₦airaland Forum

cococandy:
You know there’s a difference between porn and child-porn? Please Don’t confuse the two. I sincerely don’t care what state engages most in porn.There’s nothing wrong with porn on a moral level. It’s sex. Adults love to do it. They can watch it if they choose to. Nothing wrong there.

But there’s everything wrong with children being in sexual material. And adults who view such materials are disgusting. And adults who even more egregiously practice such with children are of the devil himself and they should be in prison. Not elected into office. I hope I clarified that enough for you.

Don’t attempt to muddy the waters by lumping porn with child sexual assault material.

Thank you.

Obrigardo:
Guys, I need y'all to understand when you argue with maga cultists about abortion and sexuality, you are not arguing with people who have good intentions.
These maga cultists are the worst of the worst. Everytime, they are the sickest depraved people ever.

I don't even want to hear any drivel they copy and paste, I just want to check their hard drives and browser history.

I am very sorry to say but the sad reality is that a good number of them may actually have what you suspect there, such as child porn.

tctrills:
Maybe 5 kicks show you are human, 2 kicks and you can be killed

I have to admit this really cracked me up./

IjeBos:
How did someone like you graduate highschool?

Why are you presuming he graduated high school. I doubt it.

tctrills:
I have never mentioned religion so why do decide for me?
In this entire abortion discussion, have I mentioned religion.
Please do not distract.
In fact your replies have been far more religious than anything I have said on the subject.
Also, if you must depend on the kicks the mother receives, then you will be completely wrong to claim that third trimester abortion is Barbaric since only the mother can and should tell.

Read my words carefully you may see that I interject the word "may" in some places.

tctrills:
What makes the mother or the father in the best position to take the decision?
Does the mother or father have a special way of telling if it is human or not?
You said in no events you the government coming on it so you're saying that the government should not have the right to decide when a fetus becomes human you're saying that the parents somehow have greater knowledge or they know something that the rest of us don't know and so only the parents can make such decision.
For a baby that has been given birth to, the government can decide but you are saying government should have no power to legislate killing of humans before birth?
Don't you think it is a failure on government if they can't defend human life before birth.
Why should government only be able to protect you after you are born?

You have not yet come into the world, simple.

tctrills:
So, feeling movements, jerks and kicks is how to tell what is human?
This is sounding more like voodoo than science

Maybe 5 kicks show you are human, 2 kicks and you can be killed

We are talking about the first signs of consciousness for heavens sake, What would you rely on?
Oh I forgot. Your religion.
Is that science?

tctrills:
This is actually serious. You claim that the mother is in the best position to decide when her baby becomes human?

My question is, what puts her in this position?
Does having a baby in your womb automatically give you the science and knowledge to tell when it becomes human?

The mother is best positioned to be most sensitive to its development. In many ways, she alone will feel its movements, jerks, kicks. Aside from this there is a certain mystical aspect to the whole experience which involves her intuition and spiritual perception and no one else can know like she can.

cococandy:
This is literally the opinion of everyone in the world.

They try to make a case that no one is making and then try to get you to defend a position you don’t hold.

Has any of them ever seen a woman who intentionally carrie a pregnancy to the late stage and decided she’s suddenly tired and doesn’t want to anymore?.

E tire me oh. You people who have coped with the people on this particular thread for years are strong oh. These people are something else. I would have said they are not for real save that we all know their kind in real life, dont we?

budaatum:
Deep? Then, forgive my shallowness please.

You are not just in my mind, Deepsight, and neither are you something that I project, and that is the truth whether asserted or not, and as validated by me, and I don't really understand what I would gain by speculating or thinking about your reality and existence or not much less my own real existence, unless I doubt my senses and my mind that I have worked on a lot so I am not deceived by myself.

But, do please let me know if you would rather I deceive myself about your own and my own existence, because, if I try really hard, I bet I can, but I can not fathom why I'd do that to me, or moreso to you, whom I'd be disregarding and disrespecting if I did that to us.

Please know that I have observed your frustration on another thread when discussing the racism of Charlie with those I would call hallucinators, and I can't say, from what I perceived, that you appreciated their hallucinating one tiny bit!

The first below is from Through the Looking-Glass.
The second is my own cogito.

