₦airaland Forum

akwesenana:
Let's talk about Gaddafi.
Where are those who killed him now?
How is Libya faring in this reign of "calm"?

Gaddafi was killed by Libyans. They literally stoned him to death. It's their choice.

akwesenana:
That means you admire vegans 'cause it feels cool to admire them. Not because there's any reasonable thing (besides health benefits, which are questionable) behind the idea.

I admire the sheer selflessness of the act.
Someone willing to sacrifice his personal pleasure and comfort for a cause they believe is bigger than themselves will always be admirable. Now whether you believe in that particular cause is a whole different conversation.

People deciding not to eat any meat no matter how delicious it is, simply because they seek to preserve life is a genuinely admirable idea.

akwesenana:
In other words, you support jungle justice?

You continue drifting soo far from me. You're basically inventing your own narratives and trying to run with it.

BELIEVING that someone escaped justice and ACTING on that impulse are two different things and worse soo acting sooo violently towards that injustice.

I can see and believe that a criminal was free but to then actively support extrajudicial violent acts (jungle justice) is another thing altogether.

Till today, many people believed that oj Simpson was guilty of his crime even though the courts found him not guilty, but it ended his career and many are actually satisfied with that because a life was lost there. But no one went and physically harmed him.

Now not to say we can't have a debate of whether jungle justice in some instances are not justified. I mean, Gaddafi the Libyan leader was killed by the masses themselves, people who who were ruled under his reign of terror for 40 years.
I know I wouldn't be sad if jungle justice was meted on buhari if he was tried for his crimes against Nigeria in court and walked out freely with everyone knowing he gamed the system but knowing that he set this country several years backwards and cost a lot of lives. Now I'm not saying I support it, but I know I won't be sad, that's for sure.

sod09:
E ti gba alejo oran ni thread yii 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Is this what you meant??

Is google correct?

A40:
Like I said we have to choose if we want to believe people are innocent till proven guilty or not. You can't pick and choose when to believe it. Else you're no better than the backward societies you claim you're better than in the East

This "innocent till proven guilty" is just a legal term. It's for the courts, never has it been for the masses. Me and you have seen corrupt politicians in this country who went to court and came out victorious. We have seen cases of mob bosses being declared not guilty because witnesses disappeared and no evidence.
Are you saying that YOU as an individual will believe that someone is innocent of any wrongdoing so far as the courts don't find him guilty? Really? You never form your own perspective and judgement on issues with evidence before your eyes?

In this case of greenwood, we have direct evidence that a rape took place and crime was committed. Why won't you apply your own personal perspective to this? What makes you want to defend a blatant criminal?

A40:
You're doing too much bruh. I didn't say Greenwood was blameless and I don't recall defending him on this thread so I don't know what you're on about.

I was speaking on a broader scale about past unrelated cases with the Dr for instance and guys like Partey and Mendy

The woke mob can do whatever they like with their selective demands. That is not my own concern, my stance is if he's not in jail then he should get an opportunity to earn a living the best way he knows how which is on the pitch and I stand ten toes down on that. If he's not found guilty in a court of law he should play wherever he can

A40, do you believe that there are some people who have committed crimes, gone to court for those crimes but have been released on technicalities, however everyone and even the person in question does know that he committed the crime?

I'm talking of street rappers, drug lords, corrupt politicians, white collar fraudulent business men etcetera.
I ask again, do you believe that the justice system is perfect and convicts every criminal who passes through the court system?

I'm sure the only answer to this is NO. the court is not perfect and sometimes criminals get away with their crimes, to which I would now ask you, if with evidence presented to you, you and a lot of people are certain that someone did commit a crime and you owned a business, would you want that person who committed that terrible crime to work for you or with you?
How would you like working with a violent murderer?

akwesenana:
No offence oh, but this "freshly roasted and spiced meat" so, in it's life time didn't it harm life by feeding on other animals?
Food chain na joke to una?

How is my point not getting across??
Am I doing a bad job of expressing my thoughts lucidly and clearly?

You are phrasing this question to me as though I buy and key into the idea of vegetarianism but I don't. However, I do admire the selfless sacrifice of the act.
Vegetarians believe that man is responsible for the extinction of sooo many animals, that we've hunted some animals out of existence and that part is true but I think that rather than say man shouldn't eat meat, hwta they should argue for more is conservation efforts but if Indeed more people decide not to eat any meat, I think it's also good for them. No one can criticize them. There is no harm done in their decision.

chrisley024:
@emboldened. I would appreciate seeing the evidence for this claim. Based on my understanding, these segregations were officially enforced and therefore seem unrelated to the current discussion. It appears you believe that I support discrimination, which is not the case. My position is that the other party isn't discriminated against and or no infringement on their rights.

