₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Start with the one she told herself here:

https://www.nairaland.com/1130464/barack-obama-gay-sex-scandal/1#15316731

Funny how antispam bot won't let me call out a liar. KJP was not press sec in Obama's admin so why this? Na wa for lies o!

geoworldedu:
LordReed must see this post. I always knew that criminals in Nigeria sentenced to death will be let out with big price tag. That's how corrupt the country is.

But he wasn't sentenced to death. This happens in other countries too. See: https://time.com/7023439/jailbreak-love-on-the-run-netflix-true-story/

DeepSight:
Reed - I cant resist some clarifications. I owe you that. Because I think I see what hobbled us. It may be to do with group vs individual.



You said different times. I consistently referred to different circumstances. Note that the same circumstance may be occurring to different people at the same time. So I never said different times.

What you said implies that I was saying one thing could be right at one time and wrong at another time. No I said the same action could be right in one circumstance and wrong in another. And this is beyond any possible disputation surely.



I not for once alluded to morals being handed over to humans. My argument is it does not belong to any individual - which is what it is to say it is subjective. You seem to think subjectivity can refer to groups? Subjectivity never refers to groups. Maybe that is what has hobbled us - if you say that morality is subjective then you are referring to the individual. In short, whatever I believe is right, is right for me.

Dont you think I could be wrong? Of course I could be wrong even regardless of my personal opinion. And this what you are missing. You seem to be saying regardless of any objective fact, I am right in my personal moral opinion, or at least entitled to act in accordance with it.

Maybe here I detect what has hobbled us. You think I am saying objective morality comes from outside all humans. Rather I am saying they exist outside any individual human and whatever he may personally think.

Let us use a small example. Let us say I believe it is right to spread disease to my children. Am I right in that moral opinion, since it is my subjective opinion? Clearly not.



If all morality is subjective to the individual you can have no quarrel with even Adolf Hitler. None whatsoever. No basis to condemn him at all. All you can say is whatever he did, he was entitled to do as it was it opinion. No one thinks of morality in this way. There is almost universal agreement on what is good and what is evil and what is pardonable, etc. And no, its not a modern thing. Societies will not have survived by ever thinking that certain things were right among them. Almost no society would have survived.



From the nature of beings itself - and as we didnt cause our own existence, we cant say it is determined by us.

Why, at the individual level, will one commit a nasty deed (say, steal, kill etc) and then feel bad about it? Is there anything within us that causes even the worst of us to have a pricking in our hearts and a feeling of revulsion at certain deeds? It is worthy to look at this again. While some individuals may be perverse, if you say morality is subjective, the worst perversity is nothing. In fact, there would be nothing like perversity. If I say it is right for me to rape one year old babies, no one can question me about it. No one whosoever. That is my subjective moral value judgment and that is that. In fact, by so doing they will be imposing their thoughts on me which in itself is a problem.



Now this may be the most salient point. Behavior that leads to destruction is a cardinal determinant of what is immoral - not anyone's subjective opinion. Probably the most cardinal factor. And it is not subjective to anyone - it is damn objective. In fact, even if the entire human race thinks a certain destructive pattern of behavior is morally right, nature will show it objectively wrong.

Let me add here that life promoting behavior is what is objectively right while death promoting behaviour is objectively wrong.

It's ok, I think I am ok with ending the discussion. Maybe some other day when we have some other angles on the issue to discuss. For now, let's call it a day.

TruthsFM:
“I Can't Marry Any Man Who is Not Serving in Any Department in the Church or Don't Believe in Tithing” - Coach Oleju Kate


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0R-JjFtb9s

That one does mean anything. I know people who met in church and are divorce now. Being achurch worker doesn't guarantee a good marriage.

Christianoir:
There is this neighbor of mine, I haven’t seen him with any girl, only guys. It been 4years in this apartment I’ve could it be that he is gay? I’m suspecting him tho. He always hang around boys nd boys do visit him, in the morning him and a boy will be leaving the house in the night both masculine and feminine boys . The boy you see today with him, u won’t see that same way with him tommorow it another boy that you will see…

The neighbor are already gossiping about him, calling him homo behind his back…. He doesn’t make trouble sha but I wonder how a man will be and he will flocking around young boys no girl… haba a wondering mind might wonder… could he be gay or if you’re the beighbour won’t u think he is gay.

MIND YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!! It is not your place to police his lack of sexual activity. Busybody.

DeepSight:
Regrettably I believe this conversation has failed. It's better to forget it.

PS: No offense but you don't know the meaning of "objective."

Rather, you are the one attempting to stretch the meaning of the word beyond recognition. But I agree this discussion has run its course. I think fundamentally we both agree that morality will vary under certain circumstances. The rest is more of semantics and trying to convey meaning.

Always good and stimulating rubbing minds with you.

DeepSight:
For old time's sake and the dear respect we bear one another please try and spot the error.
Because i strongly believe if you cant, there is a huge problem that may make it impossible for us to discuss.

I think it would be rather instructive for you to point out where you say I misquoted you.