I cannot emphasize enough that I dont assert it to be true that we are hallucinations or insist that the concepts of virtual reality or simulation theory are real. I am agnostic, I dont know, and needless to say everyone has to live their life on the presumption of reality. Otherwise you are cooked.
Its just a speculation on reality and for me, there can be endless possibilities as to what this mystical thing called life really is, and the truth, I am guessing is probably waaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond what we can even guess at.

budaatum:
Okay, it may be better, but, thinking is not a way to prove existence at all, as far as I am concerned.

Au contraire, thinking is definitely a way to prove existence because anything that thinks must be existing and remember the challenge is one that a person poses to himself which helps him affirm his own existence. As you yourself noted well, the very capacity to doubt your existence affirms it.

My telly on which I am watching the Miami F1 is not thinking anything but it exists, along with Kimi Antonelli who has also just won the race.

I really think Descartes had in mind sentient beings.

tctrills:
So so someone like you would be okay to abort a baby a week or two before the third trimester. What changed in 7 days?

I never said this.

tctrills:
O
I understand your personal opinion but I am talking of the standard not just your opinion.
For example why is it acceptable to kill a baby in the second trimester.
When do we decide that this is killing it human being.
If you insist that it is up to the mother to decide how does the mother truly know when what she is carrying is now human.
It takes 6 weeks to get a heartbeat but you still think it isn't Barbaric to kill a 6 weeks unborn?
Also do you agree with the law that killing a pregnant woman should be counted as a double homicide, if you do then clearly it is hypocrisy to say that the baby within her is not human

It is obviously a complicated matter and I dont have all the answers. All I can say is that once it has taken on human form and consciousness is detected, I would be queasy. The mother is in the best position to take the decisions, together with the father where possible, and also with medical advice. In no event do I really think the government should come into it.

tctrills:
This is not the answer to my question in any sense. What you did here is give me your spiritual opinion. I respect it but the question is, since we all don't want to kill a human being, how do we decide what is human?
You already explained your method which is not very accurate.
Is it only the person carrying the baby that can tell when her baby becomes human?
So if for example, a woman tells you that her 8 months old pregnancy is not human, would you accept that?

I don't support the termination of advanced pregnancies except where the mother's life is in danger or for some other VERY compelling reason. Anything in the third trimester will be very hard for me to accept. It may border on the barbaric. Like I said, save for exceptional circumstances.

budaatum:
No we do not "have to go into the very complicated discussion of virtual reality / simulated reality to address these", for we already have the simulated existing reality of our conversing in this virtual reality of Nairaland to determine yours and my own existence!


I disagree! Because, for instance, and for some reason. you "deduced" the existence of NerdCat when you created this thread, or you wouldn't have created a thread to question NerdCat, whose existence you had already "deduced" and accepted before creating this thread. Unless you want me to believe you created this thread to question NerdCat whom you hallucinated into existence in your own mind. Which can be true, please note, so let me check that NerdCat is not an illusion you hallucinate into existence.

NerdCat, please, do you exist in your own right or are you an hallucination created by Deepsight?

And yes, Deepsight, it is still possible that NerdCat is a hallucination that you are having in your head, but I have no reason to trust that you are lying to me and simulating a NerdCat that does not exist in his own right. But please let me know if that is the case so I can correct my thinking.

Lol. What I am talking about is deep. Its the thought that everything around us is just in our mind, or a projection of it. I have no way of validating that thought, neither do I assert it to be true in anyway. Its simply a thought. Speculation on reality.

budaatum:
Descartes cogito was evidence to himself that he must exist, as "the very act of doubting one's existence proves that a thinker must exist to do the doubting". It however is not evidence that anyone else would accept or need for Descartes existence, since, for starts, I can not enter Descartes head to check whether he thinks or not, and can simply observe Descartes existence with my own eyes.

If Descarte were a car driving along a road I am about to cross, the fact that he thinks or not would not be considered by me before I step into the road or not to cross. And if Descartes were a rock in the middle of a path, I would not check the rock's thinking before I swerve past or walk into it.

Besides, a rock and the car obviously exist, and neither thinks, as far as I know, so thinking is not evidence for existence.

