₦airaland Forum

ThothHermes:
Homexuality is sexual behaviour between people of the same gender. Love, creativity, consciousness and similar phenomena are abstract concepts that can exist without this behaviour. You are smartly introducing a straw man argument by connecting any of these concepts to homosexual behaviour. Do you need to be sexual to be creative, to love, or to explore consciousness?

I didn't introduce any strawman. I only just highlighted the flaws in your reductionist thinking. Pay close attention. You're the one who implied that certain human experiences must be justified by a specific gene or biological process, and I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of that expectation. And to answer your question: No. One doesn't need to be sexual to be creative, to love, or to explore consciousness, but to suggest that sexuality is somehow divorced from these fundamental aspects of our humanity is ridiculously naive. What I see here is you trying to sever the intrinsic links between human experiences, as if sexuality exists in a vacuum, disconnected from the very essence of our humanity, when in fact it is an integral part of our emotional, social, and cognitive experiences. You can't neatly compartmentalize human nature into discrete, unrelated boxes.

For rhetorical sake, I will emphasize again that your attempts to delegitimize homosexuality by framing it as "unnatural" is EXACTLY what has been used to justify discrimination and oppression throughout history, and I won't let that harmful narrative go unchallenged.

By saying there is no gay gene, I'm saying there is no biological rationale for same-sex behaviour. And yes, I am also saying that something that is physical like sexual attraction or desire can be reduced to a biological process. Once again, love and creativity are abstract concepts -- apples and oranges.

I find it very convenient that you can dismiss love and creativity on one hand as abstract concepts when they don't fit your narrative, and yet you expect sexual attraction to be reduced to a single biological process. A bare faced cop-out if I've ever seen one. So we haven't found a "gay gene". Okay! So flipping what? How is this conclusive proof for you that same-sex attraction can't be a natural part of human diversity? Do I need to remind you that our understanding of human biology is still evolving? And what about the numerous scientific studies that have found evidence of same-sex behavior in various animal species? Are you saying that they are all just deviant outliers?

Companionship, emotional support, and love can be enjoyed in a relationship between a mother and her child, two good friends, a teacher and a student etc. None of this involves or requires any sexual attraction or behavior. Sex is the defining marker of gay relationships. Invoking love and emotional support is an attempt to give legitimacy to unnatural urges

LOL, what?! Are you taking the piss?

Do you seriously believe that the value of a relationship lies solely in its sexual aspects? Love, companionship, and emotional support are not just mere add-ons to your defining marker of sex. They ARE the very foundations upon which meaningful relationships are built! I shouldn't have to be pointing out these obvious banalities for crying out loud.

By the way, I suppose you're implying that same-sex attraction is somehow artificial or forced, when you use the term "unnatural urges"? Have you ever stopped to consider that sexuality actually exists on a spectrum, and that human experience is far more nuanced than your binary thinking allows? The only thing "unnatural" I can observe here is your absolute dictatorship over what constitutes a legitimate relationship based on your own personal biases and prejudices.

Red herring alert!
Biologically speaking, the ultimate goal of what you refer to as human connection is procreation. I'm not reducing anything. The science is clear. Intellectual fireworks, shared values and a good laugh are possible without gay sex. Don't you enjoy these things with your friends?

And this is exactly where you're getting tangled in your own biological binary because, for some reason, you find it hard to tell the difference between the origin of our instincts and the entirety of human experience. Our bodies may be wired for reproduction. That much is true. However, our minds and hearts are capable of so much more. You're acting as if our free will as human beings, in tandem with our diverse personalities and emotional complexities, plays absolutely no role in human connection, and that is where you sound like a true reductionist. That being said, I couldn't help but notice that in a hilarious twist of irony, you went ahead to make the same point I was trying to make when you made that comment about enjoying intellectual fireworks with friends: We can and do experience deep connections with others beyond just sexual attraction! So why must we diminish the validity of same-sex relationships just because they don't fit into your narrow definition of biological imperatives?