Morbeta11:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/18/politics/obama-trump-resistance-analysis

I don't understand what the writer feels is awkward about Obama's comments.

DeepSight:
You have misquoted me again. I hope this is not becoming deliberate.
I will see if you spot the error here again in order to determine if you are not doing it deliberately.

How did I misquote you?

Is the individual's power of choice the basis of morality?
Please think carefully.

Because if you insist it is, I can only conclude that there is nothing like morality in your worldview. And that nothing is right or wrong or good or bad.

It isn't the only basis but it is a part of how we determine if a person is morally culpable. You yourself gave examples using children and dementia patients. What is different between such people and normal morally culpable is the ability to have proper value judgements aka choice.

Morality is a human construct. We are the ones who made morality. It's wasn't handed to us. Humans are the ones who are making value judgements.

Look, I am tired of repeating myself. Self Defense can make it right for example.
Or are you denying that?

Then itis not OBJECTIVELY wrong. Its that simple. As far as I am concerned you are just doing mental gymnastics to avoid using the word subjective. Because the meaning of the word OBJECTIVE does not support being variable.

There is external objectivity to morality. What destroys a people and even the whole human race is external to any single individual's opinion.

From where is this external objectivity? What are you talking about with this destroy talk? What brings destruction into this discussion?

DeepSight:
At least recognize your error first then we can debate it properly. You said I was saying something which I never said. You said I said morality is both objectively good and bad. Thats an incongruous, meaningless and absurd statement - and you know very well I didnt say that.

I explained my statement, I didn't mean that you said it verbatim. Something cannot be objectively 2 mutually exclusive things. You are saying an action can be good sometime then bad another time. You CANNOT use the word OBJECTIVE for such a thing.

Subjective morality would simply mean if anyone personally believes it is right to r.ape, murder, commit genocide, burn women at the stake, do human ritual sacrifices - in fact anything - then its moral for them to do so. To say that all morality is subjective simply means anything a person feels like doing or thinks it is right to do - even the worst atrocities is actually okay. You are wrong on this score.

Then the misunderstanding is yours because whatever the case it is a value judgement capable individual making a choice. There is no externally imposed "thing" making the choice for the individual. By necessity all value judgements are subjective. We get to choose our moral frameworks which can help guide our actions without any guarantees that we would adhere strictly to those frameworks. This is why a Christian who professes to love Jesus more than life can still kill, it is all in the individual's powers of choice.

There is a reason I use terms like relative morality and situational morality. Because a thing can be relative. For example an insane person may not have any idea of what he is doing. A person with even dementia may not have any idea of what he is doing. Even medical issues like sleep walking fall in the same category - that person may have absolutely no idea what happened. And anyone can see that this is objective, rational reasoning. Even a child may have no idea what he is doing and the consequences - and that is why minors are treated differently before the law. In law we say that even a child below the age of 12 can commit no crime because he understands nothing - he is not at the age of criminal responsibility. All this is rational and objective.

You are using different words for the same thing. At least within the context in which we are discussing which is individual value judgements.

In situational cases, just imagine if there was a war going on and thousands of people were stuck in a trench trying to escape from enemy bombardment. In that situation many people could do anything to get out of the trench quickly and it may be a mistake, it may be a split of the second instinctive escape etc - but could lead to the deaths of other people. That is a clear situation that no rational or objective human will think the crime was deliberate or premeditated.

If killing is OBJECTIVELY wrong then no situation would make it right. It is only because morality is subjective, relative, situational that we can assign moral values based on changing circumstances. You cannot convince me to substitute the word OBJECTIVE into what is clearly not an OBJECTIVE situation.

I urge you to think carefully on what I am saying.
I will go further if you kindly reflect and consider that I am not dancing around any word unnecessarily.
I did tell you that this is a pure philosophical matter which I wonder about.

I think about these things fairly regularly, subjecting my thoughts to examination from time to time. I am fully convinced there is no external objectivity to morality. It is firmly entrenched in the capacity of value judgement beings/species/populations.

DeepSight:
Said a deed in different circumstances could be objectively right OR wrong.

This is what is called subjective morality. I'm still surprised you are just dancing around the word subjective.

Melagros:
COMRADES, why these days when someone advocates for morality it becomes a crime? If the school says no bra no entry for exams kindly obey the simple rule because school no be ashawo quarters

So if they decide to check their hymens for virginity you will support because it is promoting morality?

DeepSight:
Lol LordReed. Abi you sef don't know women? Forget it.

Even if it was a flight ticket that cost N10 million it's gone.

She will NEVER refund.

She will only lie on the man.

The kind of women I've been with wouldn't do stuff like this so maybe I'm having a little rose tinted vision.

DeepSight:
100 percent sure the woman will never return it. And claim she was defrauded.

It is very interesting how women behave.

There may be no cramp at all.

She probably just told a lie to get money from him and that's exactly why he would be annoyed.

Women do this to thousand's of men all the time and rest assured they will never refund the money.