Its better to say that thinking is not the only way to prove existence.

voiceunheard:
When a person makes a promise, he supposed to follow up with his promise. Not follow up with silence.

I have to go to this extent because if I don't, I may NEVER be able to forgive him for what he did as I was told to do.

Again, he asked me not to report the people who threw my belongings out to the police and made the empty promise. Whenever I remember the way my belongings were thrown out and how the pastor's/his promise made me not to collect my full money from the people who threw my belongings out, I feel bad because he still didn't fulfill his promise. The aggression that I am supposed to direct towards them, I have to direct it to the pastor, because he fooled me and left me stranded, worse than the way I was when I came to the church.

Enough of people offending me every time and I will always be trying to act as the good person and later my mind will be full of bitterness as a result of what they did to me/ I didn't react. It is better to react and let the person also feel the pain he/she made me go through, then when it ends, I drop everything there.

I have said my own. Do as you please.

voiceunheard:
What you are saying here, did they happen when you were stranded? I need help desperately, I told him I was only looking for where to stay and be paying N5,000 every month, I also told him I had plans to look for money to rent a house. I didn't ask him for money to rent a house or for anything else before he made the promise.

Do you know my present situation now as a result of relying on his promise? I can't even say it here.

Like I said, the way you are sounding, even I would be terrified of offering you help.
The fact that someone failed to live up to a promise of helping you is no reason to persecute them to the extent of reporting them at their place of work, thinking of legal action against them and writing about them anonymously. Its way too much. We understand your dissapointment but its way too much.

voiceunheard:
Assuming the pastor said something like "l will see what I can do", "I will support you financially", etc that is when you can say that it doesn't falls under detrimental reliance.

He made a specific unsolicited life-altering promise - to pay for full rent including agreement and agent fees.

So what. You needed help desperately. Someone promised to help. If it turns out he couldn't or didn't you can't simply say he owes you or you have legal rights to sue him.

You know what, if you are so convinced of your case, go ahead. You will see how it turns out.

Not that it looks like you can afford to finance a law suit. Or should. Be wise.

In my life people have taken actions that have cost me millions in naira and hundreds of thousands in dollars. Some of these actions were fraudulent, some were simply cruel and deceitful. Some of these deeds cost me years of hardship. I have held anger in my heart but learnt it would cost more to pursue vengeance. I learnt to choose my battles. Think well.

tctrills:
And while you are bringing up new issues, remember you have refused to answer my question on abortion. Please do well to respond.

Here it is in case you forgot.

Back to the abortion issue.
Am I right to summarise your take like this,
It's up to the individual to decide when abortion becomes killing a human being.
It is only when the mother decides that it is a human being in her womb that it becomes a human being. Until she decides, it is whatever she says it is.

I have answered these questions already in a post to basilico.

DeepSight:
It will be arbitrary for me to place a specific number of days or weeks to it, but I have said that once it has taken on the human form, I feel queasy about it.

To divert tangentially spiritually, several schools of thought also believe that the spirit incarnates into the body at a specific time during pregnancy. Some say this is around the middle of pregnancy but for me, the time would be around when it has form and begins to exhibit consciousness. I dont know about the timing for sure but it resonates with me. I just cant see what appears to be for all purposes something like a tiny cell as a human being. No, for me, at the early stages it is not a human being. It is only a potential.

tctrills:
Sorry, I don't read from you, take heart ❤️

You would learn a thing or two if you humble yourself and read what he has to offer.

tctrills:
My dear friend DeepSight, are you prepared to apply your rule and call this beautiful lady a racist for accusing Kyle Rittenhouse of the intent to kill even after the jury found him completely innocent?

Are you brave enough to tell a fellow leftist on this platform that she is a racist or would you accept everything that comes from the left.

Do you worship the left and blindly follow everyone and everything from the left?

What use is it criticizing Trump who would never hear what you say when you could correct and help a sister on this platform recover from racism.

This is where you are needed the most.

Nothing in her post suggests racism.

budaatum:
How could you "be a hallucination of some sort"?

Am I braind dead or something, and therefore can not differentiate what actually really exists from what I hallucinate exists or does not exist in my head?

And how can I be a "hallucination of some sort"?

