₦airaland Forum

Yes. Don't doubt the discerning and intuitive ability of someone who's attuned to his/her subconscious.

He's a typical small-minded man (person); to him and his ilk, it's either your dominion or dignity or sanity. Mentally parochial and hypocritically disingenuous element.

She'll marry and prosper.

TheRedpillguy:
Lol well you can't pass your judgment based on what you think people should be, she can be all of that, or she is just fucking sombody else. So see the world for what it is. Be on the defensive and dont get hurt. Plan for every senerio.

I understand your point of view, but believe you me, the highest and happiest point of living as a human being is possessing the ability to dissect others accurately. As a man (or woman) if you can't tell what any person in your life can or can't do at a particular time/circumstance, then you haven't started living.

Strive and achieve self-realization and every other necessary thing will be added unto your existence.

It's very possible to live happily with a feminist wife, it all depends on her ethical leanings. For all I care and understand, feminism, just like any other movement/association, is a product of the people not the other way round - people make up a movement, movement doesn't make the people.

A strong-minded, altruistic and discerning/intelligent woman won't automatically become a termagant or drainer just because she identifies with feminism. And a chauvinistic, egoistic and/or egotistic woman won't automatically become a strifeless, humane and conscientious woman, like a woman who possesses the attributes I mentioned above, if she doesn't identify with feminism. So, a woman's (person) behavior will always be a product of her ethical leanings rather than the movement/association she identifies with.

Meanwhile, human beings (males, females, infants, adults) are equal, but we are surely different from one reason to another. In the case of male and female, we are biologically different - difference doesn't mean inequality in this regard.

ubunja:
with all due respect this is a load of bullshit.

Shut up manboy. I don't hold brief for small-minded people like you.

Biglittlelois:
How can someone who loves less be hurt more? We are not talking about other material things and whatnot, we are talking about love in its entirety.

The love I know of and talk about is the one which is a variant of goodness, of which altruism is its soul - ambiguity of love notwithstanding, I hope you understand me better now. So, the reason why someone who loves less "can be hurt more" is dependent on whether he comes into equity with clean hands or not; have you ever seen the reaction of a greedy person when you suddenly denied him his booty or its source?

Biglittlelois:
You are contradicting yourself, your answer to the question is no, then you went ahead to give reasons why it is good to love genuinely and with conscience, you did not clearly back up your reasons for saying no,

If you've never been hurt before, good for you, if someone loves you more, of which you can't completely see it even if the person shows you in ways more than one, and you continuously hurt the person, or you hurt each other, who gets hurt the most? The other person of course,

Op, the answer is yes, hurting the one that truly loves you is an ultimate pain and heartbreak one can ever experience.

Your body dey hot, calm down, lol. Actually, I didn't contradict myself. The person who loses isn't always automatically the one who truly loves the most . . . a loser can feel hurt because of what he's getting while the relationship lasted or what he intends to gain if it continues.

No, provided that you're discerning. When you love genuinely/have genuine intentions towards someone, your actions and inactions will be either altruistic or conscientious at any given time, subject to circumstances.

I love hard, and I've neither suffered heartbreak nor been used/dumped before. Of course, I'm seasoned in it.

You can walk the walk without being hurt and without being the direct reason someone will feel hurt.

Shibaraba:
If you no get money go borrow for microfinance. From your threads na you wan marry. You Don dey complain since October we you open this account concerning the lady. There is a reason they said marriage is not for kids. I'll advise you to stop that wedding. You go use frustration kill the young woman. Just look wetin you dey post underneath

Don't take manboy "Plead" alias "Elder0001" serious. He's a typical small-minded man, always whining about everything.

The solution is a simple one; make it a rule never to use servility to sustain a relationship with anyone - however, you can only maintain this rule if you are neither feeble-minded nor subjugable, nor a validation seeker. No matter what you do though, don't alienate your people. You can be humane without being subjugable - this is possible through mastery of checking and balancing altruism with conscientiousness.

Nagging isn't exclusive to the female gender. All narcissists (male and female) automatically nag because of their innate selfish, insatiable and hypocritically pious nature. So, a narcissistic nagging girlfriend will automatically become a narcissistic nagging wife, just as a narcissistic nagging boyfriend will automatically become a narcissistic nagging husband.

Also egoists, through their insatiable, perfidious, unscrupulous and exploitative attitude/nature, do easily turn their humane benefactors or companions to nags too, especially naive benefactors who don't know how to relate with them safely.

