₦airaland Forum

debosky:
Hehehehe. . . .see achievements.

Ok make I list too

- Most improved manager from last season (even better than Chamotex ) - It took you a season, it took me a month

- Scored more points with 2 transfer than eldee can ever make with 7 transfers (he needed 8 to exceed my total by a mere 3 points) - Hehehe . . . Ipswich should get the award for most goals scored with 21 players on the pitch

- Beat eldee black and blue with a 42 point gap (league record at the time) in GW 23. - I made you take back your word and admit that I'm genius.

- Sacked one Borokiri Boys/MEND manager, the current one is also in intensive care. - I've beaten Mubz, Chamotex, Galacticos and Ibime . . . Check My CV Nucca.

Check my CV Nigga. - I did. . . Last season 63rd, Cup - Did not qualify, World Cup - Relegation.

See how your achievements look next to the ones I don't consider important.

debosky:
^^

You first. . . you're the one in the lower echelons of the league table with nothing to lose.

I'm not complaining . . . I just did sumn about it, that's what real managers do . . . check my CV.

You made a statement and I forced your words down your throat too . . . check my CV.

Top Ten in 2009/2010 in Both League and Cup.
3rd on World Fantasy Cup
Biggest move in one week . . .
1st manager to force another to take back his words . . .
Scored more points in a week that Debosky has in his entire career. . .

Nigga check my CV.

debosky:
Dunno why you're making noise - you didn't do anything, the referee sent Gerrard off and that's the only reason you did better that GW.

The next week you needed 8 changes to score a mere 3 more points than me. . . .that is pathetic for someone who claims to be so good at FPL.

Question is, why did you make ONLY 110 points after 8 whole changes? Ibime claims he'd have made at least 150 points with one additional sub, and so on, yet you're here crowing about 110 points as if it's some fabulous thing

Leave the stories for now - we'll wait till we meet in H-2-H to settle this.

Excuses, excuses, excuses . . .

If Gerrard didn't get a red, if I'd used my wildcard, if John Terry didn't shag Wayne Bridge's wife, if MJ didn't die . . . abeg go scale powerline jare.

Transfer Deadline Day Breaking News . . .

Wenger has agreed a deal with Starbucks for 2 grand cappuccinos for an undisclosed amount . . .

Man Utd has also reported that Howard Webb is not for sale at any price . . .

Source: Twitter

[quote author=Jenifa_ link=topic=593966.msg7634812#msg7634812 date=1296412754]lol. I agree.
Imagine him claiming that all gays are perverts and rapists. 
and then accusing another person of being sentimental

to me, the gay ppl I know are far from being perverted.Then again, I don't hang out with perverted ppl whether gay or straight.[/quote]That's the thing . . . it's just like how I heard from someone that gay people are responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa.
Where do I start arguing from without being forced to look down on him.

tensor777:
It is personal LD very personal. Because I don't appreciate the way you bring up half baked theories and use spurious phrases to support your tenuous theoriies.
At least I would respect an opponent  who debates with a modicrum of intellectual honesty.

So I'm not being 'intellectually honest' because I disagree with your opinions?? You see why I avoided a debate with you??

Hehehe . . . and you saying a man deserves to die for being gay is a statement with a 'modicrum of intellectual honesty' (whatever that means).

Sagamite:
No one has conclusive evidence of Global warming. But the winning proposition is that part is natural change, and part is human activity acceleratoin.

Winning proposition?? Hehehe . . . don't shoot yourself in the foot.
The winning debate on homosexuality in animals is that it exists, at least it's the accepted view under the law and in the formation of government policy on homosexuality like Global Warming, if you had a Westlaw account, I'd have given you case references.

Sagamite:
What I asked for as evidence is gay animals, not animals that demonstrate gay traits.

No you said it's strange because it's so repulsive for men to screw men . . . and it cannot be seen in nature.
And you have seen that it is actually present in nature. . . we don't need to drag this, there are other viable arguments on homosexuality, this one is just a lil weak.

