₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Where did Yoruba migrate too? And how did they recognise and exercise the right to migrate

Did you not hear during the Lagos is no man's land fight that Lagos consists of Egba, Egun, Awori, Ijebu who SETTLED there? And that Yorubas migrated from Ile-Ife to everywhere including Benin, Warri, Rivers?

Kukutente23:
Even Romans had no rights except that which was granted them by the Emperor. Like I told you and Deepsight. The definition of rights is based on democratic philosophy. Even in a theocracy, there are no such things as rights except that which is granted by the Supreme. So the question still remains where you got the idea of a universal "right of migration" from

Yet, them Yoruba, Bini, Ibo, exercised rights of migration, ownership of property, engaged in contract, conducted marriages, settled succession and inheritance, prosecuted and judged criminals etc even when there was no democracy and as you ignorantly say, their was no rights.

Even the villages that formed Rome exercised these rights without even having an emperor.

Kukutente23:
So how do explain the killin of twins in Calabar and human sacrifice from time immemorial
How do you explain slavery within the contesct of your claim that "every reasonable man knows it"

Those fall under customs and traditions which are a creation of tyrants just like the legal laws and system you know. And just like the legal system, you can see that they are always territorial.

Whereas Natural Law is world wide hence in every nation natural law is applicable and I can raise it and rely on it

Kukutente23:
You first have to show where the Nigerian law operating in 1960 excluded them from citizenship

Fallacy of reversal of burden of proof.

It is you who i asked first, to answer the questions,
So, in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens abi?

And you have been dodging it.

So, answer

Kukutente23:
You mean if you don't have the "rights to migrate" you get sent back to your land of origin?..

Is that not what you have been saying since when you say people do not have rights unless written laws exist?

Kukutente23:
You simply don't understand what right means
You think only the existence of rights gives one the power to do something or hold something legitimately and the absence of rights means any action taken is illegal
That's a very false statement. Rights only exist in a democratic society. There's no other political or governance system that recognises the existence of rights

So, Yoruba, Bini, Ibo etc had no rights in 1800 and 1901 since there was no democracy?

Even primary 4 pupils knew this for it was taught in social studies

Kukutente23:
Unfortunately you've arrived at where he started from
Who decided what constitutes natural rights and what does not? ..

I never started from who decided natural rights. I only pointed out that natural rights was already in play even before men began to write.

And secondly, no where do you see anyone deciding what constitutes natural rights and what does not, for The Maker of Natural Law and Rights made sure every ordinary reasonable man knows it and recognises it so that there is no reasonable argument there. And there isn't any

correctguy101:
It's all good 😉

But I should remind you that disillusionment mostly has nothing to do with failures. It's realization that causes disillusionment. Awareness if you like

Nah! Dissillutions are always born out of failures, pains, sorrows or when things are not going well.

No one changes a winning combination

ebubeson:
A partner you are so attached too, yet still treating you so badly and probably like "trash", may be the most insecure in the relationship you are in with them. They may be the ones more scared of losing you; but they may have tied you to diabolic powers for the purpose of making you under them and feeling secure.

Or Punishment!

correctguy101:
I dey always run from una na... Especially since I became lazy

Only the gods knew how long it has been since I spent time on matters like this today with you and the other good man.

So yes, daddy is always tired both offline to argue matters like this. And I run.

It was a good time spent though. I quite enjoyed the feeling... Lols



Ya last sentence is uncalled for na. But if you're convinced that is the case, I can't help but laugh at you. This old boy knows too much about himself to be confident in his decisions.

You stated that I would become disillusioned in this walk but I am saying that it is impossible because disillusion only comes from failures. And God has never ever failed me.

correctguy101:
SMH...

Alright baba. This ancestor is not inclined to continue. I've become lazy.

But when you become disillusioned someday, you'd become aggressive like one funny kid on here back in the day.

Just say you are running cos there is no way you can argue against it.

And there is no way you won't be disillusioned and seeking alternatives when things don't add up and do not go as planned.

Kukutente23:
1. You're simply confused

2. Modern laws are the laws that recognise "right" as the guy contend

3. There is no such thing as right to migrate! Right of movement is highly jurisdiction based not universal. I expect you of all people to know this

See yourself. For you to say modern law means that you recognise that ancient laws existed.

And the questions I have been asking since therefore you say no one had a right to migrate eg the Abraham, Jacob, Romans, Persia, Isrealt, Britain until immigration laws were maade? And such rights were never recognised in those days so everyone who migrated was sent back to their own lands?

Your blindness is self caused

Kukutente23:
Did Nigeria exist in 1960?
What laws established Nigeria in 1960

Not the question I asked.

So, in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens abi?

Kukutente23:
Cause I never said so. That's your confusion. My stand has always been that liberty and pursuit of happiness does not in any way imply right of migration

Yet you failed to give us your definition of liberty so that we can see whether it is one that says it is restricted only to your house borders or at best, your village border

Kukutente23:
My question already answers your question
No law gave the Europeans right of migration
They simply took it for themselves

That means that they have no right as you say

Which further means that they have no right to even make immigration laws or any law at all for anybody since they have no right to be there

Which further means that since they are there we too all have a right to enter America as they have entered since all of us have no right as you say. So back to square one wherein I said we all had rights even before it was written

Kukutente23:
Check your dictionary and screenshot where it describes liberty as "right to migrate"

Why did you not drop the screenshot of your dictionary showing it defining liberty based on your house borders or your village border? Abeg, rest, you have no thing

DeepSight:
+
He is not operating on your level tonight.
What absurdities he is answering with!

