Educatedfool's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Educatedfool's Profile › Educatedfool's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 31 pages)
 Sports › Re: Amateur Boxing: Ogun State's Coach Damola Holds Talent Exibition (Videos) by educatedfool: 9:33am On Oct 28 |
KingMack:Our senior man is still waiting for his big night. |
| Sports › Re: Amateur Boxing: Ogun State's Coach Damola Holds Talent Exibition (Videos) by educatedfool: 7:32am On Oct 28 |
Kingpele:  Samuel Peter fight no be fight, na public execution with boxing gloves. Till today, I no know whether to call am boxer or survivor. 4 Likes |
| Crime › Re: Ogun Police Uncover ₦50.27m International Visa Fraud, Rescue 11 Ghanaians by educatedfool: 9:05am On Oct 21 |
How is this business still booming? You'd think after countless stories of fake visa agents, people would stop treating every self-proclaimed travel consultant like an immigration officer. 1 Like |
| Business › Re: I’d Rather Go To Prison Than Lose My Phone - Dangote by educatedfool: 8:15am On Oct 20 |
Berankis: |
| Business › Re: I’d Rather Go To Prison Than Lose My Phone - Dangote by educatedfool: 8:13am On Oct 20 |
Wealthyonos: 19 more characters needed |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Considering Deploying ‘Mother Of All Bombs’ In Iran by educatedfool: 1:33pm On Oct 15 |
Kizyte:Acknowledging your enemy's strength is wisdom, yes. But assuming that asking for a ceasefire means you've been defeated is a very shallow understanding of warfare. Countries negotiate for all sorts of strategic reasons, including preserving military assets, buying time, reducing economic damage and securing better terms. Even powerful countries negotiate when continuing a war becomes more costly than ending it. And this claim that Iran has resorted to "strategic begging" is interesting. What exactly are you basing it on? A request to end a war doesn't automatically mean surrender, just as making threats doesn't prove military strength. If anything, judging a country's position by how loudly its leaders speak or how quietly they negotiate is a poor way to assess a conflict. The real test is what each side has achieved relative to its objectives, what capabilities remain, and what terms it can secure. Until you examine those factors, you're not analysing strategy; you're simply interpreting every development in favour of the side you want to win. 3 Likes |
| Crime › Re: Angry Kebbi Youths Attempt To Hunt Down Bandits, Police Intervene (VIDEO) by educatedfool: 11:51am On Oct 13 |
Onewazobia:Is that so? Then how do you explain the situation in the Southeast, where ESN operates and people are being terrorised? Is religion and poor education also the explanation there? 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 5:41pm On Oct 12 |
2special:I've already said a highway isn't a suitable place to pray. The question is, can you condemn that act without celebrating someone's death or using it to insult an entire religion? Apparently, that's where your reasoning hits a dead end. Try addressing the argument instead of recycling childish taunts. |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 5:02pm On Oct 12 |
JoeEeL:Baba, speaking as a Muslim, I can tell you that we don't just pray anywhere anyhow. There are guidelines regarding where we can pray, and a busy highway is obviously not a suitable place. That's why I believe there may be more to what happened than we know, and I'd rather understand the full circumstances before jumping to conclusions. But even if she made a reckless decision, that doesn't justify celebrating her death or using it to condemn an entire religion. We can acknowledge that what she did was wrong without losing our humanity in the process. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:59pm On Oct 12 |
Missionflex:Are you deliberately struggling to understand a simple argument, or is pretending not to understand the only way you can defend your position? I've already made it clear that praying in the middle of a highway is dangerous and deserves criticism. What I'm refusing to do is pretend that a reckless act justifies celebrating someone's death or using it to condemn an entire religion. Your problem is that you want me to condemn the act so badly that you can conveniently ignore the actual issue: people openly celebrating a human being's death and declaring Muslims deserving of suffering. Apparently, unless I join your condemnation of the individual, I'm a religious bigot. What a convenient way to silence criticism of your own prejudice. Let me make this painfully simple for you: I can condemn the person's decision without celebrating their death, and I can criticise your hatred without defending their mistake. Those positions are not contradictory. They're called having the ability to think critically. If you still can't distinguish between the two, perhaps you should stop throwing around the word "bigot" and start addressing the argument in front of you. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:58pm On Oct 12 |
