logic/reasoning is behind everything we do

Exu, this is untrue. There are many, many occasions where we cannot explain the reason why we do things. Why might someone choose a red shirt over a blue shirt, for example?

i've often seen people claim that they have proof that what they 'believe' is real; all i'm asking is that these people show their evidence...

I suspect that what is really happening in these cases is that they believe first, then they seek 'proof' to justify their belief. But really, I don't see any problem in people simply stating upfront that they believe; it would save hours of argument trying to look for proof where it isn't necessary.

why is it wrong to ask questions- how are people expected to learn/better themselves if they don't ask

Nothing wrong... it's just that a remarkably high percentage of your questions have to do with similar issues.

Oracle, Seun,

I don't think flying cars will ever become as widely used as cars, simply because the amount of expertise needed to navigate in three dimensions is vastly greater than that needed to navigate in two dimensions.

However, once the issue of vertical takes off and reduced noise have been addressed, I can see mass transportation via air really taking off ('scuse the pun) because it will be possible to have many more airfields in urban areas (where this currently isn't possible because of noise and space issues).

during last fall's sport season, we the varsity soccer girls team had to hold a bake sale, sell tickets and raise funds on our own to benefit our sport. We wouldn't have have to take money out of our pockets to play a sport if we were boys. THE BOYS FOOTBALL TEAM GET ALL THE SCHOOL MONEY AND SUPPORT WHILE THE GIRLS SPORT HAVE TO RAISE MONEY BY OURSELVES. I didn't think that was fair

I don't understand enough about your school's policy on sport to comment on this. Perhaps it chooses to allocate money to sporting teams on the basis of how popular the sport is with the wider educational community rather than on gender basis.

look at any country (Nigeria for example). it's not like there isn't a national girls football  (soccer), team, but the men's team get all the attention and federal support! that's an example of gender inequality

Well, what can anyone do about the attention that men's soccer gets? Are you suggesting that followers of soccer be forced to attend and cheer the women's soccer team even if they hate women's soccer? It's one thing to campaign for women to be given the freedom to pursue happiness... it's quite another thing to suggest that that happiness should come at the expense of others.

also, bosses and employers tend to employ males over females even when they have the same creden[t]ials (i hope i spelled that right  ). Even when females are employed, they tend to get a lesser paycheck than men for the same amount and type of work! that's another example of gender inequality!

Sometimes, it's not just a matter of credentials... there are other things that come into play, like whether the employee will get along with other employees... what his/her personal skills are, etc. But I believe that it is more important to arm women with these kinds of skills and abilities than to try and impose a quota or some other kind of inflexible criteria that robs the employer of the freedom to choose the most suitable person for his company.

OK, that's it for now - I really have to get some shut eye now! I'll reply to other posts tomorrow.

OK, I hear you.

Really, I am quite tired now (it's late here) - but so that we can understand each other better, can you explain why you thought that my illustration to Nferyn using food wasn't relevant? What did you think I meant by using that illustration?

Also, you seem to feel that equal rights and equal opportunity mean the same. Why do you think this is the case?

one of da things this gurly don't like is when you're like arguing, debatin, talking about a ponit with someone and the person ain't got notin to say. instead of sayin that he/she now cums up with somefin like nevermind or i leave u

Damygurl,

Honestly, I do have stuff to say... but why should I say it if it ends up upsetting/offending you and I'm still not able to communicate? What positive thing would I then have achieved?

da best way to communicate is to make da other person understand u.

You're right about that... but it's also important to choose the right moment to communicate. I know you say you weren't upset, but that is exactly what came across when I read your post. And really - I don't find it easy to explain what I mean to people when they're upset. So I may return to this issue when I think you've cooled down a bit.

I read up to this point...

please remember this a question asking for logic

and I shook my head.

'Logic' and 'Faith in God' are two completely separate domains.

You don't arrive at a belief in God because you have done some experiments and performed some logical deductions... you just believe because!

Anyway, Exu - what exactly is your agenda? Why do you want to upset the faith of people who are obviously happy in their faith?

Damygurl,

I don't think you've understood what I've said at all. In fact, you seem to be talking about something completely different altogether.

Well, from the swear words you're using and the number of exclamation marks you've used, I'd say you're really wound up over the whole thing, and I don't think there's any point in debating anything with anyone in that kind of state. So I'll leave you and wish you good luck in your pursuit of equal 'rights' (whatever those may be).



Nferyn,

I won't prolong this debate, because I know you have an appointment to keep on this thread. But I'm still somewhat dubious about the notion of legal equality - what do you mean by this? Do you mean laws that apply equally to men and women, or that men and women should have the same laws applied to them, or what? Please explain.