Same-sex couples raising families does not prove anything. It only means that deviant behaviour is becoming mainstream. We must color those lines properly, else our collective future will be at risk.

Whilst you "color inside the lines", please note that you're actively ignoring the loving families that exist despite your disapproval, as well as the scientific consensus that sexual diversity is a natural part of human experience. You'd be better off embracing the beauty of diversity than trying to fit everyone into your narrow, monochrome vision.

I don't see how this helps your argument. A homosexual community cannot reproduce. How will it survive?

It's pretty basic actually. First of all, your use of the term "homosexual community" is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, suggesting that if one event occurs, it will inevitably lead to a series of extreme consequences without providing evidence for such a chain of events. Recall that there are individuals who still identify as bisexual or queer, allowing for potential reproduction. Like I said earlier, human sexuality exists on a spectrum. Furthermore, assisted reproductive technologies like surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and sperm/egg donation already exist and could continue to evolve, in tandem with adoption and foster care which remain viable options for building families. And that's not even factoring human ingenuity and adaptability. As a species, we've come a really long way since the Stone Ages. Most of the things we've accomplished now would have been considered near impossible then. In years to come, we could potentially discover new solutions and innovations in reproductive technology.

They hatched an egg that was given to them by the zookeepers. Doesn't sound like evolution to me.

That's because you missed the point. The penguins' ability to raise a chick together, regardless of its origin, shows that they're capable of exhibiting parental care without regard to gender. It's a testament to the flexibility of nature, and a reminder that love and family come in many forms. Plus, in the wild, many species of birds and mammals have been observed engaging in same-sex behaviors. So yes, evolution has a more vibrant and diverse palette than your imagination.

There's nothing normal or healthy about any of this behaviour. What is normal about being transgender? Na wa o. Wokism. 😀

Well, I consider being wilfully ignorant to be unnatural, but here you are. As for my submissions, I wouldn't call it "wokism", just a lack of tolerance for intolerance.

There's a distinction quite alright, but it's far from clear. They are all sexual inclinations that do nothing for our collective survival or advancement.

One is a consensual relationship between adults and the other is a non-consensual and harmful act against minors. I don't see how they are comparable at all. The survival of the human species is not dependent on individual sexual orientation, as people of all orientations can still contribute to society in various ways.

Tagging me a homophobe, transphobe, or intolerant because I disagree with your sexual proclivities on the grounds of faith, cultural ideals, or common sense is not an attack on my values or belief?

Labeling someone as a homophobe or transphobe is not an attack, but rather a description of their behavior when they express discriminatory sentiments towards marginalized groups. You need to recognize that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but when those beliefs perpetuate harm and discrimination, they must be addressed.

It's not just about human rights no matter how much you want to paint it so, it's about sanctity, values, morals, decency, and the battle against depravity.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but the world doesn't revolve around your personal preferences. Human rights are not up for debate, and neither is the inherent worth and dignity of every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation.

My worldview is far from fragile, I just enjoy calling out wokist crap.

How brave of you to hide behind a facade of faux confidence while casually dismissing ideologies you don't agree with as "wokist". Your intolerance is showing, and it's not a good look for you.

ThothHermes:
It means there's no natural, biological, or rational reason to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.

"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
- Audre Lorde

The problem here is that your reductionist thinking is actively preventing you from truly embracing the complexity and diversity of human experience. Whether the "gay gene" exists or not, it is still completely irrelevant and a blatant red herring in this conversation. And are you really suggesting that the only things that are natural and valid are those that can be reduced to a single gene or biological process? If so, then what about love, creativity, or consciousness? Can you pinpoint a single "love gene" or "creativity gene"? Do you really expect me to believe that human emotions, desires, and attractions must be justified by some sort of rational calculus? Is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge that human sexuality is a rich, multifaceted, and beautiful aspect of our humanity? It would do you plenty of good to realize that the very concept of "natural" is often used to justify discrimination and oppression. What's natural is not always what's right. And what's rational is not always what's human.

