₦airaland Forum

kevoh: Ok, I understand you now!

What is there to understand in what our artistic sista is saying? What is wrong even if a man's hair is long enuf to be braided.

Soyinka can certainly have his braided if he pleases. Heck, some of my past GFs have even braided my "other" hair "down" there.

shyna501: It's ok 4 young girls. Bt ​i hate old women wit low cut anyway!!

That is because you are yet to come across a proper and well-set forty-something sista with correct swagger.

They are always the best, trust me.

[quote author=piano_girl]Probably in the western world but definitely not in naija...Most times when a guy keeps long hair,he is often taken to be a "bad boy" or seen as an irresponsible person,but its not the same impression when a girl goes on low cut..Look around you and compare the ratio of girls on low cut to the number of guys with long hair..For instance,if ur mum decides to cut her hair,its no big deal..but just imagine if ur dad decides to keep his hair long,u can imagine what people would say.[/quote]There is nothing there sista. Both my elder brother, who is 40, and my brother in law, keep very long rasta hairdos. No big deal dear. And we live right here in Lagos.

FXKing2012: Chai! How sad, the devil is in deed at work ooo.

Da.ft really. So now, low cuts on women are of the devil abi? Chei, my people perish for lack of. . .commonsense!

Hurry up and go to bed before I produce my whip and lash you to smithereens.

Olodo.

ifihearam: Why u dey call my name?

Lolzzz... didnt even notice that, lol

FXKing2012: We need to understand what the Bible says about this to know whether it is bad or not.

1 Corinthians 11:1-10 (ASV)
1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I
also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise
you that ye remember me in all
things, and hold fast the traditions,
even as I delivered them to you. 3
But I would have you know, that the
head of every man is Christ; and the
head of the woman is the man; and
the head of Christ is God. 4 Every
man praying or prophesying, having
his head covered, dishonoreth his
head. 5 But every woman praying
or prophesying with her head
unveiled dishonoreth her head; for
it is one and the same thing as if
she were shaven. 6 For if a woman
is not veiled, let her also be shorn:
but if it is a shame to a woman to
be shorn or shaven, let her be
veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought
not to have his head veiled,
forasmuch as he is the image and
glory of God: but the woman is the
glory of the man. 8 For the man is
not of the woman; but the womani
of the man: 9 for neither was the
man created for the woman; but the
woman for the man: 10 for this
cause ought the woman to have [a
sign of] authority on her head,
because of the angels.

Now judge for yourselves whether it is right or not for a lady to cut her hair.

Will you SHADDAAPPP!!!!!!!!

What the hell has a book written by ancient middle-eastern cavemen got to do with fashion in the 21st century? ? ? ? ? ?

Nonsense and ingredients. Capital colo-mentality.

As though our fore-fathers did not practice such, not to speak of our fore-mothers going about (wow, how I wish I lived then) top-less.

Nowadays your brain washed church or mosque will call such simple natural humanity "haram"

If I hear am. . . !

Comme on, will you skoot! Its way past ya bedtime

Ishilove: A caveat here. Your head must be well shaped if you must sport gorimapa. If your head is 'agboto', 'headward, 'hammer head of horror', opiololo and what not, a skin cut will make you like Ja Rules. Nota bene

Hhahahahahahahaha!!!! Laff no go kill me o. Whish one be agboto and opiololo!!!! Lol, you are right though, its not for everyone.

greggng: Low cut makes a woman look like AKATIKORO thats old fashion and warn out

You simply lack sophistication my dear. Please go and fetch some water from that ancient well outside your grandmother's compound and stop stealing airtime from the base-station close to your medieval hamlet/village.

[quote author=piano_girl]If I may ask,why is it much more acceptable for a girl to be on low cut than it is for a guy to keep his hair long...just wondering[/quote]Everything is acceptable.

UP LOW CUTS!

