₦airaland Forum

I think you should try checking his blood sugar level. if it's normal then it might be fine. if it's high he should be motivated to stop eating too much sugar. because high blood sugar is very dangerous.

buy a glucose meter to do this or visit a clinic to get it done.
http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+check+blood+sugar+level&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=R5m&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&q=glucose+meter&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=dded8f20a6bb9442

^^i'm referring to the practice by some people, of automatically insulting others just because they're older.

yea i'm annoyed by that too. but then this is the internet. People sometimes will say stuff they don't have the guts to say to your face in real life.
I think it might also be nice if the elderly person doesn't mingle too much with the younger ones or do things that are immature otherwise there will be a loss of respect. You have to keep your distance/compose yourself to some extent.

SEFAGO:
if you have read several holocausts accounts, Anne Frank diary- sad book-you would also be aware that the German's found the Jews both disgusting and unnatural.

lol of course.

What you should understand is that Jew is not even a race. lol It is a religion and a way of life/culture that can be defined in many ways.
and the holocaust didn't just happen. It was very systematic and these were some of the laws that were gradually put in place:


Public burning of books by Jews and anti-Nazis
Police and the courts no longer protect Jews
April boycotts of Jewish shops - for one day, Germans are told not to buy from shops and business owned by Jews
SA stand by shops to discourage people from going inside
'Kosher'- ritual slaughter of animals banned
Department of Racial Hygiene ('ethnic cleansing') established
Jews excluded from military service
Nuremberg Laws deny Jews many basic civil rights
Law for 'The Protection of German Blood and German Honour' forbade mixed marriages
Jews no longer allowed to vote and lose German citizenship
Jews banned from parks, restaurants and swimming pools
Jews no longer allowed electrical/optical equipment, bicycles, typewriters or records
Many Jewish students removed from German schools and universities
Special identity cards issued to Jews
Jews excluded from cinema, theatre, concerts, exhibitions, beaches and holiday resorts
Jews forced to add the names Sarah or Israel to their own
A central office for Jewish emigration set up
Jews evicted from their homes without reason and notice
Jewish curfew established
Jews over 6 forced to wear a Yellow Star of David with 'Jew' written on it
Jews Forbidden to use public telephones (personal telephones and radios were confiscated)
Blind or deaf Jews no longer allowed to wear armbands identifying their condition in traffic
All schools closed to Jewish children
Continuous deportations
Holocaust

The Nazis established many new anti-Jewish laws. These were introduced slowly at first, so that the civilian population would not realise the extent of the Nazi party's anti-Semitism.

What you should understand is that the majority of German population didn't find any problem with these anti-jewish laws. It didn't affect them and many probably didn't like Jews anyway. But things got worse gradually until it culminated in what we know today as the holocaust.

You voluntarily supplied an example where a law is in existence in US based on disgust (ban of polygamy) and followed it by "so no. laws are generally not based on what we are disgusted by".
So why do you think the wankstar should be arrested? Why do you think the laws that allow you to arrest him when all he is trying to do is havsome fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun without hurting anybody?
How does that link to stealing? Why did you bring stealing up in your argument? Is stealing banned based on disgust? You do not know it is banned based on harm?
If the society is STRONGLY disgusted enough, I am SURE adultery would be banned based on morals.
That is why the shariarist do it.
Sagamite is too smart for Shariarist or any other authority to catch him in the act if it is against the law.
He would smack that, all on the floor, smack that, they give me more, smack that, till they get sore, smack that o o ooooo without being caught.

For polygamy, I think if there are enough activists for it who want to bring it back, it may come back. But generally, I doubt that will ever happen in the US, marriage is based on love not financial arrangement or whatever reason polygamy exist. The Americans think polygamy works against women's rights anyway. lol

The shariarist do it because their laws are based on the Koran.
And it's not about society being strongly disgusted. Generally, to me at least, society can select to ban activities that they know are only practiced by a minority or vulnerable in society. ex. Sharia laws against adultery are harsher toward women than men. this is a fact. Most of their laws also target women (ie. mandatory veils, banned from walking alone in public etc ) who are a vulnerable population in society. While they let the men go scot free. So why should morality be applied to women only (as a group).