KingRabota:Nobody is justifying praying in the middle of a highway. You're attacking an argument nobody made because you can't seem to separate condemning reckless behaviour from celebrating someone's death. Yes, praying on a highway is dangerous and deserves criticism. But since when did a dangerous mistake become permission to dehumanise someone? And that "your people" nonsense exposes the real problem with your argument. One person's actions suddenly become evidence against an entire religion? If a Christian drove recklessly, would you conclude that Christians are collectively guilty of fanaticism? If not, then you're applying a double standard and dressing it up as common sense. As for the dingo comment, if you're implying that a human being being mistaken for an animal makes their death funny, you've only made your own position more disturbing. A person's poor judgment doesn't erase their humanity. You can condemn the act without celebrating the death. You can defend road safety without attacking an entire religion. If you cannot make that distinction, the problem isn't that others are justifying the unjustifiable. It's that you've confused your prejudice with moral superiority. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:51pm On Oct 12 |
ElevationD:You're writing entire paragraphs to explain why praying on a highway was foolish, yet somehow you've missed the point of the criticism. Nobody has to defend the decision to pray in the middle of a road to condemn the celebration of someone's death. Those are two entirely separate issues, and your inability to distinguish between them is the real problem here. Let's be clear: if the person deliberately endangered themselves or obstructed traffic, that behaviour deserves criticism. But since when did foolishness become a capital offence? Who appointed you judge, jury and executioner? And what exactly gives anyone the right to treat a person's death as a lesson for others? You keep asking why the person didn't pray in a mosque or at home, as though that answers the question of whether their death should be celebrated. It doesn't. You're arguing against a position nobody made just so you can avoid confronting the one that was actually made. And that last paragraph about my character is particularly amusing. You claim the other person's comment reveals nothing about his character, yet you're willing to defend it at length. Celebrating someone's death and then hiding behind arguments about road safety doesn't make you principled. It makes your priorities questionable. Here is the simple test of your reasoning: condemn the dangerous act, yes. Hold the individual accountable where appropriate, yes. But if your first instinct when someone dies is to celebrate it and declare an entire religious group deserving of suffering, don't lecture anyone about character, reason or morality. You haven't demonstrated that you're defending common sense. You've demonstrated how easily prejudice can disguise itself as an argument. 1 Like |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:47pm On Oct 12 |
2special:If praying in the middle of a major road is reckless, condemn the recklessness. That's what a rational person does. But you can't seem to separate one person's actions from an entire religion, because apparently bigotry has taken the place of critical thinking in your head. You mock Islam as a "silly religion," yet you're the one struggling with the basic moral principle that people don't lose their humanity because you disagree with their faith. You don't have to respect Islam to demonstrate basic human decency, but your comment suggests that even that is too much to ask. The real embarrassment isn't that people have different beliefs; it's that some people are so consumed by hatred that they mistake cruelty for intelligence. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:38pm On Oct 12 |
2special:You're so desperate to defend your prejudice that you've confused condemning reckless behaviour with justifying someone's death. Nobody needs to pretend praying in the middle of a major road is safe to recognise that a human life is worth more than your bigotry. If your argument were genuinely about road safety, you'd condemn the dangerous act without celebrating the death or dragging an entire religion into it. But you keep turning a tragedy into an opportunity to insult Muslims, then have the audacity to lecture others about sense. The irony is almost embarrassing. And telling me to go and pray on a major road doesn't strengthen your argument; it merely shows that you can't defend your position without resorting to childish taunts. Learn to distinguish between criticising someone's actions and dehumanising an entire group. That distinction is apparently where your reasoning breaks down. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 4:28pm On Oct 12 |
Franking:Imagine being so intellectually bankrupt that you have to turn an individual's death into an excuse to condemn an entire religious population. What exactly is the logic here? Even if the person acted recklessly, how does that make millions of unrelated Muslims deserving of suffering? That's not reasoning; it's prejudice wearing a cheap disguise of logic. And calling out your bigotry isn't "reverse psychology." It's simply exposing the weakness of your argument. If you have to abandon basic logic and collective human dignity to defend your position, perhaps the problem isn't other people's intelligence. Perhaps it's your inability to think beyond your own hatred. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Islam › Re: Driver Runs Over Pakistani Student Praying In The Middle Of An Adelaide Road by educatedfool: 1:34pm On Oct 12 |
