₦airaland Forum

I don't think this would fly high. While I like Candace's guts, if Trump wants to have a shot at it, he needs to have a centrist deputy, and obviously a non-white deputy.

Problem is, while the MSM has dubbed Trump as alt-Right, it has also tried to dub Candace as anti-black which is the very non-white base she's supposed to represent.

I also have some misgivings about Trump running again. Some misgivings. But with the fallout of how Biden has performed, anything is possible.

paulolee:
still no know Wetin arsenal n wenger do this gee wey e de always
score against them..
13 goals in 15 games is totally insane record for an attacker against
a "big club" in EPL...even messi, cr7 n lewi no get such record
against a big club in europe..
It seems dey is something dt drogba or wenger isnt telling us dt is
fueling drogba whenever he sees Wenger..
maybe a younger drogba once went for trials n wenger said he isnt good enough to play for arsenal or wenger once priced him very cheaply...
they gat be a story behind this scenario wey de motivate drogba
whenever he see wenger..

Halt it with the insults.

Messi alone has 26 goals against Real Madrid and 32 against Atletico Madrid, and he hasn't even retired yet.

Don't compare a god to mere mortals.

J2381:
Ah this regurgitated piece of human trash is here again? Tell me how jobless are you for you to follow me, your god who is better than your father and your entire village everywhere on this forum?

Just look at how badly educated you are, telling me to promote your anger. Like seriously, promote your anger? Guy you must be a glorified loser for you to plagued this forum with your gargantuan foolishness.

It's a pity, your father should have emptied the sperm the birth you inside the toilet, I'm sure you'd have been at peace living with your fellow sh1t and piss.

Bastard son of a demented whore_. Tell me have you eaten today? Please don't let hunger turn you into an angry piece of IPOB tout, we know death is always what awaits them.

Like 2015 -2016 all over again.

Joe has still got it.

slawormiir:
Damnnn niggar
You are right though

But comparing motivates

Yes ....do not despise the days of your little beginning
Start from somewhere

But don't be too comfortable with it..do some dope shit...

Most important thing is never you be comfortable....I repeat don't be comfortable......because na so bros ororo take turn 48 years for inside 32,000 naira job for our area

Only when you do it legally, and without destroying people's lives while at it.

You are a self-confessed fraudster on the ftontpage threads of Nairaland over the years. You have encouraged impressionable young persons to do same on this forum.

The last person who should advise anybody on financial management and development on this forum is you. You have NO moral claim to genuine work.

But Nairaland seems to implicitly encourage fraud and crimes, and Seun plays blind to this.

sanpipita:
You are the one who started leaning on party inclination, you couldn't help yourself but first claim Idaho is a leftist state, all this sudden self righteousness is funny.

In all Idaho is a conservative state now, a deep one for that matter, if the item 2 in cannibalism law isn't something they want why can't they repeal or is it leftists that's controlling them since everything that happens is leftists fault.

I see how you disappeared for almost 20 hours then returned with this to cherrypick this post of all the nearly 50 posts which have posted about this on this thread.

I see how you abandoned your initial stance that the law is wrong and cannibalism illegal in all cricumstances.

I see how you conveniently ignored the evidence Budaatum posted which unwittingly revealed that law rectified to add the exemption made for conditional cannibalism was in 1990, under a Democrat governor.

Sanpipita, you can't just sandpaper all of those away.

The ironic thing about Buda's arguments so far is, according to the Cornell University article he posted here, that Idaho cannibalism law which allows for it in certain conditions was made in 1990.

Like I posted yesterday, Idaho had consecutive Democrat/Leftist governors from 1971 to 1995. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Idaho The heinous law was promulgated under the very watch of a supposed progressive. That rubbishes whatever Leftist-Right inclination you'd have wanted to lean to.

See the irony of everything? I deliberately refused to harp on it yesterday but focus on a certain point.

ono:
disstroy, you've literally "destroyed" buda with your very well written rebuttal to sanpipita's link on that Idaho law on cannibalism. Like I stated earlier, if you just read what's posted here by these people, without doing your own study and checks, you'd be lost.

sanpipita set out to make a mockery of red states claim to be rational in their dealings, make them look like hypocrites. In the end, and with your submissions, this obviously backfired badly on him and buda. Good one bud.

For hours, from around 3PM GMT yesterday, he resorted to insulting, trying to get insults back so he can play the victim's card.