So it's not about what society wants. but rather what the powerful in society wants vs the population that are vulnerable or marginalized.
ex. hutus vs tutsi in Rwandan genocide. where the tutsis were a minority population
or Nazi Germany that first banned Jewish activities. They basically used their laws to deny Jews of rights and then eventually went on to try to exterminate them which was the last straw.

if our laws were based on morals don't you think adulterers will be punished like they are under sharia? Half of the men on here will be amputated by now lol or even drunkards or alcoholism etc or heavy party goers. since all these things are "immoral"
sagamite will be in jail by now for posting pics of unclothed women and porn on nairaland 

a secular government is different. laws are based on rights and the general good of society. not on "morality" per se.

Sagamite:
That is not my point in anyway.

Yes, it is against the law.

Why is it against the law? Because we are disgusted by it.

Hence, I just wanted to make it clear to any reader that it is perfectly normal, sane and universally practiced that laws are put in place based on morality, so I see less mooorons go around and raise such steeeeeeeeeeewpid arguments that you can not ban homosexuality because you feel it is disgusting.

The fact it is unnatural and disgusting makes it a very valid act to be banned.

"unnatural" and "disgusting" to me just describe things that we are not used to or accustomed to. At least that's my interpretation of what you mean.
ex. loiterring or pissing/shitting openly in gutters will be "disgusting" to americans.Same with the idea of polygamy. but it is a normal and natural way of life for many nigerians etc.
so no. laws are generally not based on what we are disgusted by. the reason laws are created are more complex than "morality" except if you live in a theocracy like sharia where rules are based on morals. ie adulterers are amputated etc
ie. laws against stealing is not because stealing is evil but because stealing "harms" others by violating personal property

the word we should use in this instance is tolerance. it will be unnatural for a white person who has never seen a black person in his life to move to a city and have to deal with seeing them everyday. it takes a tolerant mind to get accustomed to that.
same with being a christian and still being tolerant toward muslims etc

It will be a very depressing world if we were all too close-minded.

lol no shame in ur game isale gan

[quote author=aloy/emeka link=topic=595341.msg7641574#msg7641574 date=1296500162]Which of the pictures above is supposed to be the younger one?.[/quote]block the faces out and make a guess based on their hands/arms/body parts. lol

tensor, why are you in a western society. why not move to a sharia state and see how you love it there? 

You know there is no moral relativism. The latter 2 acts are inherently and irredeemably evil and should be harshly dealt with.

we are dealing with secular governments here not sharia or biblical governments. so what is your point?
the minority atheist population in Africa should be hanged next?

besides, the former (interracial relationships) was considered evil in the past. Just like the idea of women wearing pants or not covering their head in church is something that would be a sin or taboo in the past.

[quote author=Shy-One link=topic=593966.msg7648538#msg7648538 date=1296591905]faggotts, faggotts, faggotts

faggotism, faggotitizs

the hair is raised on my arms - i am sick of that word - stop it!!!

shy-one disembowels tensor777[/quote]I agree. how can words like poo and stupid be censored but homophobic hate word is not?

I want to ask a question. This mainly goes to londoner, eku_bear, mannylife and Jenifa.

If a man on a nice sunny weekend decides he wants to have a good and enjoyable weekend and wears his clothes, looks in his wallet, finds some change of about £6.20. He heads to a corner shop near his abode, buys bottled water of £1.20, buys a pack of cigarette for £3.00 and a bar of soap for £0.80.

He lights up a stick of cigarette whilst strolling down to his nearest underground station. At the entrance to the station, he extinguishes his half smoked cigaretter because it is against the law to smoke in the underground network. He checks his map to see how to get to his target destination, Trafalgar Square.

He catches the next train, makes the necessarily connections and arrives at Trafalgar Square. He exits the station, heads for the Square itself, smiles at the tourists in a polite manner. He then sits by the fountain in the nice sunny day, brings out his soap and water, takes off his trousers, spreads out his leg, adds water to the soap and then begins a delightful self-pleasuring right there in front of everybody.

Should he be left alone and be allowed to go home or should he be arrested? If you think he should be arrested, on what grounds and why?

sagamite,

first of all, why aren't regular posters like me allowed to use the message function? why is it restricted to mods only  

to answer your question, I think it is against the law FOR ANYONE to go around unclothed in public lol. People aren't even allowed to go barefeet in some public places. Now if only certain segment of the population were allowed to do it while one group is banned from doing it, that will be problematic because it's clearly becomes discrimination. ex. straights are allowed to make out in public while gays are not. stuff like that.
ex. only sagamite or only the presidents family is allowed do what you described while it is against the law for anyone else to do it. lol


sometimes, there are exception to this. where rights are granted to some and not others based on religion, sexual orientation,disability, ethnic minority etc. these are called minority rights.
ex. affirmative action, disability laws (where handicapped have special parking spots), muslims,jews etc being excused from things that go against their religion etc.
I know France doesn't have a system of collective rights in place and their laws are based only on individual rights and that's why they are having a problem right now with muslims, blacks and other minority groups that feel that the country is not respecting their rights as a "group"that's different from the majority in the country.

did I answer your question or you need clarification?