Sagamite:
They are effing ignorant about most things outside US and feel comfortable with US hyping gasconade.

Some US university girl was not aware where Australia was when I was telling her something about the place.

Somehow they think if they do things differently, it is superior.

No wonder the "World Series" is confined to the world of US.  

I think the issue is that we invest more in education via taxes, so you'll be stupid not to take advantage of it.

And yep, the fact that they never go out is a problem.
We've got France and the rest of Europe right there, in America it's different.

They're powerful though . . . who says you need to be smart if you control world economy and media??

tensor777:
I don't care whether you respect my views. Just don't post nonsense here and expect to get away with it. Saying rubbish that men can have sexual intercourse together is totally senseless and you should expect to be challenged over such a statement.
Anyway I don't know why you are going to such ludicrous lengths to justify such a perversion. If you are indeed a faggott then you actually don't need to justify to us why you do what you do.
Who hears of paedophiles, rapists and robbers trying to justify their lifestyle choices? SMH

Maybe I'm just being too harsh . . . but let me put it like this, your posts so far on this thread are not exactly what I'll call intelligent debating.
Now if I debate with you, I'll be forced to express this opinion of you in my words, and it's so not cool.
It's not personal.

Sagamite:
What rubbish comparisons are you bringing up?

You are using battered woman syndrome as a comparison to a natural act?

What next?

You will compare "chocolate is good for the heart" research to compare proof that humans give birth?

And you are talking about lame-back side arguments?

Aiite . . . what about Global Warming??

Argument of convenience?? The point I'm trying to make is that, this is no longer the 1920s where one person can say sumn and get full acceptance. These days, every single science uni dissertation is an attempt to dispute a pre-existing point of view.

Sagamite:
Heavily?

Who the hell do you think you are debating with? Evolutions is heavily disputed?

Even if it is, and SO WHAT? What is the big deal if something that can only be proved based on deductive reasoning being disputed give validation to something that can be observed?

I'm not saying it's wrong . . . I'm saying it always happens.

Sagamite:
Bonobo monkeys are not gay, a gay animal will only mate with opposite se.x.

Bonobo monkeys do display homosexual and heterosexual traits . . . it's simple.

Sagamite:
Yes, in.cest does exist in animals that is why I think in the totem pole of morality, in.cest is at a higher moral level than faggotism. Hence quite shocking the West feeding some of you nonsense can convince you to accept homosexuality under the umbrella of human rights and yet send people to jail for in.cest.

That said, my point to you is that, there is nothing we do that is natural that animals do not do. Do not confuse it with there is nothing animals do that we do not do.

I said it before, I'm not going into a debate on morality. . . the 'Against Nature' debate I went into was one of fact not merits.

A debate on morality will involved way too many factors that come into play.

Sagamite:
That was not directed at you, calm the fck down. I fcking know you are UK based and studied in the UK, probably law.

You make far more sense most times than the Georgetown boy that claims intelligence that it is directed at. I don't give a rat arse shyt if you went to the 85th best university in Mongolia. I judge you by the comments you make and your reasoning. Your university does not necessarily make you, it is your sagacity and ability to ratiocinate that most likely will.

Truth be told though, my personal experience, the average Brit tends to be more informed than the average American on socio-political issues.
If only Americans knew that they're the butts of intelligence jokes over here.

tensor777:
Can we stick to the topic please and stop bringing in half baked theories for which you have not a single shard of evidence
In a word faggottry is abnormal and unnatuural by the very repellent nature of the act. The fact that you are even clutching at the straws of clap trap theories to justify such an abomination shows you have totally lost the plot. SMH
Is the ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong not a large part of what makes us human?
You should not need a quack scientist or a far out liberal politician to give you a moral compass.

So you've read my posts on Nairaland and you think my views are based on sheepish adherence to the opinions of 'quack scientists'??
You're using your backward views to support the murder of a man for coming out to state his sexual orientation.

Truth be told, I'm arguing with Sagamite because I respect his views on issues generally, I don't respect yours.
Offence not intended but kinda inevitable, I'm sorry.