Next, he'd try to gaslight and claim he's not arguing any longer since "You Q's" can't do without insult, then back away from the argument making it seem like he's taking the moral high ground with some megalomaniac response referring to himself in the third person like, "I'm sorry, Diss, Buda cannot continue to respond to this as Buda wouldn't roll in the mud throwing insults. Buda is above that". That's after starting the insults himself. Then he'd go back to editing out old replies and quoting them with some sanctimonious quotes and attached memes.

I see him coming from a mile off. The easiest person to predict here. If this were a boxing bout, he'd be open to jabs all over and repeated knockouts.

budaatum:
This is your logic and it is untrue!

Good.
By implication that makes the Idaho Government website a lie, a propaganda website since I am quoting and templating this argument on exactly what it states in Chapter 50, Item 2:

https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH50/SECT18-5003/

It makes you right and the government wrong.

Here, Budaatum, here is the part I warned you about that I was backing you into a corner with a sabre to your chest.

budaatum:
What I posted supports my position all along but you do not need to read it since you aren't the only one here.

Let's diissect your logic:

The official Idaho government website has a law posted which legalisees conditional cannibalism stated in chapters and units precisely and concisely but you quote a long text from God knows where without a link to an official source and expect me to read it.

Selectively fact sieving? You doubt the official government sources but believe it only when it fits your narrative?

Buda with no 'atum' of shame and rationality.

[quote author=budaatum post=106714339][/quote]Dude, argue like a man who can read and can rationalise issues with his own summations tallying with proven facts.

Don't copy long text from somewhere else and expect I'd read it. Read it and state your summations. This is not an exam where you have to give me verbatim. I'm not here for copy and paste to make your replies look long but rational consumption of thoughts and your deductions from everything stated then we go at it.

If this is you tapping out, I'd oblige you but only when I please. A few more punches to the head as pathing gifts.

budaatum:
I guess they assumed you have a brain and know how to use it.

Thankfully, when it comes to defending yourself you'd pay for a lawyer who has a brain or the state will provide one for you.

See? I provoked an emotional response from you. Definitely not the sign of a good debator - one responding to emotional pulls or pushes.

You, Budaatum want to sit down on a chair somewhere, trying to interprete a law which is clearly stipulated and not vague.

In fact, unless a law is vague or none covers an issue can it be subject to the interpretation of the law court.

The very link you posted from Cornell University states that cannibalism isn't even illegal in ALL of the U.S. so subject to the interpretation of the court.

Only Idaho has a constitution which outrightly permits cannibalism and that isn't subject to the interpretation of a llaw court.

For example, where age of consent is pegged, the court has no right to interpret it and only delivers judgement. That's why R.Kelly went to jail because he bridged age of consent and the law is clear on that.

Predictably when your ilk lose the plot of an argument, they resort to insults or fights then begin to gaslight and play the victims. Next it would be, "You cultists on the Right" to try to make this a political ideology thing instead two persons slinging words for and against a fact we can all read to get further emotional response and support from the viewing public.

I know how this works. I know how you think. You're like a programmed bot. Make your next move now. This Grandmaster sees it all.

budaatum:
If my friend dies under the conditions you describe then yes, I may get away with "going cannibalistic" on my dead friend's body under the conditions of my need to survive. But if I kill my friend and then go cannibalistic on my friend that I killed, even under the circumstances, I will be imprisoned for 14 years for cannibalism if found guilty of eating my friend, plus likely more for murdering my friend before eating my friend. And with modern day forensics, its easy to find out if I ate an already dead friend or killed my friend then ate friend.

Again, you are a devious obscuficator.

The Idaho only states what conditions the act of cannibalism is allowed as an exemption from felony.

It didn't state or make provisions for what mortal condition the person being eaten is, whether dead or alive.

It just says cannibalism and simply that.

In fact, cannibalistic laws cover eating a dead body. In places (same places) where cannibalism is outrightly illegal, if you eat a dead person you'd be jailed.

In fact, tempering with a corpse would get you jailed.

Yet that law states you can tamper with it and eat it under certain conditions.

It is criminal to add to or subtract from the law. And, in most cases, context and interpretation of the law is only left to the court. But the law is the law regardless. A defense lawyer proves those conditions happened, under the law, you are a free man.

See how I am calmly going at you and refusing to allow you poke me to get a reaction like you want so this descends into a cussfest? I am enjoy pushing you into a corner with a sabre pointing at your chest.