Of course real men cry... I know I do when I'm cutting up onions for my stew.

On the other hand, real men don't cook stew...

If you only fight for enlarging the cake without fighting for equal gender opportunities, women are still going to be left with the crumbs, and that only if they're allowed at the table at all.

See, Nferyn? Again, you're defining your goals in terms of other people's goals. I didn't say 'enlarge' the cake - when I said 'total opportunity', I mean they should fight for total opportunity for themselves, for what is right for them without being overly concerned at what other groups are getting.

Let me illustrate:

- Ka asks for enough food to fill his stomach. He gets that, and eats, and is happy.

- Nferyn, sees that the amount that Ka has asked for has filled him up. So he asks for an amount of food equal to what Ka has asked for. Unfortunately, it happens that Nferyn's stomach is larger than Ka's so when he eats, he isn't filled up.

And this is the problem with defining your goals in terms of other people's.

Or perhaps another solution to the 'equality' problem is to reduce men's 'rights' to the level of women.



Damygurl,

u want us to do our own thing but da rights we want and r fightin 4 r d onez da guyz already have but we don't have.

I don't really understand this argument of 'rights'. What 'rights' does anyone have in this world, except the rights that other people allow him/her to have?

we want equal rights in that we want to be treated da same way and givinf da same rigts as men.

Really? I'm sure you don't really mean that. Do you want to be told to get back to work a couple of weeks after you've had your first child, as men are asked to do for example? I think you'll find that (as I've already mentioned to Nferyn), it is better to determine what will make you happy and concentrate on getting that, rather than looking at what 'rights' men have.

take 4 example this 2 twins. A boi and girl!!!da parents favor da boi  more dan d girl so she goes protestin to da parents i want u guys to favor and love me too. da parent already decided to send da boi to college but they want d girl to stay at home. what is she supposed to fight 4? da rightsto go to skool like her brotha right?

She is supposed to fight for the opportunity (not right) to go to school not simply because her brother is going, but because school will enable her to develop her abilities and give her more choices in life.

Nferyn,

Why should feminists fight for only equal opportunities? Why not fight for total opportunity? What if the opportunities available to men in a particular society (which are the same opportunities that feminists want women to have) aren't enough to guarantee anyone's happiness?

It's better to think in terms of absolutes rather than relatives. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat suspicious of feminists when they use the word 'equality'. Why not fight your own fight? Why define what you want in terms of what other groups have?

Nferyn,

Are Burkinabe films as popular on the African continent as Nigerian ones? I don't know - I'm just asking.

Outside of your response to me, I'm interested to know what your idea of a strong woman is?

Kenya,

Sorry for my extremely late response - I was rifling around in the threads, and I saw I had completely neglected to answer this.

Well, a strong woman is one who has what I'll call an 'internal locus of control'. This means that she is the primary determinant of what happens to her in her life, rather than letting external factors - such as other people or circumstances she finds herself in - control her actions. So it means that she is able to maintain whatever direction she has charted for herself in life no matter what is happening to her, because she isn't re[/b]active, she's [b]pro[/b]active.

This is why I don't consider overly aggressive women as strong. It's almost as though they feel they need to overcompensate for some hidden insecurity. So they overreact to situations where they feel that they are challenged with unpleasant displays of emotion which simply tell the challenger that the aggressive woman isn't strong enough to keep her head. On the other hand, a strong woman will keep her emotions in check and deal with the issue raised rather than attacking the challenger, because she doesn't let other people determine how she acts.

But for me, a strong woman is also someone who, while charting her course, recgonises that other people should have the freedom to chart [b]theirs, and so she never rides roughshod over the feelings and wishes of others. If she wants something done, she will state her intentions clearly while doing so in a manner that shows she respects the feelings of others.

Strangely enough, the definition of a strong woman would also (in my eyes) do for a strong man.

For some reason, most women are quite happy to be placed in the second position at home as long as they are well loved and cared for.

You forgot to add: "and as long as the man doesn't continuously remind them that they are in second position"!


As to gender equality, I'm still waiting for someone to explain what that means. I'm sure it's not to be taken literally, as I don't know of any woman who would want the ability to grow a full blown beard and moustache (like the one I'm sporting right now!).

No two ways about it... I'd love to smash the 400 metre hurdles world record!

Perhaps the first step towards overcoming shyness is to learn to be less critical of others.  When you're less critical of others, you'll be less afraid of others criticizing you?

Seun, I don't believe that you ever stop being shy (or feeling uncomfortable around others, especially strangers). I just think that you learn (and get better) at controlling and moderating your behaviour and responses in scenarios where your shyness would show itself. You eventually get to do this so well that when you tell people you're shy, they say "It's a lie!" I should know - I've progressed through these stages myself.