I'm curious. What is the value of same-sex relationships?

Interesting. For a second there I thought we were discussing grown-up concepts like love, commitment, and basic human rights. But apparently, we need to circle back to Relationship 101. The value of same-sex relationships, my dear, is the same as any other relationship: companionship and emotional support. Shocking, right?

It's not complex at all. The ultimate goal of attraction is procreation and perpetuation of any species, something homosexuality cannot accomplish.

If you reduce human connection to a mere baby-making machine, then romance novels are about as thrilling as reading the appliance manual. Nobody is denying the role evolution plays. Of course we're all wired to seek out mates, but it isn't just physical compatibility we look out for when we're searching for mates. We also crave intellectual fireworks, shared values, and a good laugh once in a while. Plenty of same-sex couples raise families through adoption or fostering, or have you never heard of uncles who raise their nieces and nephews, or the deep bonds of chosen families? Evolution may nudge us in a certain direction, but it doesn't necessarily dictate our destination. We humans, with our glorious free will, get to color outside the lines.

True. How does two people of the same-sex going at it help achieve this?

The ability of a community to thrive and survive in any species is dependent on factors beyond just individual advantages. Cooperation, mutual support, and social bonding are essential for the survival of communities. Evolution isn't just an individualistic process.

Surely you're having a laugh.

Having a laugh? Hardly.

Perhaps you haven't heard the one about the gay penguins who raise abandoned chicks? Evolution has a wilder sense of humor than you think.

What is sexual diversity and where do we draw the line? Pedophilia, bestiality, etc. At what point is it enough or do you permit of forms of sexual deviation in the name of being tolerant and accepting?
Should we accept a way of life that assaults our sense of virtue, faith, family values, and everything we hold sacred because we don't want to be seen as intolerant?
Gay people would probably not have much trouble if they kept their unnatural urges to themselves. But it's them who go on pride marches and wave rainbows in our faces isn't it?

You're just letting yourself get carried away by hyperbole here. Conflating sexual diversity with non-consensual behaviors is a misguided and harmful equivalence. Sexual diversity refers to the natural range of human sexual orientations and gender identities, including being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others. These identities are a normal and healthy part of human experience, and deserve respect, recognition, and protection. Then on the other hand, you've got pedophilia and bestiality: harmful and non-consensual behaviors that exploit and harm vulnerable individuals, which are rightly rejected by society. There is a clear distinction here.

I don't quite understand the bit about pride marches and rainbow flags. These are symbols of pride and resilience for a community that has faced historical discrimination and marginalization. All they are seeking is acceptance and inclusivity. How are they attacking anyone's values or beliefs?

This part of your comment is wokist drivel. No need responding to it.

Don't worry, I'm sure your fragile worldview can handle a few basic human rights discussions. Maybe take a deep breath and try again.

Badmashiii:
You must either be gay or a fan of anal. Keep supporting shit till you can't hold your shit.

This might come as a surprise to you, but just as I don't have to be a scientist to acknowledge the importance of science, I also don't have to be gay to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. But please, do go on. I'm fascinated by your attempts to outdo yourself in bigotry and potty humor. It's a remarkable display of intellectual bankruptcy.

ThothHermes:
Homosexuality serves no purpose. It's perverse. There's no gay gene.
Nature is purposeful. What evolutionary advantages does being gay confer on the human species?
People have the right to pursue their fantasies of perversion, but we must call it what it is -- perversion. Don't make it sound like those who disagree are backward or primitive.

