₦airaland Forum

TheGoodJoe:
That is what multiplication is.

True but in your illustration you did not do that, you directed us to look at the Result of the eggs in saying "How many eggs do we have?"

Which means there is also how many chickens do we have or some other how many.

But in multiplication, we have only One subject matter of Increase in this case, it is either we are increasing 3 or 0.

TheGoodJoe:
It is well explained when you use PRODUCT. Which is produce.

If you have 100 Hens and they lay 0 eggs,
How many eggs do you have?
Zero.
100 X 0 = 0.

If you have 1000 dogs and they don't deliver any puppy, how many puppies do you have?
Zero
1000 X 0 = 0.

Question answered

This is not the concept of multiplication which is what I would call "Increasination".

Rather, you are talking about "Resultations".

BobFischer:
mind you
0 * 3 and
3 * 0 are two different statement.

0 (nothing) * 3 (something) = 0 (nothing)


3 (something) * 0 (nothing) = 0 (nothing).

why isnt it
3 * 0 = 3
0 * 3 = 0

True! were you in my soul? I was thinking on this issue this very week and your answer here is exactly my opinion.

3 X 0 = 3
Law (if you put 3 Somethings in Nothing, you still have 3 Somethings).

But;

0 X 3, 5, 1000 = 0
Law (if you Put Nothing in Somethings, no matter how many they are, you will still have Nothing eg Opening Several Zero Bank Accounts will still not put monies into those empty accounts. You still have Nothing (No Money)

Golden6:
Good Evening Landites!!

I'll actually just love to know your opinion on adoption?.

I observe it appears majority of people won't be in support of it, and I'll really love to know why.

People do, do it everyday only that they are not aware that they do so.

You take that young cousin or relation of yours from the village to live with you, you have adopted him.

Adoption is not always Permanent, it can be temporary too or for a specific purpose or for a finite period.

ABOVEDELAW:
I CAN SPONSOR A CHILD BUT I CANNOT ADOPT AN UNKNOWN CHILD INTO MY FAMILY.

funny, that, that is a type of adoption! Adoption For a Specific Purpose!

ABOVEDELAW:
THAT IS ONLY IF YOU SIGNED THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, THEN YOU ARE COMPELLED BY THE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF THE CHILD UNTIL HE/SHE IS 18 YRS IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER YOU ARE THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER OR NOT . BY SIGNING THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE YOU HAVE BECOME THE LEGAL FATHER OF THE CHILD. IF YOU DID NOT SIGN ANYTHING , YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILD. THIS IS WHAT MANY PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

This is Not True in Nigeria but in foreign Jurisdictions. And in the case of Fraud, the complaining husband can apply to be discharged from being the legal father on the ground of Fraud, Deceits, Misrepresentations etc

Value2Ethics:
Law researcher states that the law mandates husband to be responsible for any child delivered by the wife, even if his not responsible for the pregnancy.

Further, a man or husband is only responsible for his True Child and not the child of another Unless he consents to it.

cassyrooy:
This law doesn't cover a lot of gray areas o.

There are No Gray Areas in Law Only Lawyers who do Not Know What The Law has Provided For!

Value2Ethics:
Law researcher states that the law mandates husband to be responsible for any child delivered by the wife, even if his not responsible for the pregnancy.FA

1) Responsibility and continued responsibility are not the same.

2) it is the Highest Law that Fraud, Deceits, Untrue Representations and Misrepresentations Vitiates (Cancels) All Transactions.

There are No Rights/Liabilities/Responsibilities/Obligations in an Unright Act or Action (Illegality).

LordReed:
I gave you practical clarification but instead decided to appropriate it for your own conclusion. This is not the way.

Your clarification departs from the issue of ground which is the Rightness of a Victim to obtain Relief from his offender, which is what we have been discussing until I said

Dtruthspeaker
"Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?"

And you answered

LordReed
"Not always"

Your "Not always" must show a scenario where there is a victim who has suffered harm from an offender, and the victim later has an opportunity to obtain remedy from his offender.

This is why I said you have departed from the issue.

LordReed:
Fa, fa, fa, Foul! You just committed a foul. You asked me to give you a practical scenario but you now changed it to fit your own conclusion. Unacceptable.

That is not True, what we have been keeping in view was about the issues surrounding the rightness of a sufferer in obtaining relief from his offender, so your response and mine was always based on coming to an understanding of the proper and right place of the Victim, the offender and the relief obtainable.

As Evidenced here

Re: Why Do Atheist Celebrate Christmas? by LordReed(m): 7:43pm On Dec 28
Dtruthspeaker:


Really, I have never seen anyone taking a remedy from an offender, in which the offender did not suffer a loss or pain or both, so show me.

LordReed:
Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor

Hence when you said
"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

It required practical clarification in line with the subject of Victim, offender and relief which is issue we have been talking about.

LordReed:
Say an arm robber gains entry into house and starts hitting you asking you bring out your money but you persuade him that there's no money in the house. If the robber decides to leave, you have done him no harm and you are freed from further harm.

When you put it this way, then you have moved away from the scope of this discussion which is about taking relief from an offender, which your scenario uphere would not apply nor support your concept of

"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

For it is Outside the Scope of Discussion!

Thus, to put that scenario correctly and Truly, it would go thus;

The armed robber Scared you and Broke your sleep and those of your family members and Broke into your home, Beat you, (not even a little beating,) Caused you Pain, and though he later left empty handed, which is Too Unlikely and thus beyond practicality) he is caught by neighbourhood security, the question here is can he escape being hurt in giving up reliefs to his Victim or Victims?