2special:The irony is that you probably call Muslims fanatics while openly celebrating the death of someone simply because they were praying. Imagine being so blinded by religious prejudice that you can justify a human being's death and still convince yourself you're the reasonable one. That's the real fanaticism: believing your own hatred is righteousness while everyone else's faith is a problem. Your comment says far more about your character than it ever will about the person who died. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: "In Two Weeks Iran's Economy Would Have Nothing Left"- US Treasury Secretary by educatedfool: 10:36am On Oct 11 |
kimjessey2019:Lmao! Are you actually following the war, or just repeating Trump's talking points? Iran is under serious economic and military pressure, nobody is denying that. But the Strait of Hormuz remains a major pressure point, the blockade is still in place, and negotiations remain deadlocked over sanctions relief and the terms of a deal. Even now, neither side has secured a lasting settlement. So tell me, at what point did you confuse Iran being under pressure with Iran being completely at Trump's mercy? |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: "In Two Weeks Iran's Economy Would Have Nothing Left"- US Treasury Secretary by educatedfool: 2:22am On Oct 11 |
kimjessey2019:Have you forgotten how many times Trump has claimed that they reached out to him or were desperate to make a deal, only for him to keep making similar claims? What makes you think this time is any different? |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: "In Two Weeks Iran's Economy Would Have Nothing Left"- US Treasury Secretary by educatedfool: 2:18am On Oct 11 |
Naturalgbola:Knock, knock! Just a reminder that the two weeks are approaching. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Sanctions ICC Over Prosecution Of Americans, Vows To Cripple Court by educatedfool: 5:28pm On Oct 10 |
HacheNoire:what a clown |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Sanctions ICC Over Prosecution Of Americans, Vows To Cripple Court by educatedfool: 5:27pm On Oct 10 |
Fuckyoumod:The problem with you is that you seem to have turned Israel into a sacred cause that must be defended at all costs, as though supporting Israel means you must automatically justify everything it does. You are a Christian, yet you seem to have forgotten that morality and justice are supposed to stand above political loyalties. Israel is not God, Netanyahu is not God, and the IDF is not above the law. You can support Israel's right to exist and defend itself without pretending that its government is incapable of committing crimes. Those positions are not contradictory. They are what having principles looks like. What makes your argument so weak is that you have already decided Israel is right before examining the evidence. Every Israeli action becomes self-defence, every Palestinian death becomes an unfortunate casualty, and every allegation against Israel becomes propaganda. At that point, you are not applying a moral standard. You are making excuses for one side regardless of what it does. If you can identify the crimes of Hamas but cannot even entertain the possibility that Israel might commit crimes too, then you are not defending justice. You are defending a side. And no amount of religious language, talk about democracy, or references to terrorism can turn a double standard into a moral principle. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Trump Sanctions ICC Over Prosecution Of Americans, Vows To Cripple Court by educatedfool: 2:32pm On Oct 10 |
Fuckyoumod:If you think the ICC's case against Netanyahu is unjustified simply because he claims to be fighting Hamas, then by that same logic, you cannot automatically justify Bibi's actions against Hamas either. You cannot reject accountability when it concerns your preferred leader while demanding justice for his enemies. Either the rule of law applies to everyone, or your argument about justice is just selective morality. Hamas's crimes on October 7 do not give Netanyahu a blank cheque to do whatever he wants, just as allegations against Netanyahu do not automatically prove guilt. That is precisely why investigations, evidence, and due process exist. So tell me, where is your consistency? |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu: 'Anyone Involved In The Attack Against Us Lives On Borrowed Time' by educatedfool: 10:04am On Oct 07 |
sweetjohn:You're confusing "they didn't respond the way you wanted" with "they couldn't do anything." Iran and Hezbollah have their own strategic calculations, and Israel also pays a price for prolonged conflict. A state not choosing full-scale war at a particular moment isn't evidence that it's incapable of fighting.And this "Iran ran away" narrative is just childish. If Iran's objective were simply to prove it could start a war with Israel, it would have done so already. Deterrence, escalation control, proxies, missiles, alliances and political objectives all matter. Real geopolitics isn't a schoolyard fight where whoever throws the last punch automatically wins. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Netanyahu: 'Anyone Involved In The Attack Against Us Lives On Borrowed Time' by educatedfool: 11:37pm On Oct 06 |