As a question for you, do you think there should be a law that compels a private business owner, who for religious beliefs doesn't support gay marriage, to make a cake for a same-sex wedding?

Well, yes private business individuals acted upon their individual rights to discriminate upon black people and refuse them service and this went on for soo many years infact it was encoded into law at a certain time that blacks were 3\5th of a human and were not equal to a white man, I will also add that Interracial marriage was also forbidden.

As for your question, my answer is yes, but not in the way you framed it, saying there should be a law that "compels" and individual to make cake for gay couples even to his dislike frames it wrongly.

I would rather frame it that it should be illegal to discriminate another individual on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender etcetera.
Once there is a hint that a business owner wouldn't attend to someone on the basis of these aforementioned factors, the business should be sanctioned. Because that is blatant discrimination and as a society we should seek to be more tolerant, and not to sanction hate.

When you apply that question with another example, you see the problem, should a Catholic cake baker decide not to bake cake for a Muslim because of his beliefs?

Should a white cake baker decide not to bake cake for a black man because of his racism? We have been here before and we know that it is not a good place to be.

A40:
Lol. Nothing sacrificial about being a vegetarian. The Almighty made us omnivores for a reason

Even for animal kingdom carnivores have their use. And that plant you're eating is depriving a herbivore of food.

By eating dairy products and poultry we are applying population control

Yeah, not that I agree with the vegetarians or their principles but my point highlights the point of people making sacrifices for the greater good.
Seeing a freshly roasted and spiced meat with assorted beef and deciding to sacrifice your pleasure from a place of genuine desire to not harm life is indeed an admirable selfless sacrifice. It requires strict adherence and discipline to your personal principles to achieve this.

It's admirable.

melodyogonna:
The British government did not even pursue the case. After it got dropped a Nigerian/British crime lawyer on Twitter expanded on the reason. Apparently crimes must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and based on their investigations this particular case can not be proved, audio recording notwithstanding.

Indeed, proving the crime of rape is a very very high threshold.
If not for this live recording this girl did now, absolutely no one would agree with her of she said that she was raped!
I mean, even with the Audio that we can all hear of a rape happening, some people are still willingly providing cover for Mason, now imagine that she went to court with just this recording and even with that, he was pronounced not guilty because the recording is not sufficient evidence, do you think people will still believe that he was guilty??

I hate when people side with blatant injustice.

We are supposed to root for the underdog, for the little man, where is this sympathy for a criminal coming from?

ChristineC:
did I ask him to stop advocating for any rights he likes?

That post came off as you jeering the guy for having advocated and supported women and then being a bad victim of a terrible woman.

A40:
In Greenwood's case I don't think it's just money or carrying olosho. The boy does seem a bit tapped in the head. He has a lot of maturing to do. As a man especially a black man in the West your rope is shorter than most

So you all agree that he indeed did something very terrible, then why then are you guys somehow spinning this against women??

Why are you guys defending him?
I can't understand this? You guys see that indeed be was very wrong in his actions but then you guys are angry with the "woke mob" who are demanding accountability for his actions??

Reaction to the video.

ChristineC:
he's a very humble man these days
as always, body go tell person.

Are you saying that because someone advocated for women rights but then fell victim to a particular bad woman, that that somehow undermines his initial good stances??
That a terrible woman doing him bad means he was wrong to have advocated for women's rights and stood up for them like I'm doing now?

nitrogen:
Companies carry out integrity and background checks, some may be okay having him on board since there is no conviction. Top football clubs will want to avoid the publicity that comes with parading him in front of the world every weekend.

Maybe Saudi or Turkey (Middle East in general) will work, but he might be paid a wage that is similar to what local players earn. No leverage at all. Chai, and this guy is so young.

I would never understand feeling sorry for a perpetrator of a crime. A criminal!

You guys just do not want to reckon with the fact that this dude did something absolutely terrible and people are genuinely angry with him for the terrible thing he did.

Again, read this transcript line by line and if possible listen to that audio.

Mason Greenwood pro footballer for Manchester United F.C got exposed by Harriet Robson for basically RAPE! The audio below is very hard to listen to. Trigger Warning! #DramaAlert pic.twitter.com/YVTYA4vKsT

— KEEM 🍿 (@KEEMSTAR) February 1, 2022

Please my brethrens, take just a minute and read this again slowly, line by line.

Maybe you guys would finally understand why the "woke mob" is angry with this individual.

Maybe take a minute to hear this audio again then imagine that was your sister at that moment, then come back with these awful defenses and justifications.
Greenwood was a piece of shit rapist and Manchester united made the absolutely right decision.

