₦airaland Forum

Mujtahida:
I am a Lawyer. Thanks for the good words.

Mujtahida:
Nobody knows it all. Freedom must be given to all to state even nonsensical ideas. Yes! That's their privilege as human beings and no one has the right to stamp on their persons in the name of 'we must only make sensible statements backed with facts and figures(yes because there's a way a man's opinion or viewpoint is attacked and he feels it is himself that is being attacked). You are a science oriented guy. Isn't hypothesis an opinion? Some hypothesis are right, some are wrong. In the face of wrong opinions correction is what is needed. But to say that only correct
ideas are welcome here is to my mind setting up a creed which will make us attack with religious ferocity those who have ideas and opinions that seem incorrect to us
Are we going to have only white here and no black? Even a regime of sensible ideas backed with facts and figures is abhorrent to my soul.

Even if one cannot stomach 'nonsensical' opinions (mind you what is nonsensical to you might be sensible to another person just as it is often said that one man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter) then one can as well challenge it but how we challenge bollocks matters. It is not until a man is told 'wakaa' that he'd feel insulted

Iheanacho is not a god. I heartily support him. In fact I get pricked when he's criticised but I do not subscribe to our creating a gang mentality where everybody must have the same opinion. That is fundamentalism, that is totalitarianism, that is how terrorism begins. Even in the face of facts people are entitled to their opinions because interpretation of facts differ from person to person. Our fingerprints differ, our brain patterns differ, our voices differ. So also our views and opinions. Let's loosen our grip on the need to be right and be seen as right to the extent that we cannot tolerate other people's opinions.

And its not correct to say that those who queried Sir Icon4s' intervention are people who hate Nacho. I understand what Icon4s said but at the same time the undercurrent sounded like he was giving approval to the way liedetector was hounded.


We should not say welcome to people when we cannot welcome them in totality particularly since this is a faceless impersonal online forum. What sort of welcome is this: I welcome you but I do not welcome your absurd opinions. If there's no liberty for them to state their opinions whether backed by facts and figures or not how can we discuss, how can those with wrong ideas be corrected? Congo4ka is one weird guy but I like the way he was corrected yesterday. But you will note that others still said they liked him. That's how life is.

We've all been guilty of attacking each other here but I have soft spot for newcomers. They should be handled with more sensitivity. Only God knows the many number of persons who can richly contribute to this thread that we have chased away. Would it not be better if sometimes we ask people the reason for their 'absurd' opinions and try and engage them?

And even if an opinion is wrong it won't hurt if we endeavour to correct it with the patience and the wisdom of those 'who know'. Elyte89 reaction is typical. He doesn't hate Nacho. He hates the sacred opinions, viewpoints and facts surrounding Nacho and he's decided to desacralize those ideas and facts just to infuriate those who are intolerably Pro Nacho. In a sense elyte89 wants to save Nacho and free him from the consequences of dangerous love.

I should not be misinterpreted as saying that I approve absurd ideas. What I am saying is that we cannot dictate to people the ideas and opinions they should state. I state my own. That's my freedom. You are permitted to disagree, you are permitted to interrogate my opinions, to challenge them. You are even permitted to state your own contrary views. That's your freedom. Igbos have a beautiful proverb which underlies their republican nature: let the Eagle perch, let the vulture (note that the vulture is a clumsy, gruffy, ugly, absurd looking bird) also perch. The one that says taaaa to the other, let his wings be broken.

I am pro Nacho but anti - siege mentality. I will end by giving this short anecdote which ends with one of my favourite quotes: Jean Jacques Rousseau was writing dangerous books, espousing ideas that threatened government, the social order and many cultural norms in 17 century France. He was wanted by the government. All over France he was a wanted man. He had no where to run to. Finally he decided to run to Voltaire. Upon knocking the door Voltaire welcomed him with the following words which have become immortal: I do not approve of the things you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

Cheers and love to you all.

Mujtahida:
Nobody knows it all. Freedom must be given to all to state even nonsensical ideas. Yes! That's their privilege as human beings and no one has the right to stamp on their persons in the name of 'we must only make sensible statements backed with facts and figures(yes because there's a way a man's opinion or viewpoint is attacked and he feels it is himself that is being attacked). You are a science oriented guy. Isn't hypothesis an opinion? Some hypothesis are right, some are wrong. In the face of wrong opinions correction is what is needed. But to say that only correct
ideas are welcome here is to my mind setting up a creed which will make us attack with religious ferocity those who have ideas and opinions that seem incorrect to us
Are we going to have only white here and no black? Even a regime of sensible ideas backed with facts and figures is abhorrent to my soul.