I control this narrative. I decide where this heads to. Make no mistake about that.

budaatum:
This is why its almost impossible to converse with you. You assume to understand what you don't and insist others accept your narrative. Take the above.

Why do you think I specifically choose you every single time? When a big cat lays ambush to a herd of rampaging animals, it particularly breaks up the flow of movement or lies in wait to pick out the weakest link as an easier kill, especially when it isn't in the mood to exert much energy.

You are the easiest to predict of the folks here and I have consistently stated that over the preceding months. Your tactics are specifically to obscurificate, turn an argument on its head and deviously highlight certain phrases to completely remove the context and edit out the rest of the reply to push your agenda. Everyone states this about you. Specifically this. There's even a name for it - whataboutism.

So really it's easiest to debate you, the weakest of the herd.

From denying cannibalism isn't allowed in Idaho under any circumstances even with evidence posted to shifting goalposts to it being probably when the person eaten is dead (necrophagia) to arguing repeatedly what you think are life-threatening circumstances even though everyone knows what those cricumstances are hunger-wise. You can't even pick a stand.

Yet I have been consistently on the same point for hours without wavering.

See how easy it is to sum up all your hogwash in the last 6 hours or so?

To see how robotlike and predictable your replies are, I dare add there's more accuracy in predicting your tactics that even a nuclear warhead projectile curve. If we had to bet on your tactics, I'd win every single time.

budaatum:
Not according to the law in Idaho, Diss. If you eat a living person in Idaho or anywhere, you'd be done for assault if you didn't eat the person all up, and for criminal damage unless the person you ate cut off a piece of themself for you to eat. And if you eat them all up or enough of them so they die, you'd be done for murder!

Cannibalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding fourteen (14) years.

Because of this your narrative error, I read no further!

Rubbish. In your usual sly manner, you'd take a simple phrase from a reply of hundreds of words without the context it as stated to push your wrong agenda. I've seen you do it here many times.

Sanpipita asked this same question and made the same point and I responded to him accordingly which he(?) let go. You obviously saw that reply to him because it was part of the conversation trail you followed up.

Here's the exact reply again:

DissTroy:
Stop lying shameless and adding what isn't there. This is exactly what Buda does - whataboutism.

The punishment for cannibalism in Idaho is 14 years imprisonment if found guilty but according to Chapter 50, Item 2, if your defense is that you did it under life threatening conditions (which I have stated some as examples), you haven't committed a crime. That clause is the caveat for handing down guilty sentences.

You can't be punished by the same law that gives an excuse to commit such a heinous crime. A punishment is meted out ONLY when you are found guilty. But you can't be if it's under those cricumstances.

Had pill to swallow, I know. I was just as much in disbelief when I came upon it long ago.

What if I post links and evidence of Western countries which have legalised bestiality? You'd be dumbfounded then.

https://www.nairaland.com/4508641/american-politics-thread-joe-bidens/2862#106696964

I understand your tactics of repeating the same questions to wear down so I see you coming from a mile off.

Double post.

Now you've descended into the pit of clownery, probably to blur the point I have always hammered on.

By any definition, whether the person is dead or alive, if you eat it, it is cannibalism.

Eating a dead person is a subset of cannibalism called "necrophagy/necrophagia" and the law has never specified it allows only necrophagy in those conditions. It clearly states cannibalism which by any definition is "killing a human to eat or eating a dead human". Do cross-check the definition of cannibalism again.

Whether it is dead or you killed the person under those specific life-threatening conditions is you being the classic whataboutism disciple. What the law says is cannibalism (including necrophagy and any other type of cannibalism) is allowed under the conditions we have repeatedly gone over for hours.

The part about Buda eating DissTróy and dedicating it is your sly attempt at being funny while blurring the inferred meaning points.

Focus on the point. We can comeback to sly remarks and jokes later.

budaatum:
I know your "point or fire" is about morality of cannibalism, so make it! For now though, I need to get you to the point of showing you understand the law.

If you and I are starving in a bunker in Idaho and you happen to die, buda will cannibalize your dead body to remain alive, and according to the law of Idaho, buda may walk free if saved.