How does the existence or non-existence of a "gay gene" make homosexuality any less natural or valid? I don't see how it is relevant to the legitimacy and value of same-sex relationships. Human attraction and love are complex phenomena that cannot be reduced to simple genetic determinism. Evolution isn't just about individual advantages. It's also about the survival and thriving of communities. What if the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality lies in its ability to promote diversity, creativity, and social cohesion... which are actually all essential for the progress and flourishing of our species? Sexual diversity is a natural part of the human experience, and pathologizing it will accomplish nothing other than the further stigmatization and marginalization of already vulnerable communities. Don't you think they have it bad enough already?

With all due respect, your stance reeks of the same fear and intolerance that has been used to justify discrimination throughout history. The only backwardness here is the refusal to acknowledge the progress of human understanding and the stubborn insistence on imposing one's own beliefs on others. Your words are not a defense of traditional values, but a thinly veiled attempt to justify discrimination, and I'll have no part in it. Instead, I'd rather stand with those who champion love, acceptance, and the human spirit in all its vibrant colors.

AlbertNewton:
C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)

This conclusion is not quite right. Plugging into the experience machine would mean that we are going to give up the old ways of getting pleasure which we are already used to (eating, fücking, playing with friends, achieving goals etc). The thought of losing these pleasures may cause us some pain, a feeling which of course we always want to avoid. Furthermore, we may have genuine misgivings about plugging into the experience machine because we CANNOT be completely certain this will bring better pleasures than what we are used to. So there are reasonable reasons not to want to plug to the machine even if all that matters to us is to experience more pleasure.
A better conclusion should be that if you experience better or more pleasures upon being plugged to the experience machine than is possible in real life, then you should have no reason to want to be unplugged.

This is an impressive rejoinder. Well done. As a matter of fact, yes, you are correct that the conclusion C1 oversimplifies the complexities of human experience and the potential drawbacks of relying solely on the experience machine for pleasure. Your points about the potential pain of giving up familiar sources of pleasure and the uncertainty of the machine's superiority are well-taken. Nevertheless, I'd argue that your revised conclusion still misses the deeper concerns that Nozick's thought experiment intends to highlight. The experience machine scenario is meant to probe our values and what ultimately matters to us, beyond mere pleasure. While your revised conclusion acknowledges some practical considerations, I'm not sure it fully addresses the existential and philosophical questions at play.

For instance, would we still be content to lead a life of pure simulation, devoid of genuine human connections, personal growth, and meaningful experiences? Would we sacrifice our autonomy, creativity, and capacity for self-improvement for the sake of pleasure alone? These concerns go beyond mere pleasure and speak to the essence of human existence. Even if the experience machine could guarantee superior pleasures, would that be enough to justify sacrificing the richness and depth of human experience? Or would we still have reason to opt out, precisely because our values and aspirations extend beyond mere pleasure?

Mcslize:
Does it mean that you as a person trust more the imaginary scientific hypothesis of concocted human formulated knowledge than your own personal life experiences?

Do you know you don't need science approval to ascertain and discover certain things yourself as a human?

If I tell you today that there is currently a cure for HIV, will you doubt me simply because no one has fully come out to scientifically prove it that there is truly a cure?

What if I told you that I know herbs that can cure poison and treat chronic infections? Will you say that because it had not been scientifically proven so they won't work to cure those sicknesses?

Do I need science to prove that herbal medicines can actually cure sicknesses? Same thing applies to what we are discussing. You don't need science to validate certain things you discovered by yourself before you believe them.

Can you as a person give an account of heresay human theories and doubt your own real life experience just because it's not yet verified?

Your well cogent and supported answer will be highly appreciated.

I'm sorry but you're the one who has it all backwards here. Relying solely on individual anecdotes can be very misleading and limiting. Science and empirical research provide a systematic and rigorous approach to understanding the world, allowing us to separate correlation from causation and minimize biases. It's not about trusting "imaginary scientific hypotheses" or "concocted human formulated knowledge," but rather about acknowledging the importance of evidence-based information in informing our beliefs and decisions. That being said, I'm not dismissing the value of personal experiences and introspection. Both are essential in shaping our perspectives and worldviews. However, when it comes to making claims about the world, especially those that affect others, I believe we have a responsibility to ground them in credible evidence and expertise.