Mobinga:
YAAAAYY!!

Eldee has joined sagamite and I in the anti phaggot campaign!!!  

Let the war begin  

LOL . . . you'll have to be deluded to think I've got a single homophobic bone in me.

@4llebuntu

You haff fuckup sha . . .omo maynne, see as you dey take style dey form mumu for here.

favouredjb:
the issue is not what they are doing behind closed doors,cos if it is,we might not really be bothered,

but for them to want to make that evil acceptable by others is crazy

they should keep hiding,no one wants to see their silly campaigns

They don't want you to like what they do, all they want is to be accorded their rights as human beings and not selecting when you want to obey the rule of law.

Sagamite:
Evolution is generally accepted. There is no evidence Homosexual animals is generally accepted. It is merely an hypothesis. I don't see them teaching it extensively and as an accepted fact in even Western universities like Evolution is.

There you go again, it's not taught as an accepted fact . . . is global warming taught as an accepted fact?? Or the battered woman syndrome?? Or anything in sociobiology??
If you're going to keep bringing these lame-backside arguments abeg let me just leave.

Sagamite:
Evolution is a process that takes years, thousands of years in some cases. It is not comparable to something instant.

We've had years to study these things, we've had ages to convince people, I've heard valid arguments on both sides, it's still heavily disputed by a large chunk of these same academics.

Sagamite:
The proof is nowhere, don't blag me.

The proof is in what you're arguing in the next paragraph bruv . . . don't feel the need to reply my every comment, it drags us back.

Sagamite:
Bonobo monkeys are not good examples of animals being gay or even demonstrate gay tendencies, it is a good example of demonstrating a uniquely sexually charged animal.

The argument of the "academics" you are alluding to is that a proportion of humans are gay and strictly so, if this was natural, I believe you will find a significant number of species of animals that a subsection of the population would be gay, and strictly so. No such exists.

This is me debating with you, I do not feel the need to prove what the academics think just because I'm referring to evidence they provided.
If Bonobo monkeys are sexually charged and they see same-sex as a very viable option, it means it exists in nature, simple.

And yes Inbreeding, violation and even cannibalism also exist in nature . . . I don't need to prove that it's right, all I've done is prove that it exists in nature disproving the weakest argument on this topic which you were flashing as your joker.

Sagamite:
You can find albino animals, deformed at birth animals etc. That is example of natural things we have that exist in animal world.

That leads me to the conclusion that homosexuality is either a choice OR something has cause a quirk in the human system AND needs a cure, not acceptance.

I won't go into that argument with you, I won't argue bout whether it is right or wrong . . . it exists in nature, that's my point.
Now if it's a choice or a quirk or whatever you like to call it, it doesn't change the fact that your trump-card is nothing but a fallacious piece of bull that's obviously still here because like the evolution debate, people will stick to their ideologies to justify social conceptions of what's right.

You lock a human in a cage and provide him without water and he starts drinking his urine does not mean humans find drinking their urine as natural and like Ribena. A stressful condition makes living things do unnatural things, hence why I gave you a list of criteria that enforces objectivity that Georgetown cannot teach.

I don't know why you keep mentioning Georgetown, my University is 35th or sumn on the league tables, I'm no Oxford grad, I'm not even a science student . . . this is basic reasoning here.
You dropped a fallacious statement that even a high school student can disprove and you're here insulting me for not being an M.I.T grad.

There are arguments that would be understandable like 'I find it irritating' or 'It's so not cool' and the classic 'It's morally wrong' . . . but you 'against nature' point is extremely flawed.

Sagamite:
No 1, I repeat, evolution is generally accepted, except you are saying our understanding of the term "general" is different.

No 2, evolution is an analysis of something that happened several million years ago, so it is ridiculous to use its acceptibility to compare it with something that is supposedly happening now.

No 3, if there is more proof of homosexuality than the sequence of events that lead to a black hole then it should be easy for you to show them to me.