Please know that if I so happen to live because I was smart enough to cannibalise your dead body, I will make an alter in your name and to you and give it offerings like a motherless babies home or a rape survival sanctuary because your dead body saved me from dying. I'm certain the slogan, "buda cannibalized Disstroy", will attract lots of financial contributions.

budaatum:
So, I will not walk free if my lawyer fails to "prove you were in those conditions according to the law"? I'm glad you get that.

Now, do you mind telling us what those "conditions according to the law" that are classified as "life-threatening conditions" are please, so we all know when and why I can eat you in Idaho.

If anyone else was being needlessly obstinate and selectively blind, I'd either ignore or just go on to hit them hard.

I have explained countless times what constitutes life-threatening conditions, even using analogies of being trapped in a bunker without food for weeks, a famine or extreme hunger with no other way out but death or eating anything.

I understand your tactics when you lose the discuss is to be ingratiating, to keep asking the same questions a thousand times in a thousand ways just so the person you are debating wears out and just abandons the argument while you have the last word to force a false narrative of how the debate went and the points eludicated or highlighted.

You know what are life-threatening conditions of hunger. Everyone on this thread knows. The law knows. Ask the man down he street and he knows. But Budaatum feels the need to force a narrative which isn't flying.

That is the issue I keep pointing when having back-and-forths with you - whataboutism. Always dancing around the point or fire but never admitting to the obvious heat.

And Idaho has always swinged both ways anyway. Check the history.
In fact from 1971 to 1995, it had consecutive Democrat/Leftist governors. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Idaho
The majority of its legislature has always swinged both ways.

Still, that isn't the more contentious issue here. It is the cannibalism issue. The law which has remained so for years regardless of which of both parties became governor or controlled the state legislature. You want to dig into when that law was made?

budaatum:
Yes, diss. One can go cannibalistic on him if he dies. And when we get to court we can argue if my supposed "life-threatening conditions" are a valid reason for me cannibalising my dead friend. Its after all not a slam dunk defence that I don't need to defend if a prosecutor decides to charge me for the crime of cannibalism.

That is you, a victim of conscience. Like all humane people should be victims of conscience.
Still, according to Chapter 50, Item 2, since you were in life-threatening conditions when you committed cannibalism, you didn't commit a crime.
You can only be sentenced when it is a crime. Unless you don't contest it, and the prosecutor charges you (which is what all prosecutors want in any law court in any country).

But if you contest it (anybody who is willful enough to eat another human being has no conscience really), you would walk free. All your lawyer has to do is prove you were in those conditions according to the law.

budaatum:
A rule that will still be argued in a court of law, right? Or in your court, does the accused stand up, give the so called "cannibalism under life-threatening conditions", and the judge say "acquited", with no argument from lawyers about the validity of the "life-threatening conditions"?

Diss! Can you have a fridge and freezer full of food in your house in Idaho, eat someone and then claim "cannibalism under life-threatening conditions" and expect to be set free?

Exactly! That it is even being argued is a thing. That the argument tethers on whether the cannibalistic act is justified or not.

You can argue a murder case, about whether it is self-defense or not, or life-threatening conditions.

But cannibalism should be clear-cut once there's evidence it was done. Like rápe, you can't rape in self-defense or life-threatening conditions. Once it's proven you raped, the reason is immaterial - it should be swift punishment.

Having a freezer full of food no longer counts as life-threatening conditions for cannibalism. Hunger, extreme hunger and at the point of death due to hunger are the specific conditions.

But according to that Idaho law, you can be excused or have it as defence. Once it's proven that those conditions happened to you, you walk free. Only IF you prove those conditions happened. That's the point.

So, let's say there's a flood and you're trapped for weeks in a bunker with your friend with no food, you can go cannibalistic on him. And when the flood recedes, and it is found it, that life-threatening hunger would stand up as defense.

Does it make sense as an excuse? No! It shouldn't make sense because we are humane but the Idaho law excuses it.

Abujason:
North already had their turn.

1. Osinbajo
2. Okonjo Iweala
2. Akinwunmi Adesina

Preferably, we need someone with knowledge of Economics from the South - not another borrow-borrow Northerner.

Definitely not Osinbajo who has never been his own man, and has continuously knowtowed to godfathers (including Tinubu) publicly. He'd be more subservient than Akinwunmi Adeshina is even projected to be.

And Osinbajo, unlike the other two, isn't an economist nor does he have antecedence of leading an economic team or project to success.

His best project as V.P. was successfully sharing 10,000 naira to market women in the lead up to the 2019 elections in specific states which was veiled vote-buying.

