₦airaland Forum

MacDaddy01: lolololol....butthurt.

Feel free to make the fresh arguments here. Simple. No excuses. It costs you nothing.

It costs me cutting, quoting, pasting, which is all very tiresome. Now what does it cost you to click on a link?

Just one finger stroke, and you're there.

You would be quite silly to expect me to start writing the same epistle all over again each time someone asks me the same question? So its your expectation that when next someone asks me this, I should write all over again? And so on ad infinitum? Get serious. The logical first step is to show that person what I have written previously. Then you comment on those and why they are bad arguments. And then we take it from there.

If you cannot do that, if you are too lazy to click a simple link, too bad.

I always present my arguments when asked. I expect the same courtesy. If not, commot for road, empty barrel

Lol. You do indeed.

MacDaddy01: I am so loving this thread!

Not one piece of evidence so far. Oneof my best treads exposing the empty barrels

I am loving it too because it is a thread that exposes your very deep rooted foolishness. It is a thread that should serve as a warning to anyone that it is a waste of time discussing anything with you. It is a thread that proves conclusively that it is more probable that you have poorly cooked noodles between your ears than that you have high quality pasta therein - these two of course, being the only possibilities.

For; you have shown here a refusal to read and respond to a single word of an entire thread you were referred to.

Surely you don't expect anyone to write all over again what he has written before? And even if I did, what would be your response?

"Debunked! Next!"

Who takes such as serious argumentation, son?

MacDaddy01: Let me remind you guyz of the op

And let me remind you that I gave you a LINK to a thread where I discussed the matter. You have not responded to any of the points there. . .

You have no idea how pitiable this makes you appear. Refusing to respond and screaming "no evidence!" "commot for road" "debunked!" and the like. It comes across as quite extremely deranged.

For the umpteenth time I ask you to read the LINK and ALL the arguments I wrote there IN MY OWN WORDS.

Rebutt them.

Then we can discuss your rebuttals and even more. I have finished my pasta now. If you will RESPOND to the points made, I have some time to spare.

But if, as usual, you refuse to read and rebutt, and simply say something like "No evidence," or "debunked" or "commot for road" - - - then, really what on Earth do you expect me or anyone else to do?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Once again he covers his ears and goes lalalala! Why should anyone bother if all you'll do is brand the argument a name without even engaging it.


It's not "using style", you really aren't worth the effort. I don't see the sense in wasting words on you if you won't properly engage with the ones already thrown at you.[/quote]Exactly. I mean, if anyone actually sits down to exhume all Dawkins arguments, takes extensive time to go through them with a fine comb, sets out in painstaking detail the philosophical idiocies contained therein, and exhaustively answers the OP - what would be the use of such time-consuming pain-staking work, when, rather than a point by point rebuttal, the total response will be "Empty Rhetoric. You have been debunked! Next!"

It is just too funny.

MacDaddy01: Notice how you didnt make any point about the video.

Does this sound familiar?

Notice how you didn't and still havent made any point about the link I gave you?

So please don't expect anybody to bother, since you don't bother either.

That would be unfair, would it not - asking people to do what you refuse to do?

MacDaddy01: Pasta la vista

Lol

MacDaddy01: Yes, yes, I agree. Just park your empty rhetoric to the side, let others talk about Dawkins

Not a single response to a single point made there. I guess its beyond your capacity. I dont know why I am amazed. SMH.

Well have a nice evening. I hope Anony and Enigma will be kind and indulgent enough to take up your "challenge". I doubt it though.

As for me, I have nothing to say until and unless you read and respond to the points already made in the link I provided.

Make I go chop pasta joor. Later.

MacDaddy01: Yawn....commot for road. Let's leave it to those who have evidence.

Lol. Funny chap. Cannot even respond to a single word of many points put forward in the link I gave him. Not a single response to a single point in all the arguments there. His only answer is "Commot for road". I really doubt you will get Anony or Enigma to dignify your queries. Enigma certainly won't. Because of course, this is the worst case of intellectual vacancy and laziness, where you cannot read or rebutt a single word of that which has been given to you, but simply shout "commot for road" as your argument. Did you grow up in a motor park or something?

Paradoxically, you then act surprised when no one takes you seriously.

Enjoy.

If at anytime you decide to get serious, just go over to that link, read the points made there, respond to them, and I will be happy to return and discuss. If you cannot do that, then have a nice evening.

MacDaddy01: lol......it is simple, put forward the evidence in your own words here. It costs you nothing to state the flawed arguments that Dawkins made on this thread. You people keep embarrassing yourselves. Let's see if Anony and Enigma live up to the challenge.

My own words are in the link I gave you.