1. Exactly what I said . . . the levels of acceptance of postulations of scientists differ on most issues.

2. If evolution has been happening for millions of years, and is supposedly still happening in every single living organism, doesn't that mean it should be easier to increase it's acceptability in the science world?? What of things like Global warming too??

Gone are the days that one man could come out to say one thing and everyone agrees. . . you did chemistry, your whole module on entropy is disputed by half the scientists. Psychology and sociobiology is the biggest example of this, criminal laws on insanity are based on these postulates people claim are not proven.

3. The proof is there . . . as I said, I can't do your research for you, the videos are everywhere, even Google says there was an exhibition showing animals displaying mating characteristics towards same-sex members, the burden of proof goes to you to show that it is wrong.

Sagamite:
That is the point. You are not questioning and scrutinizing what you are fed.

No 1, for example, Bonobo monkeys are highly sexually charged animals, not homosexuals. They will hump and be touched by anything to get sexual pleasure. Show me a Bonobo monkey that STRICTLY mates with same se.x animals and then you can say that monkey is GAY.

They are 'highly sexually charged' yes . . . but the only thing you're missing is that, the fact that they got sexual pleasure from fellow males shows that it's an option in nature. I don't have to prove that they are strictly gay, nope, scientists have proven that they do not find the option  unnatural.

Bonobo monkeys also find m[i]a[/i]sturbation as an option, but you can't show me a strictly sticks to it, but that doesn't make it unnatural does it??
Personally I think homosexual human are partly biological and partly social, but to dismiss this as unnatural is B.S.

Now that it's out there that Bonobo monkeys do not find the concept sexual pleasure from same-sex weird, it throws away your 'it is against nature' debate.
I respect your views, but you gotta admit that it woulda been easier to stick with the moral argument.

Sagamite:
No 2, someone cannot go to a jail and then turn around and state that 40% of humans are Gay based on the evidence he saw in jail. That is why the video OAM4J showed was rubbish. Some dimwit was saying Lions are gay because they performed sexual behaviours when they had no access to Lionesses, and I am suppose to accept they have showed me GAY animals? Bollocks!

As I said, they do not have to be gay. . . if you kept a lion in a place without meat for a month, it won't suddenly start feeding on grass, why?? It's against the laws of nature. That's what you call unnatural.
Another weak argument.

Sagamite:
Show me a robust research that shows a study of GAY animals that meets the following criteria:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475

There is nothing NATURAL we do, that will not be seen in several animal species.

Don't feed me crap like Ijesha kissing and expect me to chop it. I filter what I am fed. Show me GAY animals that have EQUAL and FREE to access opposite se.x animals but instead STRICTLY elected same se.x partners and engage in sexual intercourse that leads to PURE, ESTATIC expulsion, not some lame supposed Cotonou-Badagry Kissing by birds some moooronic commentator alluded to to guide your thinking to the conclusion he wants you to arrive at. I did not go to Georgetown University.

So you just repeat the same thing in three paragraphs and number them??

I'm going to bed jare . . . waiting to hear more B.S argument tomorrow like 'because the government have not created monkey pornographic materials, it does not exist'.

@Sagamite

Let me also add . . . homosexuality is not the act of having sex with the same sex, it's the tendency to want to act in such a manner.
I'm saying this to preclude arguments like. . . 'they male lion is not being homo when he's rubbing his erect peniss on another male lion'.

Sagamite:
Don't try it.

All the things you listed are generally accepted and consistently proven or observed.

Hehehe . . . you want us to go into questions of scientific hypotheses that are not generally accepted??
There is more proof of homosexuality in animals than the existence of say, the sequence of events that lead to a black hole.

Do you wanna argue that??

Sagamite:
Kissing in birds?  

Wow! Which birds? They have lips?

Please show me the videos of the anal penetration.

. . . . . . .and the FrenchIjesha kissing of the birds if possible.

I don't think it occurs in nature in the context that an animal is gay.

Question what you are fed.

As usual, the 'let's put humour and avoid the point' method.