SKIN (GORIMAPA) IS THE BEST AND MOST POWERFUL LOOK A WOMAN CAN HAVE!

Ishilove: I really don't understand why the creatures have to be alive. Why subject them to such unspeakble cruelty?? As for the chinese, those people are disgusting!!!

Savages!!!

Its the "freshness" they are after. You know, once you kill an animal, from that second, it starts losing its freshness. So presumably eating it alive you get the freshest taste of the meat.

Anyway, here is a video of Jeremy Clarkson enjoying the Ortolan in France.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y4MS7mSzX8

It was particularly funny to see how they all had to cover their heads with the napkins to do the deed. They looked like the Ku Klux Klan.

Really, the most barbaric is the monkey brain scenario - if at all it is true, because it is so harrowing the way it is described that I find the description impossible to believe. Can you imagine a scenario whereby one sits down to dinner and what is brought in is a tied live monkey. One then uses a hammer to crack open its skull and then puts in fork and knife into the brain and start eating, occasionally dipping the live brain into a sauce on the table.

This one is for vampires. Just imagine you get invited out for dinner and your host does this in front of you. You will never see the world with the same eyes again. In fact, you would believe he is a vampire, and you may end up in a psychiatric ward.

yuzedo: Dammit! U gave me the number of ur OPC vigilante in ur Okokomaiko community!!! He said his name is Baba Idowuogbo!

Baby Mice Wine - China

No, I didn't spell rice wrong. There are baby mice in this cruel concoction. This health drink comes from the Chinese. The beverage is prepared by catching baby mice and drowning them in rice wine. This disaster is left for a year of fermenting. This is a health drink considered to be a remedy for many ailments. Healthy or not, there's no doubt that it's gross.

http://lolzparade.com/weird/crazy-things-you-wouldnt-believe-were-eaten-as-foods?v=-_tQEo-Xo2N130njpv9oDOAZ3UWWCy34Q9mUbpGaXs1_X_ZzN66KBs-Zxw90duZMufIGuA48okYrQy5it4jsaQ%3B&page=5

musKeeto: Well, I won't exactly say 'damaged'...
www.schizophrenia.com/famous.htm

I dont mean "damaged" as in someone has taken an axe and broken the brain. I simply mean its faculties of self-perception are malfunctioning in one way or the other.

Further questions would be
- at what point is the soul attached?

Some people say the bottom of the cerebellum, but I don't know and perhaps can never know.

- why would 'god' or whatever go through the whole process of creating a soul, then a brain? At least, it seems the soul, as per your definition, is immune from physical damage, am I right?

To bring conscious life to the physical realm which realm exists as a remote gradation from the emanations of God.

musKeeto: Oga Deepsight, going by your post, do animals have souls?

In my humble view, yes.

Man himself is anyway an animal of a sort, albeit a higher one.

And is a schizophrenic a soul without a good 'physical apparatus'?

Well I would say a damaged physical apparatus: which causes the underlying being to have multi-faceted perceptions of itself.

mazaje: The body is made up of billions of living cells. . .when they die off begin to rot away what do you expect?. . .So soul is the countless living cells or what?

Don't worry. You are your cells. They are the ones with motivations and thoughts. Enjoy.

[quote author=mazaje][/quote]Lol. Self conscious and motivated neurons and synapses. Enjoy.

Mr_Anony: How do you explain physical matter developing conscious self-aware life capable of making personal choices without an initial external cause compelling it to do so?

Excellent question! And this very simple question rests at the root of the matter: and on account of this very simple issue, the strict materialist must forever spin about in a conundrum of illogicality that no five year old child would even countenance!

mazaje: You said I should provide scientific evidence to show that thoughts are chemical reactions in the brain which I did . .The process is the same for every body with a normal functioning brain. . .Again, how does my soul control my brain?. . .If I think of the word mazaje. . .How does the soul initiate the thought?. . .Can you explain it to me the way I explained how the brain does it?. . .Pls explain the stages involved and how the soul initiate thoughts and controls the brain. . .