If I hit my existing hand with an existing hammer, is it my hand that does not exist, or the hammer or the existing severe pain that I will feel, that would not exist and that I am hallucinating?

We would have to go into the very complicated discussion of virtual reality / simulated reality to address these.
But in summary what I am saying is that you can only deduce your own existence, nothing else.

bemeruca:
You have not provided any. All you said and have been saying is cats and dogs.

That's not a proof. Do better.

Enjoy.

bemeruca:
If they are a community that draws attention, crimes, welfare issues, housing, etc. and other things like high rate of car accidents... It can draw attention.

The question is not “were Haitians illegal?” No, many were not.
The question is: does Trump having an issue with TPS or Haitian TPS holders prove he is against legal migrants because of race? That still does not automatically follow.

There is much evidence that his issue is not about legal immigration but the immigration of non-whites generally. I only cited the cats and dogs case as one example, even at that, just look at how you have gotten your knickers in a twist trying to defend the indefensible.

budaatum:
I am not presenting it as the same argument, but as a different argument entirely, for consideration, if you will.

I think, only because I exist, and would not be thinking if I do not exist. But I do understand that some may not be like me, and their existence is proven by the fact that they think. Though note that I do not need to consider whether you think or not before I can determine your existence or not.

If I become brain dead at this particular moment, and become incapable of thinking, I will still exist despite having no thoughts in my head. I will still need food and have my bum cleaned, despite my lack of thought. Same as I obviously must still exist when I sleep and dream not.

Valid and interesting interjections. I would however, contest that beyond knowing that one himself exists, we can know for certain that other people exist. Every other person could be a hallucination of some sort. "Cogito" does not infer the existence of other people.

voiceunheard:
Zero legally wrong?

Do you know what detrimental reliance is all about?

I do, still, the context does not provide enough to hold him to legally.
You cant hold a person who simply promised you help legally liable if he was not obliged to give you that help.

To hold a person liable in a scenario where you have relied on his words to your detriment, there needs to be elements of 1, intention to induce reliance, 2, clear and unequivocal statements, 3, detriment, 4, loss, 5, unconscionability. Other scenarios include some sort of professional mis-advise for example, or torts (civil wrongs) where there was a duty of care on one side.

Your reliance on this pastor's promise of help is not certain by any means to be considered reasonable. He was virtually a stranger.
Drop this thing and move on, at the rate you are going the man may actually be the one to have a legitimate case against you.

bemeruca:
Yes, there is no hope that you can conjure a reasonable argument from that.

If your argument is “Trump used ugly rhetoric about Haitians,” say that.

If your argument is “Trump has no legal right to end TPS,” prove that.

If your argument is “Trump ended TPS because of race,” prove the racial motive.

But TPS people were legal at the time does not change the fact that TPS is temporary by law.

Temporary means it can end.

Dogs and cats are not proof.

You are hardly a reasonable person because of bias wrapped in hatred.

Its tiresome how you dont realize the irrelevance of TPS being temporary. The issue is its legality because the original question was whether its only illegals he had an issue with. The Haitians were not illegals but he still had an issue with them.

Anyway, no point talking to stone.

voiceunheard:
You know why you are saying this? Because you don't know the aftermath of the promise. He made a massive unprovoked commitment to someone in crisis without a genuine effort/plan to fulfill it.

Morally wrong perhaps. Even at that, probably just careless rather than morally wrong. Truth is people fail even with good intentions. But there is zero legal wrong.

tctrills:
This is no point.
Every day we hand our kids over to strangers in the name of teachers at school. There have been cases of teachers doing very bad things to kids but we do not kill our kids because we fear to hand them over to strangers.

There are irresponsible biological parents, there are irresponsible foster parents and there are irresponsible adopted parents but saying that the solution is to kill the unborn, that's crazy.

I would not want my child to be with a stranger but you are telling me that the alternative is to murder my unborn, I will choose the stranger everytime over killing a human being.

Have I answered your question ❓

Not when you insist on framing the alternative as murder when it is not.

bemeruca:
What does eating cat and dogs has to do with what we are talking?

If they have temporary protected status and Trump decides not to renew it, it still does not prove anti immigration.

It's hopeless.