tent anywhere the like!

+
How humble. Our organization is the only Christian organization on Earth. Indeed. We don hia.

zegxy:
You are clearly off point and show your level of ignorance and level of spirituality. I am enslaved to the real and undiluted word of God and I am spiritually mature to know fake pastors. The Bible says by their fruits you shall know them.
So if you still fund it difficult to differentiate between genuine men of God and the fake men of God parading themselves as GO or fathers, I don't think I should waste my time engaging you in any further arguments.
Shalom !

+
Escapist, of course you will avoid the key issues. For example did he publicly physically assault a child or not?

bayelsaowei:
Look at a üsè—//less creature that is in the Epstein files.

I don’t blame Trump. I blame his mö/-ronic supporters.

+
This might be fake