Ol' boy, there is no "challenge" if you refuse to read.

Do you expect me to go and copy the words there and start pasting them here? How hard really is it for you to click a link and read my own words?

Lazy or frightened, which is it? Or just not up to the discussion?

As far as I am concerned, I will only proceed further on this thread when you respond to my own words - all of them - in the link I gave you.

End of.

MacDaddy01: Commot for road.

Let others who have evidence and proper logical arguments come and state why they believe that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce

Well since you did not bother to read or respond to that which was provided to you (I gave the link; you did not respond to a single word written there); then how do you expect either Anony or Enigma to be encouraged to bother themselves writing what will not be read?

You see, it is very easy, but very unschorlarly, vacuouss, vacant and bereft of intellect, to give the same standard response to everything that you ask for: namely you just perfectly ignore what has been written and state: "You have no evidence. End of Response."

Who do you expect to ever take you seriously with such vacant responses. It is indeed you who should "commot for road" if you are not prepared to read and respond to that which is given in response to your own queries. Why should anybody write anything if you will not read it and respond directly to it?

Look at the bold in your post above. Now I wrote a lot in the link I gave you. What is the point writing more when you have not addressed yourself to that? Do you expect me to just start dancing because you say so? I don't mind dancing, but the DJ should kindly play the music. You are not playing the music, son.

MacDaddy01: I take it that you have no evidence for your claims? One down, two to go. You are yet to name one of his poor philosophical arguments

NEXT

Waiting for Anony and Enigma

You sir, are a veritable clown. It is obvious that you do not read. I gave you a link, and I so knew you would be too lazy to go there and read all the arguments both ways. If you are too lazy to read, why should I do the hardwork and bother to write?

He is a theological and philosophical dunce because he evangelizes on theological, philosophical and cosmological matters which none of his arguments have anything to do with.

This is the central reason.

However I have already given some of my reasons previously.

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

The man is not worth any sensible person's time.

He also makes some of the most hair-raisingly stu.pid remarks and conclusions that any academic has ever made in history. I would be safe to say that he is probably the dimmest person on the planet to be academically honoured.

Logicboy03: Yawn.


When you pay me a compliment without an insult, then I can take your "jokes" seriously.

Why should you be desperate for compliments? A true seeker of truth should NEVER be interested in compliments. Say your piece, pursue your cause and render truth for what it is and ask people like Deep Sight and Anony to go to blazes. That is the proper attitude of an activist with conviction.

Otherwise you give me to believe that every thing you have done on this board is in search of compliments.

Surely, RER, not even you could possibly get so rabbity?

Logicboy03: Ah...the real hate comes out

Lol, Logicboy, you are so incurably funny and childish. Cute though.

If you have the time, go and look through my historical posts. Look out for posters called Viaro, davidylan, Tudor, Martian, Noetic, Enigma, Inesqor, Mavenbox and Pastor AIO. I had faaaaar more vitriolic contentions with all of these people on this forum, and with the exception of Enigma I can comfortably say that none of them hate me. . . for what? Nor do I hate them. In fact, I am friends with some of these people today outside nairaland.

It doesnt matter if the creature exists, it is the connotation and deeper meaning of the symbolism.

Ol boy you are too funny. Oya, tell me, what is the symbolism of RER? What is the connotation?

Its actually just a spin-off from a yab that Viaro used to give me on this same forum when I was arguing vehemently against christian doctrines such as the Trinity. He referred to me repeatedly as a "desperate red eyed cultist". Lol. Noetic too used to refer to me as an "anti-christ spawned from the pit of hell" No biggie mate. Its just part of the play. The rofo rofo.

Viaro was the greatest yabbis artist ever on this forum - also because be had the largest vocabulary and was a superb scholar and word-smith. I remember he also used to insist that my day-job was as a lavatory cleaner. So many yabbis in the good old days, it was hilarious fun. Of recent, even the otherwise amiable Jayriginal has been exasperated enough with me to let go a terrible wicked tirade on my person. Did it do us any harm? We still chuckle and say hi whenever we jam on the forum.

I actually think RER is particularly funny.

Whats your problem with it? What connotation do you think it has?

If I called you a rabid vampire, it still is an insult even though vampires do not exist

If you called me a rabid vampire, I would laugh and enjoy the jibe each time I read it. . .

greatgod2012: Looking at how Nigerians (home and abroad) are happy during and after our just concluded matches, im so enthusistic that we Nigerians can do without hatred or bitterness against one another.
Therefore, im using this opportunity to appeal to all of us to be united and make ourselves ONE, if we can make it during our matches, then, we can always make it.
ONE NIGERIA!
Lets be reunited again.
Enough of tribalism!
Enough of segregation!
Enough of hatred!
Enough of bitterness!
Enough of religious intolerance!
God bless Nigeria!
God bless Nigerians!
O N E N I G E R I A ! ! !