You can say it again. He does not even see his folly.

budaatum:
The wuruwuru to your answer amuses me much.

Adam that "became dead spiritually", went on to be self employed and populated the earth, we read, and lived like another 800 years and then died. And if 10% of that was offered to most, I'm certain the response will be, "Kill me now. I'll eat the fruit of the tree, thank you very much"...

So he was not employed before? And then in your book he was castrated?

Not to talk of him dying at 930years which is not still up to a day, exactly as God Said.

Kukutente23:
Do you mean the Europeans had the right to migrate to America and kill the indigenes there?
The fact that you can't quote any law means it simply does not exist!

That is not the question asked.

And this is the 3rd time you have been asked what law or right gave the right of the Europeans to migrate to America since their was no law? Yet, here you are dodging.

Kukutente23:
Citizenship law is as enshrined in the 1999 constitution

The fact you still fail to understand is that the right to free movement is not universal. It is jurisdiction based

So, in 1960, the people of Benin were not citizens since they needed to wait till 1999 before they become citizens abi?

Kukutente23:
Liberty does not mean freedom to migrate
Pursuit of happiness does not mean same either

So your dictionary defined liberty based on your house borders or your village borders abi?

correctguy101:
Ah....

Look at the bolded na. How did you now have the capacity to make the claim in the last sentence?

Abi night school wey this ancestor go naim cause am? 🤔😁

Gods abeg o... 😁


Might this daddy add that using our dear Baba Tinubu as comparison to your God sounds comical.... 😁😁

Which person here does not understand that the comparison is based on the meaning of incumbency?

Jus say you know get any sensible thing to say so you kon dey form imbẹ́.

Kukutente23:
Your question simply validates my point
The fact that you ask such question shows that you do not accept your so-called right of migration

I asked a direct question what law or right gave the right of the Europeans to migrate to America since their was no law? And here you are dodging

Kukutente23:
Your right as a citizen is the right to move from place to place within the boundaries of your country

When you speak of movement, it is an attribute not a right. There are conditions in which such movement is restricted or prohibited. Anything that's a right does not suffer such inhibitions

Which law made you a citizen when there was no law?

Where did you get your right to move in 1506 when there was no law?

Kukutente23:
How does liberty and pursuit of happiness mean right to migrate

Are you 8? Are you saying that you do not know the meaning of liberty and pursuit of happiness? Damn, you are kid.

correctguy101:
Knowing or doing, what difference does it make? You can't excuse this brother...

You're not even talking about "intention"....

When you hear a person reports that he is punished, did you not ask "What did he do?"

Where did you see anyone punished for their thinking? Cite 2 cases if you can.

correctguy101:
Come on now, you already saw this happening in AI takeover movies. Ourtruth247 says they tell you these things and you ignore them. I believe I understand his point. And that'll tell you the rules of existence are entirely different.

The simple truth of that story is that the created Adam was supposed to follow the set program, but the serpent saw the ai could be and do more. Wanting the ai to be like them, eternal beings. His purpose for wanting that is still in question. But the god of the bible cut that shot by driving man out of the only place man can complete his transformation. What's too difficult to understand there. It's written and translated plainly. It's just that you people choose to have other ideas and meanings. And refuse to follow a straight to the point matter.

Though this is off point, but what more did they do? Were they able to fly and even live forever?

And did you not read that the co accused confessed that she was deceived, especially when it was even that they were eternal already and now man dies?

The op has clearly replaced wishes for real eyeity

correctguy101:
By the gods, the correlation escapes this ancestor.

And sorry brother, I'll never claim to know what I do not know. And all the examples you gave are verifiable if one is willing to put the work. So what are you really saying?

Personally, I too hold that man has not reached the stage to ask such questions. But that's just my own personal view. Many people had views limited by experience until boundaries were broken and things that seem unreachable became reachable.

That's my own reasons why I think it's not really irrelevant. Heck, some people even think asking questions like ...: if you were president for a day as relevant... So why not?

Anyone can claim even things they do not know but their fall will always be proving those things that they do not know. Nobody can do that.

So all dispute starts and ends on certainties.

So it does not matter if old boundaries are broken exactly as the boundary today is that Tinubu is president today and tomorrow but maybe next tomorrow, it may change but for now Tinubu is the boundary. Same as God

Kukutente23:
My clear point is that immigration has never been a natural right and you keep proving it

And my question to you is what law or right gave the right of the Europeans to migrate to America since their was no law?

OKOATA:
You dey behave as if na you be Gods first born. Better face op and take a sit. You are correcting everyone with anger, you don't even have the spirit of God to begin with.

Says the one who has been very angry since I even lovingly corrected him. No problem I take the whip

correctguy101:
,,It's okay not to know. See as una begin dismissing the question of who created God. It's one of those questions that exposes how arrogant you people are.
Anyhow e be sha, na una know.

.

How is it relevant? And how does it expose the limitation of our knowledge when even you too cannot say how He came to be? Can your car know where you were manufactured since it knows about manufacturing? If you were living alone with your parents you won't even know how they came to be.

And neither is it relevant exactly as no one cares about Tinubu or Trump's or your local government chairman's date of birth. The most important thing is that they are the incumbent ruler

OKOATA:
Oga rest, if you can't comprehend simple things rest. Did I tell you I saw God when he created himself?

You people can hate correction, yet ready to correct others

You clearly said that God created Himself as if you saw it when you did not. So why not stand on the Certainties?