The brain. . .But lets agree that I have a soul. . .How does my soul control my thoughts, what are the process involved?. . .If the soul is immaterial and controls my thoughts then why do material drugs affect it?. . .

Now since you have asked these questions I will just give my view. I straightaway confess that in this view I am influenced by several writings which have found resonance with me, and I think, with reason.

Man is at core, a non physical being. This fact is very evident if only you will stop for a moment and consider your life and existence. Everything that makes sense to you as a being is non-physical. Your thoughts are non-physical. You have admitted as much in an old discussion with me. What exactly are thoughts? You say they are chemical reactions. If indeed they are merely chemical reactions, then they should have only a chemical result: i.e: X chemical interacts with Y chemical and you have XY chemical, period. Mere chemical reactions cannot give rise to living concepts, ideas and notions[/b] which is what your thoughts are, not to speak about living notions and ideas such as those that dominate human minds - love and hatred, family and community, ambition and achievement, career and success, government and law, economy and commerce, not to speak of higher ideas within the human mind such as spirituality and philosophy, et al.

It takes alot of blind faith, even radical fanaticism, for a human being to believe that these living ideas which govern his existence are just a bunch of chemicals randomly and purposelessly moving around with their own motivations. Surely that is unreasonable. What motivates them? For what? For why?

The only sensible conclusion is that man is indeed a being by himself, and these physical processes are tools by which he apprehends and processes physical reality.

Now you talked about how this works. I don't know if you have ever stood close to a dead body before. A dead body of someone you were close to. I have. When my father passed away in 1995 I went with my elder siblings to the morgue to see his corpse.

My brother, sometimes there are things that words and arguments cannot explain. You only need to be in that situation for one second to recognize that the piece of matter you are looking at is not the human being that you knew. I know I am waxing intuitive here, but that is the reality: it is a dead piece of matter: complete with all the parts that made it but, but the life is not there. That life, that living being, that is what the person was. That is what we refer to as the soul.

Now the very fact that the soul was there, and then at death is not there, is enough simple reason to see that something has departed from that body. This is so simple that I don't know why it has to be debated.

Now in terms of how the soul is "attached" to the body; I am not God: I do not know, and perhaps I can never know. However there are writings that suggest that the soul's very fine non-physical threads find attachment and rest at the base of the cerebellum, where the cerebellum attaches to the frontal brain. I do not know and cannot know if this is the case: but all that remains evident is that at death, there is life which departs the physical body. Also if you view a corpse you will more properly understand that it is just a tool - like a cloak, some sort of spacesuit - an intricately designed one for that matter, that a living being was dwelling in. No more no less. That living being is what is called the soul.

Now it is the impressions from that living being that are processed by and through the brain for apprehension in the physical world.

The foregoing is not intended as an argument. This is the simple and commonsensical way that I see human existence based on my walk in this life.

mazaje: OK, lets agree with you that I have a soul. . ..What is the function of the soul in the human body. .What does it do?. . .How can it be shown that it is the soul that does it?. . .

Let us not fall into error. You do not have a soul. You are the soul. (In saying this, as we are at such an elementary stage of conditional consensus only, I will for now make no distinction between soul and spirit).

You are in fact that soul, not that you have one. This is why you exercise control over your brain. This is why you take decisions such as deciding to stand up now and take a few steps towards the door. This is a decision that you make, and which is processed through, and implemented by your brain. It is not a decision that the brain just by itself conjures for its own purposes to satisfy itself. This is the only way to sensibly regard your proprietary control of your brain. Because it shows that your brain is a tool, an organ, which enables you to apprehend and process physical reality.

As such, your question is upside down. The soul is not serving a function for the body. The body is serving functions for you - the soul. The body is enabling you to live, dwell in, apprehend and process the physical realm.