Blood is on your hands.

Logicboy03: How foolish. Calling me names and still claiming that you dont have an irrational hatred for me

Cant you take a light fond joke? What on earth is a Red eyed rabbit? Does any such creature exist? Come on! Stop being so sensitive!

I must add that it is even more rabbitish, to be as brash as you are and then turn sensitive at the slightest. Grow a thick skin man, if you want to play in the ring.

oly g: i am lonely.i have got nobody.i am on my own.waiting for my woman

Awww.

Just in case anyone wants to send me a valentine gift, here is whati'd like, thanks for your generosity and non-material love -

homerac7: well bros, na wetin i read b dat o! na only top insider go fit giv u d load-down proper. what i hav experienced working on govt projects is dt ot always as dark as u think and never always as clear as u imagined. u just learn where to draw d line and play along.

also remember that a lot of highly competent consultants from private sectors do most of the preliminary works before final approval. so dont think less about the technical inputs that went there.

1. How can you close a bridge for four months for maintenance and do the same again four years later?

2. How can you close a bridge for four months and not repair the street lights on it.

3. How can you close a bridge for four months and only begin to patch rough parts of it after it has been opened (not even finished yet, as I type)

4. As to repairing or resetting the joints of the Bridge, does this take four months?

5. As to repairing or resetting the joints of the Bridge, does this take N1 billion? That is 4 million Pounds.

6. How much would such have cost if in another country.

7. How long would such have taken if in another county?

8. When next will the bridge be closed down? Because if it is anytime in the next ten years then there is apparent fraud or at best - incompetence of the grossest and most objectionable nature.

kandiikane:
Why no love for ugly? It's valentine for crying out loud!

To be honest, i think physically ugly people, when they find love, generally have happier relationships because the love is not built on their physical or other such perishable things. . .it is often built on their character.

(That is if they are not billionaires o)

Disaster. Life-Quake. Still recovering.

Logicboy03: lol......I like you but you seem to have some deep seated (sighted ) hatred for me.

SIR RER FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME I DO NOT HATE YOU ! ! !

Interesting thread. However every single one of the "victimless crimes mentioned" have clear negative impacts on self and others. I should mention that bestiality has often been cited as the origin of many a queer and oft incurable disease amongst humans. Aside from the fact that it amounts to r.ape in most instances.

Polygamy, without much ado, is a recipe for disaster as humans are naturally jealous beings in matters of love and marriage - even animals are. Narcotics are dangerous primarily for the altered state of mind that they induce - wherein all may seem well and dandy to the user; but reality is fast slipping away. Further on, said narcotics destroy lives in a way that is incomparable to anything else. You don't need to argue this one. Just do down to the dark alleys around pubs in Soho and other such spots in cities around the world. End of, for that.

Gambling, cannot be intrinsically wrong in any respect except that respect in which the OP probably means - namely the addicted and compulsive gambler. Even if not wrong this is foolish, and foolishness can oft be immoral as it destroys lives as well.

As to prostitution, I would say this - it is a very dangerous lifestyle that people get hooked on (ah, no pun intended, lol) and has terrible consequences in multiple directions and also at a societal level. This is however to be differentiated from promiscuity - which I can see no wrong in, so long as the promiscuous person is single, honest and practices safe se.x. But how many promiscuous people do this? How possible is it to be promiscuous and honest? MANY lies must go down the drain to keep up the game. And many broken hearts and broken lives too.

There have been many arguments on this thread but I dont think there need to be arguments. Every thing I have written above are not arguments, they are things I have experienced first hand and personally witnessed the terrible destructive results on innocent lives occassioned by such. . . except bestiality.

The fact thus remains that regardless of whether or not one wants to argue for the morality or immorality of any of these acts - one cannot argue that they are victimless.

The only victimless crime that interests me is carrying out a huge bank robbery from a giant bank that is very well insured for the loss by an even more giant insurance company which has already gorged itself for decades on the insurance premiums of the public and can absorb the claim without lifting any sweat or sacking anybody.

That one, if I fit do am, I go do am instanta.

Logicboy03: You know everything

Ah, finally you recognize my omniscience. T'would have done you some good to realise of course, much earlier, that I am omniscient.

Well right now I am philosophizing on the art and mathematics of Sunday Mba's goal; the philosophy of grass to grace and the mathematics of the dollars that will roll in to this boy soon. . .