One of the things that helped me deal with my shyness was realising that I am actually very [b]un[/b]shy in settings where there there are specific objectives to be achieved, e.g. giving a speech, working on a project with people, etc. What happens there is that I'm focused on achieving the objective, so I don't have the time to do all the worrying and over-analysis that comes with shyness. On the other hand, the scenarios that bring out my shyness are unscripted scenarios where there is no formal agenda (e.g. social events, weddings, etc. where you are just supposed to mill around and talk). So what I end up doing is to turn these events into projects where the objective is to chat with people and find out as much about them as they care to reveal (to my credit, one of my greatest strengths is that I'm a very good conversationalist).

I'm more of a shy person.  I discover that the older I get the less shy I become.  No, I'm not more social, I'm just more confident in my way of seeing things and care much less what people think about me.  However, I'm still very much inhibited when I'm having conversations with people who have more power over me than I have over them.

That's pretty much the story of my life, except that I don't feel inhibited talking with people who have power over me. As mentioned above, I just chat with them to find out as much about them as they care to reveal, and I find that the tension flows away.

Shyness is a bad thing.  But it's more like a disability than a sin.  When I was in school, there a fellowship teacher who treated me as if my shyness was a sin or evil on my part, and of course this made me even more shy!  He was ignorant, because guilt is not the answer to shyness.  If you build someone's confidence by always saying positive things to the person the shyness will start to evaporate!

I don't think that shyness is all bad. One good thing about it is that you tend to introspect and think things over a lot more; another is that you are more cautious and guarded with your utterances; and yet another thing is that you are more emotionally independent (since you are more used to being by yourself than someone who usually has flocks of people gathering around them).

In fact, I don't believe that shyness would be an issue if other people did not turn it into an issue by glamorising people who are the life and soul of the party and mocking those who prefer their own company. However, I do acknowledge that if you want to meet people but feel that your shyness hinders you from doing this, then yes - it can be something of a disability.

Get in touch with this guy:

Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>

I know he used to manage Nigeria's domain names at one point, but I'm not sure what the situation is. In any case, he should be able to point you in the right direction.

Kenya,

First up, good on you for having the courage to re-evaluate your long held beliefs. This is something that many people run away from doing, but I think it's essential to do because it helps you find out what truly makes you happy, and you end up correctly aligning your actions with your desires.

OK, now to those beliefs on what a 'strong woman' is:

1. She stands her grounds.

This depends on the situation. If she's dealing with someone whose motives she is unsure of, and she has thought through her position carefully, then yes - this could be wise. Otherwise, she just ends up being thought of as being inflexible and having a closed mind.

2. She keeps her man in line.

This is an absolutely terrible thing for anyone to want to do. This sounds like someone who needs to control everything around her, and who doesn't understand that a person's happiness is proportional to the amount of freedom they have. I would run a mile from this kind of person.

3. She makes demands and ultimatums.

There are occasions when it's right to make ultimatums, but these should only be used as an extreme measure. If this person routinely makes demands and ultimatums, then it looks like (a) they are used to getting their way; (b) they don't understand the concept of compromise. No relationship can survive if one person is always having their way.

4. She set's the tone for everything.

This isn't really necessary - sounds like control-freakery to me.

5. She doesn't let her man walk over her.

I agree.

6. l She doesn't show any weakness in her position.

See my answer to 1. above.

7. She can be alone without a man.

Again, I agree. I believe that it's very important for everyone to aspire to as much material and emotional independence as possible. Having said that, I don't think it's possible to be completely independent, though.

8. She can handle things on her own.

As above.

9. She takes care of herself.

As above.

10. She stops the drama before it starts.

I agree - prevention is better than a cure, although how she stops the drama is another matter altogether.

11. She will fight to her grave.

See my answers to 1. and 3.

12. She will not be insulted or have her intelligence disrespected.

Agree.

13. She does not compromise.

See my answer to 3.

14. She has to be on top of everything.

See my answer to 4.

15. She's brilliant, organized, ambitious and successful.

These are good things to aspire to... however, for me it depends how narrow your definition of success is, and how do-or-die you become about the whole thing. For example, if you define 'success' as becoming the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and in your quest to achieve this ambition you neglect personal relationships, what happens when you finally get to the top?

16. She's powerful... She has great stride.

See my answer to 4.

Kazey: lets say we are 120 million in population, that gives us 1 million dollars each daily!!.. lets face it.

You must inhabit a higher realm of mathematics than the one I'm familiar with to arrive at that figure.