Regarding your example of a cure for HIV, if someone claimed to have found a cure, I would approach it with skepticism until robust scientific evidence and rigorous testing confirm its efficacy. Similarly, while herbal medicines can be effective, their potency and safety vary greatly. Some may be beneficial, but others can be harmful or even toxic. Without scientific scrutiny, we risk perpetuating harmful practices or overlooking more effective treatments.

As for your real-life experiences, of course, they matter. The real question here is whether it is universally applicable! Everyone's body is a unique ecosystem. What zaps your energy might energize someone else. And that is why scientific studies, with large sample sizes and controlled variables, offer a broader picture.

Badmashiii:
Tolerant and learn something new?

Like learning how to bare our asshole to be fu"ked by other men or learning how to f"ck other men assholes? Which other things can we learn from gays?

The LGBTQ+ community isn't about sex acts (It's sad that I have to point out this obvious concept). It's about celebrating individuality, embracing diversity, and living life in full color. So please, let's ditch the anal fixation. Thank you.

Tame26:
it is, personal opinions are not personal once it’s in the public space in an unregulated social media platform. Bob risky never committed any reasonable crime, he/she was just a cross dresser which isn’t against any laws in the country. Is he impacting the life’s of underage Nigerians negatively with his personal opinions and lifestyle? Your guess is as good as mine.

Ps: I have lived in countries where your personal opinion will get you in jail

Maybe you're not aware of this, but a free and open society thrives on the exchange of ideas, even the bad ones. It's how we challenge the status quo and, dare I say, evolve. Fear shouldn't dictate discourse. We need to be able to dissect opinions, good, bad, and downright bizarre, without resorting to silencing tactics. Do I agree with Saida Boj's pronouncements? Far from it. But it would be absurd to label her a criminal just because I strongly disagree with her sentiments and find them outrageous. As for Bobrisky, as much as his very existence hilariously ruffles plenty of feathers, it's hardly inciting a riot.

If you ask me, rather than muffling her voice, we would be better off letting the court of public opinion judge her. If there's one thing the internet has taught me, it's that the trolls are actually far more effective at delivering justice, virtual or otherwise.

sparko1:
This sounds like a personal question so I will ignore, can you discuss about facts.

I am not gay or wish to be but this is an important discussion that requires understanding and discussion.

You're quoting a known troll, btw.

Mcslize:
No citation. It's something I noticed myself when I was still doing it. Having dry face, looking all drained up and the lots.

But come and see me now since I stopped it. I now have glossy and alluring face. Skin looking all glowing.

Don't you know that the sperm of a man is nutritious? So, when it is being wasted all the time, such person is wasting so much nutritional energy, which could results in looking older with dry facial skin.

A normal sex doesn't even dissipate the amount of energy masturbation dissipate. Masturbation is times 3 of the energy a man will expel during normal sex. Cuz it drains a man so badly & makes one less productive.

Long story short, your claim that masturbation ruins the look of people's faces is not supported by any scientific evidence.

I'm also not aware of any credible studies that suggest sperm has any significant nutritional value, or that masturbation has a disproportionate impact on energy levels compared to normal sex. Don't you think you are being a little too creative with your assertions?

I don't actually have a problem with your argument. I just feel it would be better if you based it on real, credible research and expertise, instead of relying entirely on personal anecdotes or unsubstantiated claims. As it stands, you only just sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Wonderful piece there. The truth is, hate often stems from folks being scaredy-cats of anything outside their beige-walled world. Homosexuality disrupts their neatly colour-coded understanding of gender and sexuality. It forces them to confront the uncomfortable reality that the world isn't black and white. Easier for them to throw a tantrum, than be tolerant and learn something new.