Even if one cannot stomach 'nonsensical' opinions (mind you what is nonsensical to you might be sensible to another person just as it is often said that one man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter) then one can as well challenge it but how we challenge bollocks matters. It is not until a man is told 'wakaa' that he'd feel insulted

Iheanacho is not a god. I heartily support him. In fact I get pricked when he's criticised but I do not subscribe to our creating a gang mentality where everybody must have the same opinion. That is fundamentalism, that is totalitarianism, that is how terrorism begins. Even in the face of facts people are entitled to their opinions because interpretation of facts differ from person to person. Our fingerprints differ, our brain patterns differ, our voices differ. So also our views and opinions. Let's loosen our grip on the need to be right and be seen as right to the extent that we cannot tolerate other people's opinions.

And its not correct to say that those who queried Sir Icon4s' intervention are people who hate Nacho. I understand what Icon4s said but at the same time the undercurrent sounded like he was giving approval to the way liedetector was hounded.


We should not say welcome to people when we cannot welcome them in totality particularly since this is a faceless impersonal online forum. What sort of welcome is this: I welcome you but I do not welcome your absurd opinions. If there's no liberty for them to state their opinions whether backed by facts and figures or not how can we discuss, how can those with wrong ideas be corrected? Congo4ka is one weird guy but I like the way he was corrected yesterday. But you will note that others still said they liked him. That's how life is.

We've all been guilty of attacking each other here but I have soft spot for newcomers. They should be handled with more sensitivity. Only God knows the many number of persons who can richly contribute to this thread that we have chased away. Would it not be better if sometimes we ask people the reason for their 'absurd' opinions and try and engage them?

And even if an opinion is wrong it won't hurt if we endeavour to correct it with the patience and the wisdom of those 'who know'. Elyte89 reaction is typical. He doesn't hate Nacho. He hates the sacred opinions, viewpoints and facts surrounding Nacho and he's decided to desacralize those ideas and facts just to infuriate those who are intolerably Pro Nacho. In a sense elyte89 wants to save Nacho and free him from the consequences of dangerous love.

I should not be misinterpreted as saying that I approve absurd ideas. What I am saying is that we cannot dictate to people the ideas and opinions they should state. I state my own. That's my freedom. You are permitted to disagree, you are permitted to interrogate my opinions, to challenge them. You are even permitted to state your own contrary views. That's your freedom. Igbos have a beautiful proverb which underlies their republican nature: let the Eagle perch, let the vulture (note that the vulture is a clumsy, gruffy, ugly, absurd looking bird) also perch. The one that says taaaa to the other, let his wings be broken.

I am pro Nacho but anti - siege mentality. I will end by giving this short anecdote which ends with one of my favourite quotes: Jean Jacques Rousseau was writing dangerous books, espousing ideas that threatened government, the social order and many cultural norms in 17 century France. He was wanted by the government. All over France he was a wanted man. He had no where to run to. Finally he decided to run to Voltaire. Upon knocking the door Voltaire welcomed him with the following words which have become immortal: I do not approve of the things you say but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

Cheers and love to you all.

TheSuperNerd:
The power of hindsight....

Well, I get you but sadly Shehu could not discern the future so he couldn't have known that Brahimi would come back to cause that penalty.
Funny thing is when the whistle went, Brahimi thought it was against him thus raising his hands slightly in frustration with that expression of "not again" on his face only to turn and find out the decision was for him and was a penalty. Even he was not convinced about the penalty call... But who bloody cares? He just stepped up and buried it.

Hope we learn from that going into the mundial.

Mujtahida:
Confirm receipt

tbaba1234:
Not only Mikel. Several players should have raised alarm immediately. Someone like Lehmann would have run out from his post.

Look at the reaction of Fabregas and Gallas when Ramsey got injured. The outrage alone was enough for the red card.

The 2014 team lacked that kind of character.

See the way, Balogun wanted to break one Algerian head in the second leg. You need characters like that in a team.

GindoX:
This Nigeria self, soldier wey suppose to go and fight herdsmen, una turn am to celebrity bodyguard... Abeg i wan disappear.

tbaba1234:
Last WC Jersey reveal

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVcB0RKXcAAl6-K.jpg