Top 5 posters on Nairaland I would like to meet...  that's a no brainer. The names I'm listing are of people I'm in total and complete concord with at all times, so that means I'm unlikely to have any disagreement with them when we meet.

In ascending order of desirability, they are:

- Ka
- Myself
- I
- Moi

and last, but by no means least:

- Me

HolyGhost: you can prove that something does not exist if you know how to use its detector, e.g to know if oxygen exist u burn a stick in a close jar if it burns then oxygen exist but if otherwise the its oxygen negative

The thing is, there aren't any such detectors that can conclusively prove that something does or doesn't exist.

To use your example of oxygen in a jar: what if the jar has 99.99% nitrogen and 0.01% oxygen? Then the stick won't burn, and you (erroneously) conclude that there is no oxygen in the jar.

What if someone invented a special helmet that you could wear over your head while smoking so that the smoke didn't affect anyone else?

Layi: U were actually comparing them. read your posts again. U said/implied that if science discoveries could be passed down, then witcraft should be passed down as well if it really exist.

OK, let's just agree that we have constrasting ideas as to what comparison means.

Assumption. That setles it. You have no evidence and that i can't readily produce 1 don't mean there aint evidence.

Absolutely... of course I'm assuming. The thing is, you can prove the existence of a thing (if the thing is properly defined), but you can never prove the non-existence of a thing. Think about it - how would prove conclusively that something doesn't exist?

This means that if someone were to define an instance of witchcraft precisely then show me several instances involving witchcraft and show me with independently verified evidence that the events could not possibly have been caused by anything else, then I would be moved to believe.

Gratitudinous greetings to you all in the Name of the Most Hallowed Coconut.

First of all, I wish to recognise the new members of the Temple - Most Excellent Pastoral Minister Nike4Luv, Exalted Divine Preacher IAH, Apostolic Bishop Holyghost and (belatedly) Commander of Devotions Nferyn.

Now there has been some talk of schism and disagreement in the Temple. This has arisen from a fundamental misunderstanding of the way that this Temple operates. As I am never tired of emphasising, we are a 21st century temple for 21st century people... and this means that unlike the olden days, when these things were resolved by bitter infighting and division, I have come up with a novel and radical approach to resolving these kind of issues.

The underpinning principle that will be used in resolving these disputes is what I will call the Concord of Opposite and Conflicting Opinions (henceforth known as COCO). This means that where two people disagree on a matter, the Temple will resolve that in the sprit of harmony and unity, they will both be deemed to be right.

This means that in the Temple, a chair can be black and white at the same time, depending on who is looking at it. It also means that Exalted Divine Preacher IAH is free to call her self the Holy Coconut itself and demand worship... and the other members (including Leader of the Faithful WesleyanA) are also free to refuse to do so. And it means that all those who have been aspiring to be Treasurer, Financial Secretary, Controller of Cash or Excellent Embezzler of Euros can now consider themselves possessors of these titles, although at the same time they will not possess these titles (from the point of view of those who do not wish them to have these titles).

It is my most fervent hope that this new pronouncement will put to an end once and for all the disputes that have been simmering since I last went up to my local high point to commune directly with the Creative Force.

May the Harmony of the Husk of the Coconut be with you all.

((Elder) (Priest ((High Prophet)) Evangelist) (Cardinal (Most Reverend))) Ka.

I'm a bit lazy to give a detailed reply to this... but what I will say is that I believe that the decision of most countries to ask for dollars for oil purchases is down to the perceived stability of the US economy and the consequent belief that dollars will always be accepted wherever you go.

This means that if the US economy were perceived as going downhill tomorrow, oil exporters would switch from asking for dollars to asking for the currency of some other stable country. It wouldn't matter then even if Iraq (as a US friendly country) continued to ask for dollars for its oil.

So what does this mean? It means that if America are interested in maintaining their position as the origin of the world's most convertible and accepted currency, its government would do better to spend its time ensuring that its economy was in good shape (by enabling its businesses to compete and keeping its deficit down) rather than engaging in overseas adventures.

Layi: U compare witcraft wit science? U might as well compare water with stone.

I think it's more accurate to say I was contrasting them.

U very well know that these are 2 diffrent worlds.

I totally agree with you. They are indeed very different in many ways, one of which I was explaining in my previous post.

Like your scientific claims...if u want to know about withcraft , you can meet one of them for a proof. Its a secret cult unlike science that is open. If u need proofs , go to them.

I'm not interested in proving or disproving the existence of witchcraft. I've pretty much decided to assume that (for lack of evidence) it doesn't exist, and there is no reason on earth why I would want to go out of my way and bend myself out of shape trying to proving otherwise. Life is simple enough with my current set of beliefs - no need to complicate matters by adding a belief in arbitrarily defined witchcraft to the mix.