Ol boys I no get una time. Una no sabi jack sh.it about philosophy. Enjoy.

plaetton: Ya.
If Mathematics is Philosophy, then you would not have a discipline called The Philosophy of Mathematics, would you?

And again. If music is art, then we could not have a discipline called the art of music. Or if War is strategy, then we would not have a book called the Art of War, or a course called the Strategy of War. And on and on and on. You just repeatedly show what poor understanding you have of this subject. I would advise you to go and study and read as widely as you can on both philosophy and mathematics and their history.

plaetton: Philosophy, by that basic definition, encompasses all learning and all attempts to learn.

That would be correct if qualified as: all learning and attempts to learn about the nature of existential reality.

This is why the attempt of yourself and Sir R.E.R to nonsensify the discussion by rendering any discipline whatsoever as philosophy must fail: because philosophy is reasoning about existential reality and not just random musing on every random topic, such that you may by that sleight of hand attempt to render me as saying that the study of the psychology of strippers is also philosophy; albeit that it very well may be on a scale that I will not ascend to at this juncture.

Now Mathematics, is exactly the most fundamental building block of existential thinking. This is what makes it the most important founding bloc of philosophy.

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof.

And what do philosophers do? It is evident to me that you have a skewed and lamentably limited understanding of what philosophy is.

Basic Philosophy is speculation and conjectures.

And this here statement sir, sums it up! With every respect to your person I have to say that saying that basic philosophy is "speculation and conjecture" shows and proves that you have not the faintest idea of what philosophy is and have not been in contact with philosophy AT ALL. I am totally amazed at this coming from you, I would have been more at home with such lamentable ignorance proceeding from the mouth of logicboy; where it more properly belongs.

Basic philosophy sir; is not "speculation" or "conjecture".

Basic philosophy is the art of reasoning on existential reality.

@ Plaetton & R.E.R -

I repeat my statement and please note it very carefully; I said: mathematics is philosophy and there is even a branch of philosophy that is pure mathematics.

If you do not know this to be true, then you have severe challenges with your grasp of either word.

I repeat for emphasis: Mathematics IS philosophy.

It goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

The word mathematics comes from the Greek μάθημα (máthēma), which, in the ancient Greek language, means "what one learns", "what one gets to know", hence also "study" and "science", and in modern Greek just "lesson". The word máthēma is derived from μανθάνω (manthano), while the modern Greek equivalent is μαθαίνω (mathaino), both of which mean "to learn". In Greece, the word for "mathematics" came to have the narrower and more technical meaning "mathematical study", even in Classical times.[18] Its adjective is μαθηματικός (mathēmatikós), meaning "related to learning" or "studious", which likewise further came to mean "mathematical". In particular, μαθηματικὴ τέχνη (mathēmatikḗ tékhnē), Latin: ars mathematica, meant "the mathematical art".

In Latin, and in English until around 1700, the term mathematics more commonly meant "astrology" (or sometimes "astronomy" ) rather than "mathematics"; the meaning gradually changed to its present one from about 1500 to 1800. This has resulted in several mistranslations: a particularly notorious one is Saint Augustine's warning that Christians should beware of mathematici meaning astrologers, which is sometimes mistranslated as a condemnation of mathematicians.

The apparent plural form in English, like the French plural form les mathématiques (and the less commonly used singular derivative la mathématique), goes back to the Latin neuter plural mathematica (Cicero), based on the Greek plural τα μαθηματικά (ta mathēmatiká), used by Aristotle (384–322 BC), and meaning roughly "all things mathematical"; although it is plausible that English borrowed only the adjective mathematic(al) and formed the noun mathematics anew, after the pattern of physics and metaphysics, which were inherited from the Greek.[19] In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.[20]

Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma, "knowledge, study, learning" ) is the abstract study of topics encompassing quantity,[2] structure,[3] space,[2] change,[4][5] and other properties;[6] it has no generally accepted definition.[7][8]

Mathematicians seek out patterns[9][10] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. The research required to solve mathematical problems can take years or even centuries of sustained inquiry. Since the pioneering work of Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932), David Hilbert (1862–1943), and others on axiomatic systems in the late 19th century, it has become customary to view mathematical research as establishing truth by rigorous deduction from appropriately chosen axioms and definitions. When those mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature.

