₦airaland Forum

rexzqcom:
With creation of states and local police authorities. The federal, so called "Nigeria police" will be drastically reduced to dealing with inter-states and interjuridictional matters. Most of present police will be deployed to states or local governments of origins. Present police budgets will be allocated to states and local police departmental units for more efficient uses.

janellemonae:
Federalism is what is practised in the united states. You know, dt system of government we are supposed to be using but dont completely adopt because.....reasons.

The states currently dont have the resources so the FG should handle dt tab in the interim, what d decentralization will eventually lead to is a debate on greater resource control by states to handle their responsibilities.

janellemonae:
The Chief Whip of the Nigerian Senate, Olusola Adeyeye, has called for a restructuring of the country’s federalism to allow decentralised police system as a way of tackling the ongoing herdsmen violence.
Mr. Adeyeye, an All Progressives Congress Senator from Osun State, said local and state governments should have police force independent of the federally controlled force “issuing orders from Abuja”.

Highly supported. The police should be decentralized. One of the important steps towards true federalism.

4C2215131:
So you believe a woman's mental and psychological reasoning process is same as a man's? Despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

Well, each to his own.

4C2215131:
There's nothing biological about my assertion. Like you observed it was a metaphorical statement. Taking it too far?!

4C2215131:
While there is nothing inherently wrong in your stance, you must remember that you exist within a system, an environment if you will and as such you are subject to it's perceived views about what is right or wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, queer and straight etc. Note the word I used 'perceived' as there is always a grey line.

Man cannot live in isolation, we claim relevance from our environment and how it relates with us. Thus said, while asking a chap out is not wrong, your environment should dictate your take with regards to this issue. Coming home to Nigeria, I beg you not to do it. 99 times out of 100, it won't end well.

The average Nigerian man is a hunter, it is wired into his psyche. He wouldn't know what to do with a lady that asks him out. This confusion he expresses by taking her for granted and such. In fact, the world all over men are told to do the hunting and they feel somewhat out of place when a woman does the wooing.

While theoretically, his scenario can play out, the evidence points to the contrary.

Flets:
Why do Nigerians refuse to reason beyond their noses?

In a case of currency swap (lets say 1bn yuan swaps for 30bn naira), what would china be doing with the naira? What Nigerian export would they be paying for using the naira?

Obviously china would not be swapping for a naira at a rate less than global exchange rate..... rather it would be at a higher exchange rate.

What is Buhari's fall back plan at tackling what is coming his way from the west? The power play behind petro-dollar is beyond demand and supply.... no developing nation has survived it.

What is Buhari's plan in terms of diplomacy? Screaming anti-west rants on NL can't save Nigeria if the west is really against this move.

DeepSight:
That was a statement of what happens in conflict and not quite a statement of articulation of natural as pertains to human morals. You would not pick out what goes on in situations of war as a benchmark for identifying morality as per human morality either.

DeepSight:
As explained in mine above, it is Positive Law that changes and positive laws have little to nothing to do with morals as we speak of them.
The underlying principle of Natural law remains the same different descriptions or wordings regardless.

The Strong Do What They Can, And The Weak Suffer What They Must

DeepSight:
I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

DeepSight:
^^^ To dwell very briefly again on the point about Murder. Merely killing another human being is not the definition of murder. With murder, there would have to be what is called the mens rea and the actus reus.

If a person kills in self defense, or in a case of reasonable provocation (where there has not been time for the passion to cool), or in a state of insanity, none of these things qualify as murder. There are very fine lines of thought that lead to these conclusions in criminal jurisprudence, and yes, criminal jurisprudence has a most direct bearing on the issue of moral relativity and the issue of moral objectivity or subjectivity.

MadCow1:
I THINK THIS SHOULD BE A NATIONWIDE LAW..


Death Sentence for;

1. Kidnapping

2. Armed Robbery

3. Rape

4. Any Public Office holder caught looting public funds or abusing the powers of his office.

Joshthefirst:
The bolded os spot on. But let me explain further:

When I say God is not all good, he is also justice, I mean that being Just is also a nature of his character that you must acknowledge as well.

Look at it this way, when a judge condemns and sentences a criminal, he brings calamity upon the criminal. The criminal may consider this evil, but I the end, Justice is served, and that is ultimately good.

For God, being good is not consistently acting good, being good is who he is. His very nature. That also involves bringing justice to creation, justice brought about by himself.

God is not fulfilling a code of conduct, He is the very definition of that code. He is the standard of himself. He is Law.

Joshthefirst:
?

What?

The state has the potential to monopolize terrorism or the state is a monopolist of terrorism?

true2god:
The group of people that one must never trust are the arabs, the tuaregs and the fulanis. These are the group of people who are globally fearless in spreading islamic terrors and religions in west africa and acros the world.

While terrorism is an islamic guerilla tactics of 'casting fear' in the heart of the non-muslims, jihad is all out islamic war against the infidels. Muslims cannot do jihad in this modern world where infidels can easily crush them within a day or two, but terrorism can be very active against non-muslims who choose to submit to islamic terror.

Joshthefirst:
The bolded os spot on. But let me explain further:

When I say God is not all good, he is also justice, I mean that being Just is also a nature of his character that you must acknowledge as well.

Look at it this way, when a judge condemns and sentences a criminal, he brings calamity upon the criminal. The criminal may consider this evil, but I the end, Justice is served, and that is ultimately good.

For God, being good is not consistently acting good, being good is who he is. His very nature. That also involves bringing justice to creation, justice brought about by himself.

God is not fulfilling a code of conduct, He is the very definition of that code. He is the standard of himself. He is Law.

Joshthefirst:
No. And that is because I do not find this appearance at all

In my understanding and examination of the nature and character of God, I find him an embodiment of goodness.