However, I should add that I'm not at all passionate about discrediting people's belief in witchcraft. In my experience, it's way too much work for little or no reward. And now that I've set up a Sacred Temple, why should I want to reduce my chances of adding a collection of toilet scrubbing brushes to my possessions by discrediting this belief?

I'm amazed u could quote the bible and yet not believe in withcraft or evil powers possesed  by humans.

Strange as it may sound, I used to be very religious at one point in my life... Oh yeah, I reckon that in my heyday, I could have outpreached Okotie, Oyakhilome, Adeboye, Adefarasin and Ashimolowo all combined!

But really, quoting the bible doesn't mean I have to believe everything in it... including witchcraft. There's no point in believing in something when:

- there's no solid evidence (e.g. repeatable demonstrations) of the phenomenon.

Please note that this is what separates science from witchcraft... occasionally, you have some scientist who claims to have made some great discovery. His fellow scientists tell him to give them the steps that he performed to lead to this discovery. If they can reproduce it, then this confirms that this is a real discovery, and the original scientist wasn't drinking ogogoro when he made the discovery.

Unfortunately, you will never find witchcraft believing people adopting the same scepticism... they just accept whatever they are told, and that's why spiritualists and pastors can use the heads of Nigerians as scrubbing brushes for their toilets.

- it will just give me unnecessary stress and headache. I don't want to be one of those people who is forbidden from wearing green on Tuesday because a spiritualist told me that "a great evil will befall me if I do".

There are real problems that can be brought about by a belief in witchcraft.

Say for example, you have a lifelong friend who believes in supernatural powers. One day, he visits a spiritualist who tells him that you are the cause of his problems. All of a sudden, he begins to hate you and curse you, simply because what the spiritualist told him sounds credible to him, and that's the end of a long friendship.

Or if he doesn't begin to hate you right away, he will suffer the emotional torment of having to deal with the belief that someone who was so close and dear to him (i.e you) has now turned around to wreck his life. Such thoughts have been known to drive people mental.

Really, the problem for me is that there isn't really any scientific rigour applied in determining the causes of the phenomena that are attributed to witchcraft. Most people simply use it to explain something that they don't have enough knowledge to explain any other way, or where they are too lazy to do the work to examine other possible causes of the phenomena.

But I will leave the witchcraft believers to continue to believe. There's a great saying from the Bible: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free". I personally find it quite sad that far from setting them free from fear, a great many people are terrorised by their belief in witchcraft and the supernatural into observing very strange rituals and practices.

From that moment onward, your first and foremost responsibility is the well being of your children. If that means that you have to stay in an unhappy marriage, so be it.

Nferyn, I can't imagine why you would need to stay in an unhappy marriage just to ensure your children are well cared for.

I believe very strongly in a lasting marriage and would do everything possible to make it work (including making sure I get married to the right person), but if it didn't work, I would try to ensure that there was as little anger and bitterness between myself and my wife so that even though we were living apart, we could still ensure that the children grew up in loving and caring environments.

I think this is a better alternative that the children feeding off the unhealthy environment that would be created by two unhappy people living together.

Not unless you promised not to shoot me if I cooperated!

Hm... so if you were at home relaxing with your wife, I could burst in, point a pistol at you, and yell out "Freeze! I want you to cut your wife up into small pieces, cook the pieces, add maggi, onion and salt, season with curry and thyme and then eat her! Co-operate, and I promise that I won't shoot you!" Would you 'co-operate', then?

Dear Nferyn,

Peace be unto you in the name of the Most Sanctified Coconut.

Thank you for bringing to my attention the existence of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At the Temple of the Sacred Coconut, we believe there are many ways to achieve happiness, although we believe that our way is superior to other ways. This means we are not threatened by the existence of alternative temples, churches or other places of worship and we do not find it necessary to castigate their beliefs, no matter how outrageous or illogical they may be. So we wish the CotFSM the very best of luck in their endeavours.

In the meantime, as befits the democratic spirit of our Temple, we still welcome input from our members concerning Temple Doctrine. If you have any suggestions that you wish to make, please do so. Your efforts will be recognised with a suitably distinguished title (although I regret to say that the titles of Treasurer, Financial Secretary or anything else to do with money cannot at this time be offered).

May the Sagacity and Serenity of the Shell and the Magnificence of the Milk of Coconut be with you.

((Very Reverend) (Ordained Elder (High Commanding Pastor (Sanctified Pastor of the Priesthood)))) Ka.

Here's some more news from the BBC on the fumes.