Dapson73:
Point of correction, Tinubu and Ngozi Okonjo Iweala is from the south and northerners will never negotiate such position for female.

Argument against Ngozi Okonjo Iweala's candidacy isn't even because of her gender. I don't care which gender becomes president.

She's in bed with the very organisations which helped screw the economies of African countries - the IMF and World Bank.

Almost like the U.S. foisting Mohammed Morsi on Egypt in the height of the Arab Spring.

budaatum:
But it does concern us quite a lot. It's why we are campaigning to win Idaho from those clueless Republicans so we can make cannibalism illegal in Idaho. And now we've seen you oppose Idaho's Law, we'd hope you become woke!

Republican, Liberal, Independents... Damn it! It's the supposed free world we are on about here.

China isn't an Democratic country. What Russia has is sham. Yet neither in any of their provinces or regions excuse cannibalism.
That such heinous things are excused away for whatever reason is bewildering.

Sort of brings to mind the latest Dave Chappelle special about being selectively outraged, and ignoring other weighty things. People just assume such things can't exist while there are laws with a backdoor to commit these crimes.

The law, as any law expert with tell you, isn't about justice or what's right - it's mostly about arguing agreed rules and precedences. The "rules" here would be cannibalism under life-threatening conditions.

The Indonesian(?) should kids who got trapped in an underground cave for weeks were in life-threatening conditions. If it were in Idaho and there was cannibalism, a lawyer would argue and defend the perpetrators' right to freedom.

You get it now? Actually, you do but whataboutism has to live on, yes?

budaatum:
I guess you don't realise your defense has to stand the test of validity.

Go on diss, go and cannibalise someone Idaho instead of going to the local supermarket. Show us your "excuse" works in court please.

Stop acting dumb. You and I know you aren't dumb but you are devious by biasedly avoiding the obvious which has been laid bare.

According to the Idaho law which I have posted over and over again, under life-threatening conditions, you can kill and eat another human being.

Killing a person going to the supermarket is kidnapping and murder, and you'd be jailed as those aren't under life-threatening conditions.

If you are stuck in a cave in Idaho, for example, or wilderness, or there's as a famine, those are life-threatening conditions where survival is threatened. The law excuses that under the circumstances.

You read this. You know what this implies but since it doesn't fit the narrative you want, you'd question something we can all see. The sun is a hot gas sphere. We can all see that. It's evident. If someone calls it a cold rock reflecting heat, it still wouldn't change the fact.

PrideofLincoln1:
Mr American expert, sorry to rain in on your party. Idaho is one of the most Republican States in the Union. The Google you rely on should have told you that. Idaho is as Red as any other Red Republican States as they come. Just have to correct you before your friends starts giving you their likes.

If you had half the intelligence of a shellfish, you'd have known the back-and-forths between Sanpita and I were entirely templated on the exceptional legality of cannibalism in Idaho. He understands that and has stayed on it.

But being the cherry picker that you are, you selectively skipped the crux of the issue to clutch at straws.

The main issue should be why for any reason should something as heinous as cannibalism be excused in any place, especially the U.S., instead of cannibalism being treated worse than murder and even - this isn't stretching it - punished with a life for a life.

That cannibalism is obviously legal and exucsed doesn't concern you. You don't have to jump at every discussion if you don't have intelligent contributions to make or veer off it if it doesn't contribute to the roundness of the discussions.

Sometimes just sit back and read. You don't have to jump at every post on every page of a thread like a fledgling teenager trying to get noticed by grown-ups. Obviously so since you are always obsessed with "likes".

sanpipita:
Anyway you can go to Idaho and cannibalize let's see how far item 2 takes you in court

Again, whataboutism. Facts are facts, and there's nothing more factual about this issue than the evidence from the official Idaho government website I provided.

I didn't draft or pass Idaho's laws. Any argument for or against cannibalism in Idaho would always be subject to the dictates of the law and the law is clear about the exceptional legality of cannibalism.

What you should do if so concerned is drum up support for change, start ( a faux) outrage on Twitter (add one phobia tag to it), and force the government of the state to completely outlaw that heinous caveat.

Use Cancel Culture for good this one time instead of trying to destroy the livelihoods and reputations of those who do not agree with liberal or woke ideologies on social media, including, most recently, Dave Chappelle for stating gender is a fact and not a societal construct.