The fact of the matter is that heterosexuals did not have to worry about getting infected with HIV/AIDS until homosexuals, to a large part, and drug users contributed to its dominant spread. This point is not about whether homosexualism is right or wrong, it is about the rapid spread of AIDS. You are free to disagree; I am off to bed.

this is the worst bullsh.it i've heard in a while.
South Africa and many southern African countries are as homophobic as they come but have the highest rate of HIV in the world.
more than 60% of HIV carriers are women.

most of it is due to lack of sexual education and safe sex practices.

To me, gays have a high rate of HIV because they are a marginalized population and therefore are involved in risky sexual behaviors including drugs etc same with blacks. blacks in US are marginalized so therefore, it is only natural that they are involved in criminal activities etc. so should we exterminate african americans because they are causing trouble for the whites? (in your own words: protecting the majority from the minority). most of the population in jail are blacks aren't they? so should we ban blacks from having babies? Yes this has been proposed in the past to limit blacks from having babies because they will grow up to be criminals. this is why many blacks still are antagonistic toward planned parenthood till today due to that legacy.

it sounds crazy now but was probably widely accepted at the time.
I'm pretty sure 50yrs from now (if you are still alive) you will think back and wonder how ignorant you sound. lol

*goes away to watch ellen degeneres 

Katsumoto:
You didn't answer my question by the way. What are your views on wives, girlfriends, etc getting infected by homosexual husbands and boyfriends?

This is a very very simple. If gays are denied a right to have a public life, they will remain in the closet and pretend to be heterosexual in public by having wives and girlfriends.
This is hard on the wives and girlfriend of these gays but even harder on the gays who have to live a double life (one in private and one in public) due to fear of stigma and persecution.

manny4life:
@Jenifa,

You can never explain enough, this explanation started from the third page with  eldee, Sagamite, and still wasn't going anywhere even after 26 pages, so there isn't any use explaining, as you can see everyone is off, i thinks its about time this thread dies a painful death.

lol I agree with you. guess it's time for me to leave the topic.

There are studies that suggest homosexualism was the major medium for the spread of AIDS in the late 70s and 80s.

these were they "4Hs" touted by the CDC during that time to be the cause of HIV:
homosexuals
heroin addicts
hemophiliacs and
Haitians

and we all know what they have in common. They are vulnerable, marginalized and disadvantaged people in society and you bet they were targeted by the public for hate crimes. Haitians still talk about this period till this day as a low point in their immigration history to the US. Haitian kids being barred from school, targeted by the police, turned down from housing etc  are some of the things they faced as a result of the CDC proclamation that legitimized an hate that already existed in society.
the list was eventually revised due to the work of haitian activists that challenged the claim.

Haiti: The High Price of Stigma
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/aids/countries/ht.html

OAM4J

so what do you think of Tanzanians killing the Albinos in the country? Because majority non-albinos support it so the albinos therefore should continue to be treated like sub-humans?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7148673.stm
and what also do you think of the genocide in Rwanda where majority Hutu population set out to exterminate the minority Tutsi population.
or of women being forced to wear burqas in some certain parts of the world against their will.

my idea of democracy is majority rule and minority rights. I think as nigerians that are used to govt abusing even our basic human rights, we don't understand the concept let alone understanding that minorities need to be protected with rights.

read this:
"The term Minority Rights embodies two separate concepts: first, normal individual rights as applied to members of racial, ethnic, class, religious, linguistic or sexual minorities, and second, collective rights accorded to minority groups. The term may also apply simply to individual rights of anyone who is not part of a majority decision.
Civil rights movements often seek to ensure that individual rights are not denied on the basis of membership in a minority group.
Minority rights, as applying to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples, are an integral part of international human rights law. Like children's rights, women's rights and refugee rights, minority rights are a legal framework designed to ensure that a specific group which is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalised position in society, is able to achieve equality and is protected from persecution."

Katsumoto:
There is a difference between education and sexual proclivities. What is the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia from country to country? Isn't it the age of consent? I guess if a minority start campaigning for the right to sleep with dead bodies, the majority have to accept it.