Twenty One Pilots - Morph


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmL9TqTFIAc&pp=ygUXVHdlbnR5IG9uZSBwaWxvdHMgbW9ycGg%3D

What is Peter Obi's reaction going to do for you?

Dexy4yah:
Everything that i said about masturbation is 100% correct.
It's demonic

I will keep exposing it

Have fun chasing your own tail.

Dexy4yah:
Some someone try everything possible to stop an addiction and keeps failing then eventually accept defeat and embrace the addiction.
And sees nothing bad in it cus she couldn't stop doing it and you that is trying to help the person out...that same person will be seeing you as a pain in the ass because you can't stop her from that addiction....it's now part of her life.
That's exactly what you are...but believe me you can still put an end to it.

Deep inside you...you hate doing it but still find yourself doing it.

Do you enjoy telling bare faced lies to feel good about yourself?

Dexy4yah:
That's exactly what am doing here.
Exposing the things they don't know about masturbation.
There are so many things attached to that addiction that people don't know.

You're labeling a normal bodily function as an "addiction" and a "demonic habit", and you didn't even bother to provide accurate information and resources for those who may be struggling with issues related to excessive masturbation. It seems like you're the one who's ignorant here.

Dexy4yah:
I want to free them from that addiction cuz it's demonic
You call that happiness?? Really??

Okay. So, you're on a mission to save others from their "demonic" habits, but what's your strategy to rescue them from the clutches of their own free will?

Mcslize:
These are the people we always talk about. Masturbation is an addiction. It's like drugs addiction. The earlier you stop defending it, the better for you.

I was once like you. I saw nothing wrong with masturbation not until I miraculously stopped it. Then I realised I have wasted so much of my energy and productive time masturbating.

Also, your face will always look wrinkled facially when you masturbate. And it will also make you look way older than your actual age. This is pure fact. Look at yourself in the mirror and tell me how you look, you will see truth in what I am telling you now.

Let's leave aside the demonic aspect. Masturbation will render you less productive. Have you not noticed that when you masturbate you feel so exhausted and very weak? The energy that gets wasted during masturbation is more than the one that gets dissipated during actual sex. If you don't know, better know that now. This is pure fact.

So, stop defending masturbation just because you are doing it. Accept the fact it is bad even though you are doing it.

They no dey force person to stop. But if you can stop it, better for you. You will never regret it.

Citation needed for the highlighted.

Dexy4yah:
The devil is still busy enslaving millions of souls in this hideous and devilish act...it will render you useless both spiritually and physically.

RESIST the devil and he will flee from you

Stop masturbation and see your life problems solved beyond your imagination.

Every masturbator is spiritually caged....free yourself from that cage and see your life turn around for good.

Why do you feel invested in what others do for their own pleasure, and how does their happiness affect your own?

In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

Nozick asks us to imagine a machine that could give us whatever desirable or pleasurable experiences we could want. Psychologists have figured out a way to stimulate a person's brain to induce pleasurable experiences that the subject could not distinguish from those he would have apart from the machine. He then asks, if given the choice, would we prefer the machine to real life?

Nozick also believes that if pleasure were the only intrinsic value, people would have an overriding reason to be hooked up to an "experience machine," which would produce favorable sensations.

[...]
The argument is along these lines:

P1: If experiencing as much pleasure as we can is all that matters to us, then if we will experience more pleasure by doing x than by doing y, we have no reason not to do x rather than y.
P2: We will experience more pleasure if we plug into the experience machine than if we do not plug into the experience machine.
C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)
P3: We have reason not to plug into the experience machine.
C2: Experiencing as much pleasure as we can is not all that matters to us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?

Regardless:
What you said makes sense but bro, women are necessary evil.

What a quaint and odious statement.

They make the world colorful in their own way. Besides, there are exceptions amongst women and even if the exceptions don't negate the overall rules, one can be lucky to meet a woman who deserves a man's all.