saintkel:If dem born Israel well make them try Iran |
| Phones › Re: Both Men And Ladies Are Telling Me To Remove This Phone Case by educatedfool: 5:53am On Oct 01 |
Atheistan: 20 more characters needed 1 Like |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 5:47am On Oct 01 |
Kobojunkie:You're confusing what a text explicitly says with what you believe it proves. Nobody is disputing that the Torah identifies Israel as a particular people or that its laws were given to ancient Israel. The disagreement is over your assumption that those passages settle every question about their meaning and relevance. Even if the laws were intended specifically for ancient Israel, that does not establish that every biblical passage about judgment applies exclusively to Israelites or that Jesus' entire message can be reduced to divine punishment. Those are conclusions that require further argument, not merely quotations. You also contradict yourself by claiming you make no interpretations while insisting that your reading of the passages is the only possible conclusion. Selecting particular passages and drawing conclusions from them is, by definition, interpretation. Finally, repeatedly calling disagreement "dysrationalia" does not make your position factual or strengthen your argument. If you're presenting facts, address the actual points of disagreement instead of questioning other people's intelligence. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 3:52pm On Sep 30 |
Kobojunkie:You're repeating your interpretation of the passages as though it were the only possible reading. The fact that a passage mentions Israel does not automatically mean its message is exclusively about Israel or that it has no broader theological significance. There is also a difference between acknowledging that ancient Israel had laws and punishments and claiming that every punishment was morally justified simply because it was prescribed in scripture. Explaining the historical context of those laws is not the same as denying their existence. As for Islam, calling Muslims incapable of reasoning is not a theological argument. It's a personal attack that avoids addressing the actual arguments being presented. If your interpretation is as clear as you claim, you should be able to defend it with evidence without resorting to insults. Disagreeing with your interpretation of the Bible is not dysrationalia, just as disagreeing with an Islamic interpretation does not automatically make someone irrational. If you want a serious discussion, address the arguments rather than repeatedly questioning the intelligence of those who disagree with you. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 3:15pm On Sep 30 |
Kobojunkie:You wrote an entire sermon just to prove that your interpretation is the only one that counts. Quoting the Old Testament and inventing an elaborate explanation doesn't change the fact that the Bible contains passages about violence and divine punishment. You accuse Muslims of lacking brain cells, yet you seem to think insulting someone is a substitute for an argument. If your interpretation is so convincing, defend it with evidence instead of hiding behind insults and lengthy theological gymnastics. |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 2:39pm On Sep 30 |
Kukutente23:You demand evidence from others while treating your own interpretations as unquestionable facts. Whether you consider those biblical passages metaphors is beside the point. And as for the CIA, its involvement in funding the Afghan resistance is well documented. Denying the distinction between direct and indirect support doesn't make your argument any more convincing. Declassified US government documents confirm that the CIA funded and supplied the Afghan resistance through Pakistan. So, your claim that the CIA had no involvement with the Mujahideen simply ignores the historical record. You can keep shouting "lies," but that won't make declassified documents disappear. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v12/d76 https://www.cia.gov/static/c40e6e16c1183e0bed3777f048f41d98/Devotion-to-Duty.pdf |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 12:51pm On Sep 30 |
Patnome:Jesus preached peace? Then what do you make of Matthew 10:34, where he says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword," and Luke 22:36, where he tells his followers to buy a sword? Of course, Christians interpret these passages differently, but pretending the Bible contains no references to conflict is dishonest. And as for your list of "Muslim terrorist groups," history is more complicated than religion. The CIA openly acknowledges funding, arming and supporting Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. That doesn't make the Mujahideen a CIA invention, but it shows how geopolitical powers have helped create, arm or empower militant movements. So don't reduce complex political conflicts to "Muslims = terrorism." |
| Foreign Affairs › Re: Israel-Bound Flight Diverted To Saudi Arabia As Pilots Fight by educatedfool: 12:27pm On Sep 30 |
usmanpogo:So, is Bibi a Muslim? Is Tramp a Muslim too? What about all the Westerners who have committed atrocities and killed civilians?  3 Likes |