The True and Practical Answer is "He can never escape being put in pain to give relief to his victims"

LordReed:
Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor.

This is not clear enough could you give a normal everyday practical example that exhibits this scene?

Image123:
Just remember that he's a snake. If he wasn't a snake, i would not say so.

Thank you for the warning!

LordReed:
Not always.

Really, I have never seen anyone taking a remedy from an offender, in which the offender did not suffer a loss or pain or both, so show me.

LordReed:
The more harm the method does the more likely it is I would reject it. The ideal method should cause the least harm.

Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?

LordReed:
Just like I pointed out with the mosquito example, there are responses that would become a problem in themselves so in essence and on a basic level, an adequate response is that which is necessary to get relief without creating additional problems.

But from your comment one tends to have the impression that you would also object to the mode of obtaining relief, in saying

" if the method used.."

So, do you also recommend a particular method of relief over and against another method of relief?

Image123:
He's just a snake like the devil, worldly wise. Heavenly foolish.

A well informed person is dangerous both for good purposes and for evil purposes. And I know that all human beings still love that which is Good over and beyond evil, even if they did evil.

If you look at this thread I did call him Satan for I was a little surprised that he, LortReed, loves "Good things", even with all that he says!

And where there is Good, there you find God!

So, it was only natural for me cease hostilities and see if he may realise like Paul, that the good he loves, is God and God has Never Ever done A Wrong Thing, not even once.

And also that he could never validly show that God has ever done a wrong thing!

I believe he actually knows this but... It is his but that I would like to see, for he is quite very knowledgeable but I find it very interesting how a knowledgeable person could be so anti-God.

Hence in the present Spirit of Truth and Rightness and Goodness, I thought it fit to go through his library!

LordReed:
You are correct, I wouldn't object if the method used for obtaining relief was adequate.

Could you share more light as to the adequacy of method to obtain relief vs inadequacy of method?

LordReed:
Yeah. You don't use a bomb to kill a mosquito because it bit you.

Okay, on the face of it, one would feel it is something I would call excess judgment, in that a sufferer has taken more than his due, his Accurate "Pound of Flesh" by the standards of the Shakespearean play Merchant of Venice.

However when considered in the light of the fact that we apply our palms to them, one may still say that such Judgment is still like dropping a bomb on them.

But obviously you would not be objecting if the relief owed is adequate?

LordReed:
Depends on what steps he is taking.

Interesting! Meaning, you think that a sufferer may be entitled to take some steps and may not have a right or be right to take some other steps?

LordReed:
No I won't have an objection.

Therefore, you would agree that it can not be wrong for a person to take steps towards obtaining relief from the offender who caused him harm and pain?

LordReed:
Yes you could.

Okay!

Therefore, you would not have any objection to any such sufferer taking action and steps towards taking and obtaining a relief?

LordReed:
Not really.

At least could i take that your use of the word "humans" also means people, persons, individuals, personalities?

LordReed:
All humans who suffer harmful conduct caused by another deserve relief.

Most grateful!

Quite an unusual choice of word "human"!

Is there a reason why you used "humans" instead of persons or people?

LordReed:
From sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person.

Thank you!

But, please, could you give me the full answer as a complete whole, instead of having me put together your severed answers?

The "who", who suffers from the harmful conduct caused by another, is missing in this statement. It has to be a complete statement for it to have True Good Value!

LordReed:
Yes relief is deserved.

Please, Pardon me, Relief from what?

LordReed:
Thanks for that compliment. I think you are too.

Thank you too

LordReed:
Ok then the short answer is yes humans suffering deserve relief.

Ehen, thank you!

But, it is still not complete for you stopped at "suffering" which is wide but the question is specific to suffering caused by the harmful conduct of another person.

So, please could you capture your answer in the light of sufferings caused by the harmful conducts of another person?

LordReed:
Nope. Look at my definition of evil again, it encapsulates all of life and our environment. Evil is not only that which is done against humans.

Ok! And yes, you captured the whole world by your definition, but it is too large to study the whole world at once. Therefore, it is preferable to study the parts that make up the whole just as we first studied A,B,C before we could write speeches!

LordReed:
I am not denying that humans deserve relief from evil,

But you are not clearly saying whether a person who suffered harm or pain caused by the actions or inactions of another is entitled to Relief.

Also, even though you have now implied that such a sufferer may get relief, but there is also another implication which I would like you to clear up, which is, that you also think that a sufferer should not be relieved, which is in direct conflict with your first implied answer.

So, what is your True Clear Answer to the question

"Do you think that the sufferer should and must be given relief from and for all of his suffering?"

LordReed:
I just wanted you to understand that the question is broad and complex.

I can further illustrate it this way, soliders in Sambisa right now are suffering hardship and death to attempt to root out the scourge of Boko Haram. Would you rather their suffering and death stop thereby giving Boko Haram a free hand?

These are not yes or no questions, once again underlining my point that life is too complex to put everything into neat little boxes. We are going to have to strive to find solutions and answers out of the box.

If you had this in mind then you have left the A,B,C Class, where I am to Primary 1 Class where I am not.

So let's find the A,B,C place of Relief, then we could proceed to further areas of coverage.

So please could you clear up the Problem of your Implied Answer by putting down a clearer one?

HellVictorinho:
Anything that I have to consume in order to survive doesn't have a right to life,too.

oya, Reed, it's your turn