Its dificult to talk about the civil rights era because of its attendant association with slavery. I get your point about protecting the minority from the majority but it is not a one size fits all approach. Sometimes the majority need to be protected from the minority.

so gays should be banned from schooling with straight kids? Is that what you are trying to say?

there are gay men who are craddle-robbers. just as there are straight men who are craddle-robbers. being a craddle-robber means you are attracted to pre-pubescent child. i'm sure that is illegal since children under age 18 are minors.

how does majority rights need to be protected from the minority? please explain and give me an example.

Arkansas's Gov. Orval Faubus joined with local white activists to block nine black students, known as the Little Rock Nine, who had been admitted to Little Rock's Central High School. This interference erupted in a frenzy of violence and protests, which eventually led President Eisenhower to call in federal troops.


[img]http://www.marquette.edu/magazine/images/winter2010/bnr-little-rock-nine.jpg[/img]


These photographs capture the controversial desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957. Nine black students who attempted to enter the school encountered a mob of 1,000 angry whites demonstrating in protest. Several weeks later, under armed federal escort, they were able to attend the school.
https://www.teachersdomain.org/assets/wgbh/iml04/iml04_img_lr9/iml04_img_lr9_l.jpg

I am sorry but your comparison of negroes and gays is wholly inappropriate. There are gays who are black; as bad as racism is, a black gay person is likely to suffer double discrimination. In the same vein, a White gay person is likely to suffer discrimination from White, black, yellow, and red homophobes.

Also, you can't do anything about your colour if you are a Negro but a gay person, White or black, can decide whether or not to come out or not.

Every society has the right to decide what laws to enact. If a majority don't want homosexualism to be practiced openly, then that is what that society wants regardless of whether it is practised in other societies.

@katsumoto,
I agree that majority rules but I also believes that minorities have their rights (to live, not to be jailed for being gay etc)
ie majority rule, minority rights.

Just because 70% of a population agree that gays should be executed (whether because they have been feed propaganda, religion etc) doesn't mean gays don't deserve rights.
this is where the parallel with civil rights for blacks come in. I'm sure majority of whites didn't support blacks getting education during the brown vs board of education ruling. The federal govt had to send in troops to protect the black students from being mobbed by the general public.

so do you say that because the majority of whites didn't want blacks to share schooling, water fountains, buses etc. they should be refused these rights? and the govt shouldn't protect minorities?

[quote author=isale_gan2 link=topic=593966.msg7636381#msg7636381 date=1296430352]Testify! 

Neh, he's just yanking your chain.  Mr. Cock is funny.  [/quote]yea he can be funny. but not someone I will prefer to sit down and have a conversation with. I'd rather keep my distance

You will agree with me that homosexuality has definitively exacerbated sexually transmitted diseases, notably HIV,  Admittedly, the major problem is people (mainly dudes on the down low) who are homosexuals. Scientifically and naturally, gays  have a disproportionate higher chance of transmitting these diseases,

women also naturally have 3x higher chance of contacting HIV than men so what's your point?

if u read my previous post, you will understand that part of the contributing factor is education and support. An homosexual in a supportive environment and upper middle class or white is less likely to be HIV positive than a homeless homosexual of an ethnic minority roaming the streets due to poverty and abuse and engaging in risky behavior including drugs etc.

so what should be happening is for the health system to be reaching out to the marginalized communities and educating them or providing support. In countries like Uganga, it is against the law to teach safe sex to gays since it's considered gay activism

IT IS AN EVIL YOU KNOW.

shattap tensor. your homophobia is the only evil i see on here.  

tensor777:
And who said it is a Western thing. It existed in Sodom and Gomorrah remember. However the pro faggott lobby is based in the West. That does not mean that faggottry itself originated in the West so I don't know what you are on about.
. . . .

most human rights activism groups are based in the west. they have more voice due to western laws that recognize minority rights
"majority rule, minority rights" <--I'm sure you are familiar with this saying.
at least this is my understanding of it.

To be honest I would rather have a society that harshly punishes perverts and faggotts than have a society where the distinction between good and evil is blurred.

to be honest, part of me thinks you are joking or just riling us up for the fun of it.
if you are an adult, by now you should know that there is no clear distinction between good and evil.
I def. don't want to live in the world that you describe.