Mason Greenwood pro footballer for Manchester United F.C got exposed by Harriet Robson for basically RAPE! The audio below is very hard to listen to. Trigger Warning! #DramaAlert pic.twitter.com/YVTYA4vKsT

— KEEM 🍿 (@KEEMSTAR) February 1, 2022

A40:
The idea of Greenwood not playing football at a high level again is wicked IMO. I have never understood it. If he's not caught cheating or affecting the integrity of the actual sport and is not in jail then he should get to play. Maybe not at United where the PR nightmare is terrible for everyone involved but I still believe he should get another opportunity to play and earn a living.

Is he even qualified to work at a bank? Naah. I think he should get another crack at it. Italy, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi. The idea he should not play again is asinine to me sha

Let me ask you something, if you heard a player murdered a woman because they had a domestic dispute, what would your reaction be like?? I want to know how you would feel about the issue.

CrystalTiger:
Oga Donjazet, no vex abeg no just vex, you win..So come dey go abeg 😕

I'm not making an argument to win, I'm trying to influence the hardline stance of some here who think it's okay to be full of hate and hardlined against people different from them and then the others who seem to blatantly support the sexual molestation and rape of a woman and defend the criminal. These are not things that should be acceptable in the modern world.

I'm truly glad with the step Manchester united has taken on this. I think they made a powerful statement with this.

chrisley024:
Not sure I get what you mean by "unfair bases" but I do strongly support equal opportunity, although I am against enforcing equal outcomes and am in favor of equality under the law. However, based on some of the examples you provided, I think that the private sector should not be legally obligated to offer their services to individuals they choose not to, as I think that'll be infringing on their own rights.

This statement has plagued the American supreme court for ages.

Are you aware that this statement you just made was the basis for racial segregation in the United States and then Apartheid in South Africa which went on for many years?

That statement is very dangerous, that private businesses should not be legally obligated to offer their services to who they wish not to. You are infact sanctioning discrimination.

White men who owned hotels will refuse to offer services to black people because "IT WAS THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT".
White men who owned cinemas or offered one service or the other would blatantly refuse to do so for black people.
Private Schools were segregated between racial lines because white owners felt it was their right to make that decision.

Since it's their business, they have the right to attend to who they soo wish to, not until anti-discriminiation laws enshrined under civil rights were enacted..

In cases where discrimination is blatant, the employer can be punished for discriminating another human being.

So I differ, laws should constantly be updated to reflect the challenges of the time. For instance I think Nigeria needs an anti-tribal discrimination law.
Recently there seems to be a rise in tribal hate speech with some calling other tribes cannibals on the internet and then some people of different tribes acting out these differences in public like we saw during elections. If left unchecked, nigeria could see itself in a much troublesome society ahead.

WrriterNig:
⚡️The leader of the 🇷🇺 ☠ Wagner Private Military Company, Yevgeny Prigozhin, announced that he is currently in Africa and is preparing to bring happiness and justice to African nations.

Only African fools will believe this rubbish.

Only a highly foolish African will believe this nonsense. That Russia has boots on the ground for the benefits of Africans.

I pity people who fall for this propaganda. Na mumu be una name.

ChristineC:
so all these years, and you still think stuff like this is based on fairness. I'm not surprised. it's all fun and aluta till it hits home.

Sorry, I'm confused by this. Can you elaborate?

WhoDeyHause:
Fairness and equality in this same world we are living? Just this past world cup that Qatar had issues with lgbtzyxiofsyagjkvsxafgkaafbcagkchidquojf with community because of their long standing religious and historical believes we all saw what transpired on social media and in the west. Every human or group of humans is only after what benefits them in the present whether just or cruel so it's possible to also hide under the guise of morality .

I don't understand your post especially the last part.

Yeah, there might be some truth when you say "humans are only after what benefits them" but you can see why liberals fight to change this narrative.
People go out of their way to try and make the world a better place.
Look at vegetarians for example, because they genuinely believe that all life matters on earth, they go out of their way to never eat any living thing again or any byproduct of any living thing.

They feed on only plants and they commit themselves to regenerating those plants.
That right there is the extreme ultimate sacrifice some are willing to go through to leave the world and their environment a much better place.
So I guess this dispels your notion that humans will only do what benefits them, well some people sacrifice for the greater good. Soldiers go into battle ready to sacrifice their lives for the good of their countries. So I guess that counts too.

akwesenana:
So as biggest suppliers of oil, they can suppress human rights of others and get away with it?
Omo.

Please I didn't say this. And mind you, they might not get away with it completely.

There already has been progress, albeit slowly.

Women are now allowed to drive, this was only recent, women are now allowed to go public without a man's permission, women are now allowed in stadiums.