This 'Ijesha kissing' has been used as a sign to identify heterosexual mating in these same animals, but it's different when it's same-sex??
The same thing I said bout the attempted penetrations in kangaroos . . . if I had an erection and tried to stick it in you, would you call that friendship??

The sexual trait is the erection of those kangaroos, the 'Ijesha kissing' in birds, the touching of dickss in bonobo monkeys . . . when they do it to the opposite gender, it's mating . . . when they do it to the same sex, it's not just because they like hard-ons or because B-1 begged B-2 to scratch his itching manliness, it's an attempt at mating.

All what you've said here is . . . displaying sexual traits become non-sexual when it's done to the same-sex.
Gimme sumn strong abeg, you're beginning to sound like Bluetooth.

Sagamite:
Mate,

No 1, it is not generally accepted, it is merely still unverified hypothesis.

No 2, despite all our advances in filming animal life, there is no disputable filming of homosexual animals till date.

Pure FALLACY!

1. Evolution/Succession/Quantum Mechanics is not generally accepted amongst scientists either . . . there's actually a strong group of scientists that still argue against Darwin's postulations.

2. You mean from your Youtube research?? It's simple, scientists have seen behaviours like anal penetration and kissing in birds and dismissed them as signs of friendship, there are videos of anal penetration being attempted by kangaroos on National Geographic, if I as much as put your hand on my groin will you see that as friendship?? Fucking archaic B.S.

googles:
Such a terrible boyfriend. . . . .I will show u pepper !!

u berra go and kiss Owen tonight

Yes ooooh . . . divorce that nonsense boyfriend, watching football instead of talking to you.
Come back to me jare . . . I'll never leave you for Arsenal, except it's a Premier League, Champion's League or FA Cup match.

Sagamite:
Please do the research for me and prove me wrong.

Show me homosexual animals. Make sure it is backed up, robust and solid because all the ones I have seen are flawed.

So you did your research to disprove the research of biologists??
Because I don't get why information that's now as generally accepted as this is not 'robust' enough for you.

You might as well go on from here to argue that there is no solid evidence of biological succession, animal inbreeding and evolution.

Sagamite:
That is not a valid argument.

Again, it is the lame comparison of homosexuality to race.

Secondly, the desire to interracially mate is NATURAL. There are several Animals that have the desire to "interracially" mate just in the same format as humans. That shows it is very very valid in nature.

Lets stop this comparison of race to homosexuality.

Animals don't do necrophilia, paedophilia or faggotism. There is reason: UNNATURALITY!

There are several animals that practice homosexual traits . . . do your research.
And you call mine a B.S argument . . . you just tried to base on argument on facts that have been established since the 80s.

tensor777:
On what grounds is inter racial sex a perversion. Have you also totally lost the plot? So if your grandma is against interracial marriage, it is because that she thinks inter racial sex is a perversion. You see how you jump to the wrong conclusions.
More to the point what has natural male -female sexual intercourse got to do with faggottry?

Yep . . . she thinks its a perversion, and I've seen many people that think the same, there was even an episode on it on Oprah.
People like that usually see it as cross-breeding and place it on the same level as cloning . . .

You are one judge sitting up there deciding what's perverted and what's not . . . I'm just saying, perverted people have a right to freedom from discrimination based on their sexual preferences, and for God's sake they deserve a right to life.

BTW . . . I'm ignoring stupid arguments like 'why're you defending gays if you're not one yourself' . . . I don't debate with retards.

tensor777:
Faggotry is not a race. It is a pure PERVERSION and so he HAS EVERY right to hate faggotry. IT is my sovereign, inalienable sovereign right to denounce this practice
You on the other hand, even if you are twisted, have no right whatsoever to  challenge anyone's utter revulsion to the act of faggottry. That is REAL BIGOTRY

Yeah . . . but do you know some people see interracial sex as a perversion too??
My grandma sure does . . . there are arguments for the possibility that it is against nature, there are arguments for the fact that it's disgusting, but we are not allowed to discriminate against them because we consider it immoral.