Besides calling for death to homosexuals, Uganda was also seeking to ban women from wearing mini-skirts.  what do you think? are mini-skirts evil to you? why females? wonder how these laws are always targeting a minority or marginal population.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7621823.stm

and then we have child witches in Nigeria. orphans also tend to be targeted. just as women and widows are target of witchcraft accusations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

I really don't understand how some people think this way. I think human rights are a necessity unless you are one who don't have a heart. lol

This Alien Legacy
The Origins of "Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism
December 17, 2008

This 66-page report describes how laws in over three dozen countries, from India to Uganda and from Nigeria to Papua New Guinea, derive from a single law on homosexual conduct that British colonial rulers imposed on India in 1860. This year, the High Court in Delhi ended hearings in a years-long case seeking to decriminalize homosexual conduct there. A ruling in the landmark case is expected soon.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/12/17/alien-legacy-0

The British “Queensland Penal Code” of 1899 was “adopted in Northern Nigeria in the nineteenth century, later becoming the basis for a uniform federal code in Nigeria in 1916. The Indian Penal Code had been used in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, but those laws were later replaced by drafts based on the Nigerian criminal code. Sudan used the Indian Penal Code. In 1960 Northern Nigeria enacted a separate criminal code, based on the Sudan code.”

Similar laws were forced on “British” Honduras (today Belize), Jamaica, Anguilla, the “British” Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Bahamas, Tobago, Turks and Caicos, and St. Lucia.

The British also imposed anti-“sodomy” legislation on Canada in 1892, New Zealand a year later, and Australia in 1788 and again in 1899.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code
http://www.workers.org/2007/world/lavender-red-112/

tensor777:
Don't be fooled Jennifer. Sub Saharan Africa is very very strongly anti faggott and does not need to be prompted to take a stand against this evil by a handful of yanks.
It is likely the pro faggott lobby picked on Uganda because they know they are a large recipient of WESTERN DONOR FUNDS and foolishly imagined that they would be able to thereby get their way in Uganda. The truth is that modern Uganda is also a strongly Christian country and they are bound to take a strong  stance against faggottry regardless of the consequences.
What are you even saying? Even the bible prescribes death for faggotts.
Anyway read the officiating pastors comments at Kato's funeral

if that is the case,
why did the british impose their laws against sodomy on us when they came to colonize us in the 19th century?
fact: anti-gay laws are a colonial legacy in many parts of Africa and other british colonies such as India etc.
I think we need to learn more about our history. We weren't even Christians to begin with!!!

the bible prescribes death for homosexuals just as it prescribes death for adulterers etc. We live in a society that separates church and state for a reason. Otherwise we will be killing each other left and right and using the bible to justify it. Move to Iran or a Sharia state to know what's up.

As far as i'm concerned. Jesus commanded you to love your neighbor as you love yourself. So I hope you are not stuck in the old testament.

^ lol
even the catholic church is beginning to waver on it's stance against contraception.

I don't like your ridiculous idea that people choose to be gay but that's your opinion. lol
In my opinion, I think that hormone level during female pregnancy may play a role.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Last March, three American evangelical Christians, whose teachings about “curing” homosexuals have been widely discredited in the United States, arrived here in Uganda’s capital to give a series of talks.

One month after the conference, a previously unknown Ugandan politician, who boasts of having evangelical friends in the American government, introduced the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, which threatens to hang homosexuals, and, as a result, has put Uganda on a collision course with Western nations.

Now the three Americans are finding themselves on the defensive, saying they had no intention of helping stoke the kind of anger that could lead to what came next: a bill to impose a death sentence for homosexual behavior.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html

^
this was what started the controversy
and you can see that the "west" is implicated in inciting homophobic beliefs in the uganda.
christianity is not indegenous to Africa by the way. it was introduced to us by westerners. so let us be careful so we don't forget our history and assume that we have historically been homophobic.

@OAM4J

he was trying to get the Ugandan govt to drop the proposed bill to criminalize homosexuals with jail or death sentence. get your facts straight. how can you practice your sexual orientation privately when you are being harassed at every turn?

and your comment about the west is meaningless because the homophobic bill was created by the ugandan govt in collaboration with American evangelicals. so the west is also implicated in the anti-gay movement in Uganda.
it was a huge controversy late 2009/early 2010.

and homosexuality is definitely NOT alien to Africa. let's not use our anti-west sentiments (ironic that some of it is coming from people who fled their african countries to the west lol) to blind us into depriving our citizens of their human rights.

[quote author=aloy/emeka link=topic=595341.msg7635689#msg7635689 date=1296421456]Can  photoshopping turn monkey into Halle Berry?.[/quote]lol. it can make a 40yr old look 25. lol
madonna before and after
https://www.hollywoodbackwash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/madonna-before-after-photoshop-2.jpg