These are social revolutions there going on slowly so it's not like, they themselves are not quietly liberalizing.

chrisley024:
on a side note, can humans actually be treated equally?. Or what you mean by being treated equal

I mean the absence of discrimination on unfair bases.
A white man not wanting to employ a black man.
A yoruba man not wanting to employ an Igbo man. An Igbo man not wanting to sell to an Hausa man.
A police recruiter not wanting to recruit women.

A church not wanting to accept a gay person into his congregation.

I'm advocating for elimination of these social barriers amongst ourselves as humans.

A fair and equitable world.

akwesenana:
This defeats the principle of equality you so hold dear.
Sanction A just because you can afford to and leave B for "strategic" reasons.

I'm sorry but you seem to mistake my elucidation of facts for me sanctioning it.

Now I'm not happy that that is the situation, that indeed because a country is richer, it is spared consequence from its terrible human rights action but I know why it is soo. I stated this because I was asked exactly this? Why spare Arabs but not Uganda. And I acknowledged the nuances at play here. In an ideal world, I would wish that the Arabs are also sanctioned for gross human rights violation but I do know that doing that plunges the global economy into turmoil creating worse problems.

It's just akin to the Nigerian situation, I hate that the APC carried out a democratic coup on Nigerians, now the military might want to step in and handle the situation but I would rather they do not because their attempts at solving it create a far worse issue. This is a stark nuance at play.

But I still stated that the principles and intentions is what counts.

ChristineC:
sounds like someone from the LGBTQ community.

Nope! Sounds like a liberal who wishes for a more open society that treats all human beings as equal irrespective of tribe, gender, race, religion or any barriers we as humans continue to set for ourselves!

Just a human being who wishes for a fairer and more compassionate society.

eph12:
Ah yes sanction the third world black country. But the mighty rich Arabs? They'll rather die lmao

Well that is by virtue of economic placement and ramifications of decisions.
Let me state that I recognise the nuances at play here.
The Arabs today are the biggest suppliers of oil and as such have such a high leverage and so cannot be effected the same way some other smaller countries like Uganda, Nigeria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Guatemala etc etc can be sanctioned.

In trying to solve one problem, you create far more bigger problems.

But at least the principles remain. They project and wish for a more fair and equitable world.

eph12:
It's always amusing to read about how the West care about fairness and justice on one hand, and speak about racism and whatnot on the other hand. Then you get to read about the atrocities and killings they do all over the world. It's entertaining

Can you please elaborate on the bolded??

And yeah, one can see that indeed the "west" of today does seem to genuinely care about fairness and justice. Sanctioning Uganda for its extremist LGBT stance proves it's resilience in fighting for rights of minorities all over the world.

eph12:
Its been two years since he got suspended, yeah? How many more years for this period of probation and enrollment in counseling before you permit him to go back to his life?

Being suspended from work is different from being handed a "suspended sentence". A suspended sentence means it goes into his record and eliminates any form of doubt as to the criminality of his actions which will inturn ensure he doesn't commit this again else a repetition guarantees the highest possible sentence.

This suspension by the club gives him plausible deniability as you can now see in action. With the club essentially covering for him and flat out saying he's guilty when he's blatantly not! Hence him virtually escaping genuine consequence of his actions.

larride:
Load of rubbish.

Surely larride, an intelligent person in countering a point of another will attempt to address the point made and not just deride it as "rubbish" while not offering a counter argument. Surely you see that only grossly stupid, irreversibly dumb and recaltricant pre teens would reply in the manner just stated?

akwesenana:
If the girlfriend of my friend reports a rape incident to me, I'll hear from my friend, if possible in her presence.

My main wahala be say when them exonerate Benjamín Mendy, you no run come here come demand justice and retribution the way you come for Greenwood.
This is hypocrisy and na why people no dey find am hard to label you as a wokists General.

If you followed my posts on the chatroom thread, you will see where I vehemently condemned the false accuser of Mendy and said she should face the full wrath of the law to serve as a deterrence to others. But in making that point, I also highlight that what happened to mendy is indeed counter to norm. Men being falsely accused is bad but rare compared to women who are actually raped around the world.

eph12:
What do you think is enough punishment for this Greenwood's crime?

The crime(s) stated here being rape and domestic violence.
He had his penis in her even when she was consistently begging and appealing to him to please stop. That is rape!!

Now sentencing for rape takes into account factors such as (repetition of offence) history of the offender (is he a criminal, what are his prior criminal records), degree of violence inflicted during said rape and all that.

Average sentencing is usually 5-25 years in advanced countries (based on those factors listed above). So in a case where this seems to have been a not soo violent and taking into account the fact that the victim seemed to have moved past this and "forgiven" him, I would recommend a "suspended sentence" with period of probation and enrollment in counseling for him to recognise the error of his ways.