Simple.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I can assure you that neither I nor deepsight have beef for you. We are just amazed at you inability to reason.[/quote]That is it o.

G'nite fellas.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There is something fundamentally different between a brain and a CPU which is subjective thought. I don't think that that can be explained by looking a the chemical/physical mechanism that correlates to thought.[/quote]Let me even add that the very term "Central Processing Unit", is indicative of the fact that something is being processed for someone.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There is something fundamentally different between a brain and a CPU which is subjective thought. I don't think that that can be explained by looking a the chemical/physical mechanism that correlates to thought.[/quote]GBAM!

Logicboy03: Oh, so now, you give me the compliment?

Yes rebellion against convention is good to the extent that convention is stale and without provoking thought. However it is tedious when the person rebelling is not able to follow any thought sequences at all. That is your unfortunate dilemma son.

Kay 17: I don't think proprietary context do or assist in understanding the mystery of our consciousness. The brain can't be effectively separated from a living body (within human experience) without losing consciousness.

Presently, the dynamics and the complexity of the human brain has given us insights to our understanding of languages, thoughts, awakening. More like our CPU. The biochemical explanations seem stronger and more practical than the soul explanation.

And what purpose does the biological construct serve? Itself, or a being called YOU?

Logicboy03: This guy cant even joke with me.


Why the hate? Did I butthurt you?


Is it Jealousy? I heard that you were one of the deep thinkers before I came along but now you are moved to the back burner.

Stop thinking I hate you. I actually enjoy and admire your enthusiasm. I am confident that it will grow and grow and provoke more and deeper thoughts in you as time goes along. I certainly prefer your rebellious spirit to that of the majority who do not bother to question anything.

Everything I have told you is simply as I see it.

Logicboy03: Yawn.


For once in your life, would it kill you just to admit that I'm intelligent? Arrogant and annoying at times but intelligent?

Didnt you see how I gave you a knock out punch with the "colour blind" explanation? Or how I closed your esacpe route of "soul of the gaps"?

Unfortunately I do not regard you as intelligent. Not even remotely. You have difficulty with simple thought sequences. I would be very interested in seeing an I.Q test for you. I am certain you might be quite dissapointed with the results.

It is not possible for me to regard anyone as intelligent when that person has difficulties with simple thought sequences. And this is a difficulty you have shown a massive amount of times on this forum. I often wonder why anyone bothers with you. I guess its just collective boredom and entertainment.

To be honest, you are actually one of the dumbest lads to have graced this forum. I do not mean any offense: I speak truth to you. Take some time and go through the older posts in this forum. You will recognize how far behind you are. Even for atheists. Look for the posts of these atheists: Toneyb, Kag, Purist, and others. Then you will have a vague idea where you stand, R.E.R.

Tata!

Logicboy03: Run away when I have destroyed all your attempts to fit in a soul of the gaps.



Muskeeto et al, this is how you deal with Anonyism/Dinesh D'souza tactics

Well if you, as usual, completely ignore the points I made about the proprietary nature of your description of your brain, and the several other simple and short points I made, I guess there is nothing more I can say, Sir logicboy, R.E.R. Do think on it though. You make the brain a self-centred independent being by itself with its own motivations. Do think on it.

Enough has been said to show you the fallacies in your line of thinking.

Logicboy03:


There is a dichotomy which you are trying to play into a false dilemma.

When I said that I an bypass my brain, I am differentiating between the organ of the brain and consciousness/mind(the brain working with the body as a conscious whole?)

Well you at least accept your mind to be different from your brain, and non-physical.

That's a start.

We will take it from there some other time.

mazaje: So, it controls all other organs. . .Controls thoughts, hormone secretion, everything. . .What exactlt does the soul do and control on its own? How can I know that I have a soul that exist independently of my brain?

Look at the bold above.

What do you mean by "MY"?

What is that "self" in you that owns the brain, such that you can say " my" with respect to the brain?