Even POC might be victims if that law isn't ratified. For all we know, they might already have been victims by racist folks even as recently as the 60's or in the heights of the Civil Rights Movement.

sanpipita:
They only say there could be viable defense for the act under certain circumstances, in the end its a punishable offence for 14 years max, so much for being legal.

Stop lying shameless and adding what isn't there. This is exactly what Buda does - whataboutism.

The punishment for cannibalism in Idaho is 14 years imprisonment if found guilty but according to Chapter 50, Item 2, if your defense is that you did it under life threatening conditions (which I have stated some as examples), you haven't committed a crime. That clause is the caveat for handing down guilty sentences.

You can't be punished by the same law that gives an excuse to commit such a heinous crime. A punishment is meted out ONLY when you are found guilty. But you can't be if it's under those cricumstances.

Had pill to swallow, I know. I was just as much in disbelief when I came upon it long ago.

What if I post links and evidence of Western countries which have legalised bestiality? You'd be dumbfounded then.

sanpipita:
Idaho allows cannibalism then goes ahead to post link where same Idaho finds cannibalism a punishable offence, you couldn't read what you post of what? you guys are incredible.

Idaho isnt even a leftist state, Trump won Idaho by 30% Idaho governor is republican, republicans outrightly control Idaho state legislature, but again you guys are incredible

You're definitely dyslexic. You should have your head examined.

Here's Chapter 50, Item 2:
"It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of the provisions of this section that the action was taken under extreme life-threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival." https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH50/SECT18-5003/

Cannibalism is allowed in the state of Idaho under life-threatening conditions. If there's a famine or you can't afford food, that constitutes as life-threatening conditions and you are allowed to butcher and barbecue Budaatum if you can lure him. Completely legal in Idaho.

chatinent:
There are two states in Nigeria where people do take these kinds of dreams so seriously that they take what so-called prophets tell them and act on it like what happened above. Let me not mention the names so they won't say I hate Akwa Ibom and Calabar people.

Is nor from my mouth you'll hear it from.

I'm Ibibio and you're not wrong. Folks in both states are overly churchy and you can never remain in the corridors of power or socio-politically visible if you aren't sanctimonious within the sociopolity if you don't quote Bible verses, align yourself visibly with a top church denomination and make yourself seem subject to an influential clergyman.

Even the governor, educated, cosmopolitan and accomplished as he was before joining politics, is shackled by the religious bodies or organisations.

There's a relatively significant section of the demography who do not subscribe to all these charlatans or ever post churchy quotes or even attend such events even when we visit the states.

Yes, Akwa Ibom and Cross River (especially the Efiks of Calabar).

ideatoprince18:
..... Very true my brother .... Some people from those states are so fetish

Ideatoprince. Obviously an Igbo from Imo State, I guess?

There's nobody more fetish than the Igbos, except maybe those from Ogun and Osun States.

There's a reason why ritual killings are extremely rare or cases of missing persons in Akwa Ibom State but common in Igboland. There's a reason why for over a decade, Uyo has been the safest city in the country while all manner of atrocities are committed in Igboland.

Tell me again, who are those notorious for money rituals and love charms in the country again? We both know it's not the Ibibios.

Don't get me started, young man. I have the files all documented with pictures, videos and links of news reports.

You should focus on the in-fighting amongst the Igbos. On why the Anambras regard the Ebonyis as inferiors or why the Enugwus feel Nnamdi Kanu can't be the Biafran leader because he hails from an inferior Abia State according to you lot.

Or why the Abribas who are Igbos of Abia State find more kinship with the Annangs and Ibibios of Akwa Ibom State because of how your other Igbo subgroups treat them.

Don't get me started.

budaatum:
Next, you would claim that buda does not believe that you have the right to use your brain or not, because, your body but not your brain, right?

Erm, as dystopian as his comparison goes about the Left supporting cannibalism, the Left/supposed Liberals actually already support cannibalism.

The State of Idaho allows for cannibalism. You are allowed to eat human beings by the Left.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH50/SECT18-5003/
Yes, you guessed correctly - Idaho is a Leftist
state.

He's 35 and has a 15-year-old child. He became a father at 20. That's all you need to know about how irresponsible he is and his parenting skills. He got a woman pregnant at 19, as a teenager.

"Hattrick for Ronaldo."

Yeah. If I had to play middleaged spare part dealers from Alaba International Market every international break, I would bang in hattricks every game too.