Through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, mathematics developed from counting, calculation, measurement, and the systematic study of the shapes and motions of physical objects. Practical mathematics has been a human activity for as far back as written records exist. Rigorous arguments first appeared in Greek mathematics, most notably in Euclid's Elements. Mathematics developed at a relatively slow pace until the Renaissance, when mathematical innovations interacting with new scientific discoveries led to a rapid increase in the rate of mathematical discovery that has continued to the present day.[11]

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) said, "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."[12] Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences."[13] Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions."[14] David Hilbert said of mathematics: "We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise."[15] Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

The Philosophy of Mathematics asks these recurrent questions -

What are the sources of mathematical subject matter?
What is the ontological status of mathematical entities?
What does it mean to refer to a mathematical object?
What is the character of a mathematical proposition?
What is the relation between logic and mathematics?
What is the role of hermeneutics in mathematics?
What kinds of inquiry play a role in mathematics?
What are the objectives of mathematical inquiry?
What gives mathematics its hold on experience?
What are the human traits behind mathematics?
What is mathematical beauty?
What is the source and nature of mathematical truth?
What is the relationship between the abstract world of mathematics and the material universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

I should ask you if there is any logical person who can contemplate the foregoing without cognizing immediately the very deep, profound and exact nature of mathematics as the very root of philosophy.

I say again; and reflect closely on this particular statement: Mathematics goes to the core, the pith and the centre of all logical thought on reality which is the very essential element of philosophy.

End of.

homerac7: what i read from papers is that the previous job was for another section, not same place. the future jobs will be in subsequent sections in like manner. in other words, it's phased.

Well that is very strange and impossible to believe because the exact same portions of the bridge were closed on both occassions?

What foster father is willing to adopt this poor orphaned project called the monthly political debate?

homerac7: Chief, just in same way I cant hold brief for FG/MWH/Picollo Bronelli. The info out then was that the expansion joints were to be replaced in segments, which they hav done. Other segments will be done in future. Thats what they said basically. I'm an engineer and I sometimes work on projects funded by FG. the pattern is if FG says on d paper that so so and so is the title of the project, please believe it even if u r the most acute skeptic. Now, the extent of execution might be another kettle of fish o! but in sort of high level works as 3MB civil works, most of the times it is as given. Picollo Brunelli wont risk cheap or shoddy job in their name because it will be a very foolish gamble for them. If the bridge fails, their reputation is damaged forever, ...yea it all goes beyond Nigeria because ur company name will instantly bcom the newest case study in every school of HSE and Quality Control all over the world. Worse for you is that the politicians and civil servants will wash their hands off you sharp-sharp. We all know ourselves and how to play d game. Price, u can tamper with, critical sections of the job, not even the president will make them tamper with it, or else dem go dump the job for am and no sane contractor will do it. The consciousness is there, even at the highest level of our very corrupt society.

Quick examples: ...Industrial nuclear disaster, where comes to ur mind? (Chernobyl) ...oil rig disaster? (Alpha Piper) ...industrial chemical disaster? (Bhopal) ...off shore oil spill disaster (BP)...catastrophic bridge failure (na ur name u wan make e dey there?)

Fair enough, but since you are well acquainted with this sort ofthing, can you tell why they had to repeat this within 4 years - and also why it had to take 4 whole months? Is it likely to be repeated yet again in another 4 years?

Wallie: Not to pour sand into anyone’s garri but most of the people you think are super wealthy are not! Just because someone blows a few million dollars doesn’t make the person the wealthiest!

A divorce case in the Western world truly brings out the true/perceived worth of an individual. You have to recognize that the woman is trying to get the most money she can, which will mean that she will reveal every source of income she knows the guy has.

Are there people out there that are truly worth more money that Forbes accounts for? Yes. Almost everybody listed is worth more because income that’s not publically listed is not taken into account.

For example, any income from any of Dangote’s businesses that is not listed on the stock exchange is not taken into account.

Also, exactly when did Dangote break the $2 billion threshold after umpteen years doing business? When he got listed on the stock exchange. Why do you think companies go public?

My point is you can only become 13 billion dollar rich by “including” other people’s money into your wealth! You have something that people think is valuable and they invest in it! People are investing in you because they believe you can return value for their money. NOBODY in Nigeria, either dead or alive, is richer than Dangote.

For Fernandez to be sued for $300 million by a woman that has being with him since the 80s means that the number is a high approximate value of half his wealth, which includes properties, yachts, bank accounts and businesses. PERIOD. As an attorney, you shoot for a very high number to scare the guy into settling! Or are you going to say someone that knew him that long wouldn’t be privy to businesses he owned?

Even people that steal billions of dollars end up deceasing the loot significantly due to ongoing expenses because they don’t know how to replenish that kind of money. They also have to be careful where they invest the money; otherwise, people will start asking questions.

As to the bold; have you factored in ex-African Presidents?

Do you know how much was recovered from Hosni Mubarak alone?

When Danjuma realized $1 billion from selling a single oil bloc, can you kindly imagine the personal hidden net-worth of any current or ex Nigerian President?