You have every right to hate them, I think it makes you as backward and ignorant as my grandma, but it's fine . . . but you cannot kill people or discriminate against them because you think it's wrong.
It's that simple.

OAM4J:
I have no problem with that. I dont also have any problem with their right to association, sexual orientation and faith/beliefs.

But they have no right to force their beliefs on me. And they dont need me to accept them/beliefs to live.

They are not forcing it on you . . . they're just saying you shouldn't discriminate against them based on their race.

You have your right to be homophobic or racist or to hate every single tall person, you're allowed to be ignorant, but when you take it out of your mind and bring it out to infringe on their right to life, private life or right to freedom from degrading treatment then it's wrong.

This is wrong, you supporting it is disgraceful.

OAM4J:
That being said,  My concern is where do these gay rights start or end?

Let's start from, the unqualified right to life.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=593966.msg7629118#msg7629118 date=1296327013]Bla bla bla. . .Guy no dull my spirit with this your directionless arguement.
let the gay do the support for and by themselves.everybody supporting this immoral attitude seem to hide under democracy but none so far on NL has openly admitted being gay.does that mean gay dont frequent nl ? Stop all these your hide and seek game and tell me what's up.ok i won't harm you. [/quote]Your argument is embarrassing at the very least . . . there is a lil thing called the constitution, you can't do sumn that vile and tell me I can't condemn it because I'm not gay.

Let's not make this is not about my sexuality . . . the truth is the truth.

This Chamberlain dude isn't half-bad at all.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=593966.msg7629008#msg7629008 date=1296325923]my bad. . .do you feel threatened ?

In any case,why would you show support for something that you can't or wouldn't want to engage in ?. .it's just like saying you dislike ibb or obj but you end up casting your votes for them ? Is that not hypocrisy ?[/quote]Another B.S argument . . . if I don't like OBJ, I won't vote for him but does that mean I'll support you for murdering him in cold blood??
How narrow can one's thinking be??Isn't this meant to be the politic section where people are smart??

I'm showing my support of everyone's right to life and the supremacy of the law of the land and just basic common sense.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=593966.msg7628774#msg7628774 date=1296323788]Are you a gay ? If yes,forward your address to me and i'll mobilze my boss and we'd come for you ! [/quote]Isn't that just a daft question??

That's like calling me a thief for condemning the vigilante treatment of burning petty thieves.

debosky:
Shoulda woulda coulda. . . .all these historical recollections.

So you got a mere 3 points above me with 8 changes and you're rejoicing? Like Oga V said, maybe I woulda nailed 300 if i made 3 changes.

Keep celebrating 110 points. . . .it's like a coach happy he beat an opponent 7-0 while his mate won the league title.

This is no coulda woulda . . . I did score more points in a gameweek than you've ever scored in your career. . . I did take my team from 40th to 25th, a feat you obviously can never achieve seeing how you slept on 63rd last season. . . I did make you take back your statement about my team . . . I did all these things.

You're the one that [b]woulda [/b]nailed 300 points if Yaradua didn't die.

debosky:
Na pesin force you to bench Van Persie or was that also part of your 'tactics'? After making 8 transfers you didn't have the awareness to get Berba - is that someone's fault or yours?  If I was watching Eldee, I woulda benched RVP as part of my tactics too.

Like I said, Nigga please 

If you can't make 120 points after 8 subs then you're wack. #noexcuses

You know I've only clicked on your team's page once, and that's the week we had a bet . . . yep, the one I won and forced you to take back your words like a biatch.
But you not only check my team list, you on my transfers and tactics . . . week in week out, Eldee FC is your Homepage.

Hehehe . . . yeah it's cool, I made the subs and scored 110 points . . . but its higher than you will ever make in your whole career.
I made the biggest jump in a month, what does that prove?? If I took over your team that was on 63rd last season for a month, I'd have brought you from relegation to the first page in that one month.

Hehehe . . . when will you learn, you were even there waiting for point reductions for moi, Lala and Chamo . . .when will you learn??