In summary, a nag can be a narcissist or an abused humane person, subject to circumstances. So, nagging is a major hallmark of narcissists and abused naive humane people, just as ranting/strife is the major hallmark of people with histrionic personality disorder in particular and overpowered subjugators in general.

An unscrupulous/opportunistic woman - a perfect personification of egoism. Expediency and an unscrupulous woman (or man) are inseparable.

The ecstasy that comes from sharing moments - good or bad - with a person(s) with whom one shares mutual altruistic interest can't be compared to any other form of ecstasy. Love is the greatest refreshment in life.

She's a typical expedient/unscrupulous woman; she can't change for good, even if she swims in all the wealth in this world. Scrupulousness and contentment are the last things to expect from her ilk.

Sincerely, only altruistic women deserve sane men's crown, provision and love/goodness in general. Say no to expedient (greedy/egoistic) and strifeful (conceited/egotistic) women.

Of course there are altruistic women and they're the kind of women who deserve sane men's crown, provision and love/goodness in general. Say no to strifeful (conceited/egotistic) and expedient (greedy/egoistic) women - materialism and parasitism are the major hallmark of small-minded women.

Build yourself as a man, because it's the right thing to do, and enjoy your resources with a deserving woman, the altruistic woman - an altruistic woman is a submissive woman.

It amounts to mental parochialism for anyone to think that there aren't many strifeless and conscientious women who're above 30 and unmarried. The true life of a woman (or man) begins at the very age she achieves self-realization. Unfortunately and realistically, many people hardly achieve self-realization before reaching the age of 40.

Black tax is obviously more prevalent among Blacks, however it's not exclusively a Black (people) thing. I've some non-Black associates who exhibit same - it's a product/manifestation of both egoism and egotism.

Ms. as portmanteau of Mrs. and Miss is better - it's proper, but it's not mandatory.

theButterfly:
Him leaving twin A to now latch onto twin B shows that he's the problem, not the twins. Even if you manage to get him to leave twin B, he will still find another girl to latch onto. He simply lacks dignity [for once I agree with you, LordKO], lacks respect for you and your marriage vows, as well as a sense of responsibility as a married man - because a married man with sense should know he shouldn't be toucy-feely towards other females like he's doing.

Maverick lady, henceforth you'll continually agree with me.

Confused11:
The liberty is indeed too much that you can sense little bits of disregards from them to him (even me).
My hubby is a tough boss, once he speaks all the staff obey but now, he has to speaks thrice before these twins even make a move.
And it is beginning to show on other staffs too.

I just don't seem understand. Is it empathy or he is now fond of them.

You don't command his full respect, this isn't your fault but his own fault - you haven't done any thing wrong. He lacks dignity/he's gradually losing his dignity.

You just have to politely call him to order and remind him of the consequences (negative) his actions and inactions will bring to the marriage. When you do that, he'll sit up if he has ever had good amount of altruistic interest towards you - he isn't naturally altruistic, citing his thoughtless and tactless attitude so far - and if the marriage is sacrosanct to him.

The bulk of the work is on his desk not yours, a sane adult shouldn't be forced to take to conscientiousness before doing so.

No. He's both thoughtless and tactless - liberty without decorum is a disease.

I can marry a strong-minded and intelligent lady who identifies with feminism - association/organization doesn't make the people, instead the people make association.

Only small-minded people believe in infallibility of US establishments. Indictment isn't conviction.

This forum has the largest congregation of sententious, resentful and conceited numbskulls in the world.

SPV related case isn't a conventional fraud case.

fyneguy:
� some of you are funny! You are mentioning SPV as though you were privy to the arrangement. Even in an SPV, the SPV does not assume certain claims, capacities, and status that will render its operations actionable. Abeg calm down.

Anyone with sound knowledge of PFF, PPP and SA will understand why he shouldn't be crucified because of mere SPV indictment until he's convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction. Indictment isn't conviction. Provided that this case remains SPV-related, his chances of emerging victorious in the end is very high, citing the information available so far.

Anyway, it's always a herculean task to make any proponent of "US establishments are infallible" to see business and legal matters from a rational viewpoint, because it's just like trying to make a fanatic religious proponent to understand that organized religion is an object of subjugation.

I don't join issue with anyone, least of all inconsequential people. You and your ilk should direct your mentions elsewhere. This forum has the largest congregation of conceited numbskulls in the world. Bumpkins.