With the way she was protesting, I want to hope she is principled enough.

fergie001:
^{This year's G7 summit held at Kananaskis, Alberta in Canada}


Canada's PM Mark Carney

On behalf of the G7 leaders:
Donald J Trump (The USA)
Keir Starmer (The UK)
Friedrich Merz (German Chancellor)
Giorgia Meloni (Italy PM)
Emmanuel Macron (France)
Shigeru Ishiba (Japan PM)



The Group of Seven (G7) is an informal grouping of seven of the world's most industrialised and advanced economies, including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as the European Union.

Some other countries invited to this year's summit are: Australia, South Korea, Brazil, India, Mexico, Ukraine and South Africa

So Israel is doing your dirty work for you.

DyshApp:
A woman shared how her date reacted angrily after she told him she couldn’t make it because of menstrual cramps.

The woman @mary_jay18 revealed in the video that they had been planning to meet on a specific day since last week, but she was unable to do so because she was having period pains.

Her date spat abuse at her and sent a voice message after she cancelled. Enraged, he demanded she refund the money he had provided for the car-hailing service to transport herself to their date spot.

He had never spoken to her aggressively since they first met, she said, but she is grateful she was able to stay away from him before their relationship turned genuine.

Situations like this make you question everything about modern dating.

I knew money was involved that's why guy man felt he was being guyed. Madam hope you gave him his money back.

Kobicove:
What makes you think any right thinking person actually wants to keep up with the lingo used to describe the lives of sexual deviants!

It's the world you live in, it existed before you and will continue to exist after you've rotted to dust in a grave.

Abaziaka:
They can negotiate with the government instead of doing abracadabra moves
We want a good road infrastructures good, health systems, stable electricity, good sewage, and water system,s, and well equip educational facilities.
But the question is can we pay for it.
Because my country people will tag it extortion.

It is extortionate. You people to pay N12,500 after forcing them into a call up system. Might as well just toll the road.

geunik:
I thought on nairaland, one of the section was religion. What i am seeing is Christianity etc and Islam

Anyway back to the matter. lets see what they will all say tomorrow including thise that saw this olan crash in 2010 and those that saw it coming tomorrow

LoLz. Are you minding the charlatans? They can barely see the ends of their noses but throw out this fakeness called prophecy.

I am glad they can't use the crash survivor to further their religious garbage. As if any believer in any god can be immune to misfortune.

Image123:
Do you believe in curses? Na wa o, my question complete, this computer dey ask me for 40 characters. Abeg Seun leave this thing for Front page only, or Front page topics.

No I don't. However if the statement offends the recipient's sensibilities then maybe it will make them reflect on how subjecting others to that same offense might not be a good thing.

basilico:
Budaatum knows exactly what I'm asking , I needed a clarification from his post.

Your post is not phrased as a question, it was phrased as a statement.

aminauiade:
https://dailypost.ng/2025/06/13/its-just-the-beginning-fani-kayode-hails-irans-retaliation-against-israel/

That is the problem of violence and war, any claim to a right to attack also applies to the receiving end.

GOFRONT:
Who will now be the husband??

These Whites be wasting clean kpekuses...........

None. They both wives and both mothers when being referred to. If they were men they'd both be husbands and fathers. Try to keep up.

press9jatv:
my generation lives in the cement blocks and duplex too. Some generation will surely lived in the bamboo houses. It's never a curse. Be enlightened.

I am talking of your future generations. May all of them live in bamboo houses since it is not a curse.

Kemetian:
But why the obsession with cement houses when they are cheaper alternatives all around us?

The real surprise is why we use so much cement. It's not as if we are a hurricane-prone region or something. We can use lighter materials that are cheaper too.

Why would a hurricane prone region use more cement? The damage during and after the hurricanc3 would be magnitudes more if that was done.

press9jatv:
😂 you are very funny, there are some houses that was constructed with bamboo and today people loves to lived in it.

May your generations live in bamboo houses.

press9jatv:
https://dailypost.ng/2025/06/12/fg-announces-plan-to-build-bamboo-houses-for-low-income-earners-in-nigeria/

Bamboo house in this age of insecurity? May their generations live in bamboo houses.

basilico:
I hope I'm not getting you wrong ,I don't watch your videos.

Overproduction leads to inflation which reduces price.
When inflation rises. Prices reduce.

Where did you learn this your own economics? LMAO!

DeepSight:
This is a wrong statement. Take it back or explain. You know better than this.

Ok, I take the 2nd part back.

AngelahFlo:
But the forgetting is a key ingredient. Still I agree with your opinion. For forgiving them sincerely. What happens if they now offend you again, will you still forgive them a second time?

It depends. If it is a mistake and the person is remorseful yes I would. If the person is simply trying to take advantage then I won't.

budaatum:
Have you not noticed some Christians here have not read their Bible, my Lord? Why would you expect them to know much about big bangs?

Just read someone here telling me "atheists claim the universe is eternal", without realising eternal means, there is God. I suppose he might have come across atheists who fear burning in hell.

Par for the course for them.

DeepSight:
You really think humans don't have a predatory nature? You are funny.

Humans are omnivores, we never had to be predatory.