Casual sexism. How gracious of you to acknowledge that women, despite being inherently flawed (according to your benevolent gaze), manage to bring a splash of color to your dull, patriarchal world. And, wow, you even concede that there might be a few exceptions to the rule. How progressive of you. Another stunning display of patriarchal condescension.

People like us are no longer angered by women's games instead, we've accepted it and learnt to dish it out to them in the same dose.

It's nice to know that you'd rather eschew actual communication and empathy, just to embroil yourself in a vicious cycle of one-upmanship, where you are more focused on "winning" your partner than on fostering genuine connection and understanding. Good on you, sir.

Men just need more awareness and wake up call, don't hate the game, learn to play it too.

Your "game" metaphor only works if the prize isn't basic human decency.

Kendrick Lamar - Sing About Me, I'm Dying Of Thirst


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3CnfFQENkw&pp=ygUwa2VuZHJpY2sgbGFtYXIgc2luZyBhYm91dCBtZSBpJ20gZHlpbmcgb2YgdGhpcnN0

Well, well, well. Look how that turned out.

basilico:
Alternate perspectives from liberals?
I dont need their TDS dose.
Give me an example of a respected attorney I should consider.

Poor little baby basilico can't handle dissenting opinions. What else is new?

Qveen Herby - Sade in the 90s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siPyWG17RK0&pp=ygUbUXZlZW4gaGVyYnkgc2FkZSBpbiB0aGUgOTBz

Tyler, the Creator - WUSYANAME


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJea386275c&pp=ygUbdHlsZXIgdGhlIGNyZWF0b3Igd3VzeWFuYW1l

basilico:
Well, listen, Sean, I’ve got good news
and bad news,” he said. “The good
news is the exchange you were just
having with Jonathan Turley is exactly
right. We now know to a virtual certainty
that no conviction will be upheld on
appeal. That the judge today committed
I think clear reversible error. These jury
instructions were nonsense. Now,
here’s the bad news. The bad news is
this has been a kangaroo court from the
beginning. This is a wildly partisan
prosecutor who hates Donald Trump,
who came with a political objective of
going after Donald Trump and we now
know from these jury instructions that
this judge is every bit the partisan that
the prosecutor is.”
“And he knows this is a reversible error,”
Cruz continued. “As you noted, Ramos
versus Louisiana clearly held in 2020
that every element of the crime must be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt,
must be unanimous by the jury and yet
this judge says it doesn’t matter, not in
New York. The Constitution does not
apply in New York, which means if we
get a conviction, it will be reversed on
appeal, but the judge doesn’t car

Just in case the point of my first reply flew over your head: I don't care.

Heartbreaking.

basilico:
I have gone through the opinions of tens of attorneys in the media.They are all saying the judge should be quartered. His every action was to aid the prosecution. I will take their opinion, not from NYT or Jessica.rabbit.

Please suit yourself. It's no secret that you'd rather listen to those who confirm your biases than consider alternative perspectives.

ThothHermes:
Yes. Her delivery triggered men. How did she disrespect men's agency and consent? She only said she sleeps with a certain calibre of men. The men who did not fall into that group brought out their knives.

I felt like her objectification of men as mere ATMs was the primary disrespect here. I guess that's what I was trying to convey when I said it undermines their agency. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. I'm just trying to acknowledge the perspective of those who might be offended by her comments.

Tame26:
It’s a criminal opinion, she went against social medias usage rules. Do you know that she can go to jail in some countries for that her controversial takes? She’s spreading falsehood, promiscuity, body for money, hatred for men and so on. You need to watch her videos to know that she deserves whatever she got

Criminal opinion? LOL. Let's not get overly dramatic, please. She only just stated her own personal opinion, which isn't intended to constitute any form of danger to anyone.

I don't get why people are attacking SAMBARRY over writing a long post. If reading lengthy comments is not your speed, why not just scroll past and find another comment else to read? Are you guys funding his internet services?