But note that God is not all good, he is also Justice. And by the basis of his way of salvation, he always takes sides.

To the children of Israel he was good, but not to the Egyptians who suffered plagues and had their children killed by the death-bringer

To the crossers of the red sea he was good, but he was not good to the men that drowned.


God is good, but he is also a consuming fire. He brings blessings, he also brings calamity. He does all in his perfect justice.

Not just that, but as this article explains, His rules, his moral laws, were created for us, not for himself. So it would be foolish of us with our myopic limits, to apply same moral laws to judge the character of God sparingly, looking to find faults in only actions and events we have problems with, and ignoring and rejecting the whole picture.


One main problem, is that although you do not believe God exists, you try to use logic disprove or tarnish his "imaginary" entity, you attack him like he exists, but[b](listen carefully now,) you do not come at him with the clear image of the magnanimity of his being. If you want to logically tackle God, then do it truthfully, even if you believe he is imaginary. Come at him, understanding you are coming at the eternal consciousness. The omnipotent, omnipresent, the omniscient. The one who knows the future of every life he takes, and every life he gives. The one who is able to give life again, after it has been taken away.
[/b]



(Note carefully every emphasis)

This is the source of all your problems. The blunder of the first commandment. Having a false image of God. An idol you think you can dance with or threaten or put on trial.

And most of the apologist's work is educating the charge bringer on the true motive of God's action and the true image and person of the supreme deity inferred from the very nature of universe.











PS:next time you and your folks bring up biblical allusions, also do good to see who is behind every action you judge.
I, (and many others I'm sure) am tired of going around in circles correcting ediotic flaws and misconceptions borne of dogmatic hatred, especially from plaetton.

luvinhubby:
And you do not know that a certain percentage of our local crude oil production is set aside during budgetting for local refining that the refinaries cannot exhaust, this is swapped for refined petroleum products.
Why did Buhari stop the swap?

Kay17:
@mranony

Morality is basically rules which contents fluctate with the values and perception a society has.

Societies across the world don't have the same values, neither do they share the same perception.

Therefore can't have the same moral contents.

Good and bad are extremes on a society's moral scale

DeepSight:
Although this thread is for Team A and Team B Members, i cannot resist making a few comments:



Thanks for this Toneyyyyyy. . .

My perception is that basic conscience is common to humanity. Now, given the fact of human diversity there will doubtless be, as you correctly stated, instances of practices which deviate from that which may normally be considered "good" or acceptable. However you will agree that in all such instances, the generality of humanity is able to perceive such actions as unseemly. For example the aztecs practiced human sacrifice. Although it seemed acceptable to them, you will certainly agree that the generality of mankind views such as barbaric. Ditto for killing of twins etc.

Now there is a direct co-relation to secular criminal law that seals this point. In the perception of The State, murder is wrong, and punishable. In the perception of a serial-killer, it might be acceptable. However the perception of the state is representative of what the people as a whole think, in that the secular law is based on the perception of the majority in citizenry, theoretically speaking at least. Thus it would be right to state that for a given country, murder being wrong is indeed written in the hearts of the people EVEN IF there exist people (like serial killers) who think it's fair game.

Accordingly i may equally state that murder being wrong is written in the hearts of humanity as a whole, EVEN IF there are or have been tribes that practiced human sacrifice at a state level.

Now i need to make one important point.

Let me suggest to you that there is a difference between core values and cultural values. Because it seems to me that you are mixing up both when you talked about "observing the sabbath" not being written in our hearts.

Core values, in my view, are values which are timeless and universal. An example might be - "Stealing other people's property is wrong." I doubt that there is or has been any society that does not frown on such.

Cultural Values, however, are not moralistic in the pure sense, but deal with cultural dictates only - the sabbath - might be an example. Cultural values are limited to given cultures, nations or tribes.

May i suggest to you that core values are written in the heart in conscience, whilst cultural values are not. May i suggest to you that core values are the real morals whilst cultural values are mere norms. Does this make some sense to you?

This also finds some grounding in criminal jurisprudence. There are crimes called Mala in se (inherently evil) - such as murder, and then crimes called mala prohibita (wrong because specifically prohibited) - such as not parking your car in the right place, or not paying a prescribed fee, etc. Mala in se deals with things which all men should be able to sense as inherently evil and subversive. Mala prohibita deals with things which are only wrong because the government says so. I think that core values pertain to the former and cultural values to the latter.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is an embodiment of moral good and is not subject to his law . His acts are justified .

luvinhubby:
Wrong!

86 is pump price, landing cost is 76, so the max fuel can go at is 160 max.
And why did Buhari stop crude swap & sale of forex to fuel importers by CBN simulteneously without any option when he knows that local production can only meet 35% of local consumption at maximum output if he is not stewpid.
Even if he wants to stop CBN forex sales, why stop crude swap when you do not have local refining capacity, every organisation engages in barter agreement.

Buhari is dumb.

truthbastille:
We are already buying at 400 per litre. This is the time for the government to embrace total deregulation and end this intermittent pain and suffering.

Nnpc can sell at 5kobo if they like as a government entity but government should please stop controlling price and let the market force take control. The masses Buhari wants to protect are suffering unimaginable pain already in transportation food and sundry costs.

I pray he is guided.

luvinhubby:
The realistic price is 150 -160, moreover Buhari stopped the crude swap & replaced it with nothing.

kYjelly2:
Why would it be 400 naira though?

My guess is, it would be around 150 with no queues, at least until more refineries are built.

If NNPC wants to subsize, then that's fine, they can build mega, mega stations across the country to cater for people willing to queue for petrol at 87. Mega stations of like 24 pumps and ample space for queue lines would suffice.

All this while waiting for cheap petrol from pur refineries.