Once more, I don't hold brief for Dr. Allen.

Xbee007:
You're actually the small minded one here, it's ironic you can't see it.

Bumpkin, direct your mention(s) to your lunatic parents. I don't join issue with a nobody.

Plead:
Anybody you have an altercation with is small minded ...lmao

And you think you’re not small minded and deranged ? Continue...

Manboy "elder0001"! You too get wahala. You and I know the reason why you're always in pain whenever you see my moniker. lol.

voltron14:
Quit playing kiddo.

Your mental parochialism knows no bounds. The demand/request for his US address is metaphorical because I don't usually like to dialog with anyone who resides in 4 of the US states. An average dweller in any of the 4 states doesn't believe in infallibility of any US establishment, even when such happens almost every other day. His continual projection of DOJ as infallible is appalling to anyone in the know.

Now you can see why I said you and your ilk aren't discerning and extrapolative. You can now direct your further mentions to small-minded people like you.

voltron14:
He should provide his address in an anonymous forum?

Discernment and extrapolation aren't fortes of people like you and your ilk.

jjman2322:
Umm many of you dont know what a USA criminal indictment means.. It means the attorneys presented the evidence and got a grand jury to indict.. Which leaves you only two options:

1 . Plead guilty for lesser jail time (based on # of charges facing he will get jail time)

2. Go to trial and most likely lose. before they indict you they have all the evidence they need. hence why the DOJ has a near perfect conviction rate.. This is USA DOJ not EFCC

Before you quote me again, tell me your US address. Everyone is trying so hard to sound woke. SMH. DOJ only has near perfect conviction rate on "pronounced" cases. SPV-related cases are exception. Believe you me, you know little to nothing about the US legal and business frameworks. I don't always like to dialog with anyone who believes in the infallibility of the US establishments, because such a person hardly sees things from rational viewpoint.

The DOJ hardly wins SPV-related cases. The only thing that may nail Dr. Allen is the structural composition of the SPV, but I don't see that happening if the information available is to be relied upon.

Once more, I don't hold brief for Dr. Allen.

No sane and established international business person/organization will make a big deal out of this news until a court of competent jurisdiction pronounced Dr. Allen guilty. But I trust you all numbskulls to be revelling on this news and its ilk, of course with the usual calumny of unrelated established names. Envious, conceited and mentally parochial lots.

SPV account set-up like this isn't your conventional fraud scheme - bending the law is different from breaking the law anywhere, US inclusive. Almost every established person/organization involved in international business directly or indirectly has a SPV set-up like this, but with different structural composition. It's almost impossible to be an international player without one, either directly or otherwise.

I don't hold brief for Dr. Allen.

Gmajor:
Do you even know the work of a divorce lawyer or do you think that a divorce lawyer is the same as a therapist?

I do. Unfortunately, you can't differentiate a circumscribed submission from an uncircumscribed one.

queenfav:
my sister, most of us women see this marriage thing as the Alpha, Omega, Ultimate, be all and end all of life. The moment they marry, it's as if they start living for their husbands without having personal goals and ambition.Whatever the Husband says is final even when it pertains to an opportunity that will improve his wife's life. Tomorrow, the man walks away and she is left to start her life from scratch.
.
.
As a divorce attorney, I see too many women who lived their lives for men who are now so happy to move on from them. Love is very sweet, but women should try to remove small sense and keep somewhere to remind them that "Anything can happen". Have a plan and something going for you in life asides being "Mrs somebody" or "Mama somebody".

Citing the OP's submission, the man's behavior is bad - shame on him if he has unjustifiably acted in such manner - he can do better, no matter the circumstances. However, your tactical support for cynicism and contentiousness among couples is rather repulsive; you'll be doing more harm than good to your clients in particular and the marriage institution in general, if you continue with this kind of mentality. It's unethical for a couple to unjustifiably mete out distrust and rebelliousness towards another - two conscientious people in pursuit of a common goal shouldn't be caught doing such against one another. Cynicism in particular is the unpronounced major cause of disunity among couples.

As a divorce attorney, a conscientious one I have to believe, your first duty is to master the act of differentiating altruistic couples from egoistic ones and avoid giving the former advice meant for the latter. You (a divorce attorney) can't have a successful career if you fail in this regard.

Resourcefulness is refreshing and engaging, however, it always becomes a toxic if the aim behind the grit is to cushion cynicism in particular and subjugation is general.

You can do better, believe you me.