₦airaland Forum

In their desire to school Trump, we can see clearly their hatred for Trump. Sorry folks, he is not getting impeached. By the way, I don't support denial and ignorance of scientific facts.

LordReed:
Why are you afraid to make a statement of your own position? Arguing against other people's positions is not a statement. Unless you are willing for people to construct strawmen arguments for your position to which you can easily accuse them of so doing.

If you want to know johnydon22's position, read the entire thread. I think it's cumbersome for him to keep on repeating himself.

johnydon22:
I trust you do. Being human is not contingent on features we possess but a kind of inherent essence in our DNA.

For instance; If you lose both your arms, both your legs, ears, 1 of your kidney, eyes, parts of your brain, replace your heart with an improvised machine.

Are you still human?

Yes.

Because you are not human because of these features, you are human simply because you are a 'homo sapien'.

According to my definition of human, yes. You don't have to retain the heart or other parts of your body as long as my condition has been satisfied. A man with an artificial heart has already satisfied my condition while he was still an embryo. The main question after my condition is if the human is dead or alive.

johnydon22:
You are forgetting part where anybody who burns either you or i is burning a cluster of organs or cleavage of cells.

You are failing to understand that there is an inherent essence that distinguishes calling something a cleavage of cells or human.

I get you now. My intending meaning of the word human is not a scientific definition. My definition is subjective and arbitrary based on my limited knowledge of embryology.

Any body who burns us is burning a cluster of cells but, unlike the kidney cells, we are "human" (my intended meaning applied), so it's wrong.

tintingz:
Dude just provide your source that talked about fetus being alive.

The point is even a robber knows stealing from him is wrong, we don't know the conscious state of a fetus, the suffering of a rape victim is unwanted if she doesn't want to carry it.

What action? That a fetus is not wanted?

Dude, just tell us how a fetus is alive, a personhood with sources.

Actually, I side with johnydon22 here. A foetus is alive. That's a scientific fact the question that the Don is asking is if abortion is morally permissible. Is amoeba not alive?

johnydon22:
Oh i am not. I am just pointing out the reduction to absurdity of that argument.

NB: read all my reply before replying.

There is no absurdity here. In the arguments below I am making use of my intended meaning of the word "human."

If a heart is the necessary condition to be human, it makes anyone without a heart less human. [/b] Be sure that when I say a heart, I mean the organ that pumps blood. I only gave a condition for an human embryo to be considered human. After this stage, there is not hierarchy or system of classification that makes one more human. An embryo that just passed the stage of the full development of the heart is not less human than a 26 year old man, it's just an issue of growth. "isn't the cleavage of cells an early stage of growth?" well the crux is when is it morally permissible to commit abortion? and when is it human? once it human, it should not be killed and it's not less human than it's elders. Anyways, it's black and white here and there are no continuum. It's either an organism is human or not. When an EMBRYO gets to the stage of full development of the heart, it's human as much as it's elders. The question after it's if it's dead or alive.

[quote]What you are saying is; there is a stage when a homo sapien is not homo sapien then suddenly becomes a homo sapien or more homo sapient.

My usage of the word "human" is not the strict scientific word and I made that clear when I said I wasn't using the biological classification of organisms(kingdom, phylum,..., genus & specie). The word human as I used it is just a point of development where termination of the life of an Homo Sapien is morally wrong. It that sense, a 26 year old is not more human than an embryo that has satisfied my condition.

I believe that apparently biologically nonsensical.

But tell us; What specie will a homo sapien be at this stage that it is not a homo sapien?
(No organism is without species)

@ I agree and I said so.

Actually it is the implication of your own assertion.

You said: If it reaches the stage of developing a heart then it is human?

which then begs the question: What is human?

Is human a stage when something develops a heart or a state of being?

So, don't misunderstand the implications of your own argument.

@bold
On a closer look it is, my bad.

How exactly does something go from "not being human" to "human?"

keeping in mind my intended meaning of the word "human," biology can answer that.

What is human?

just explained.

The implication of this argument that something was not human then suddenly gets to stage and becomes human leads to a hierarchical order of being human since it is contingent on developmental stage. Your argument is; An embryo that doesn't have a heart is not human, then it develops a heart it becomes human, should this consequentially lead to it becoming more human at the progression of its development? Or do you wish to cut off the consequence of your own argument?

so if a soldier becomes a captain, he can become "more captain" because getting to being a captain is a stage? So if a chess player becomes a grandmaster, he can become "more grandmaster" because being a grandmaster follows a stage of elo rating? So if I become your president, I can become "more president" because being a president involved a process?

That line of thinking of your's is not always necessary for every classification. Look at my intended meaning of my word "human."

And then my own question: When a pig's embryo develops a heart, does it become human?
p.s; Once an embryo is at the stage of the development of the heart it becomes human

only if the embryo is that of Homo Sapien. Don't kill me with laughter. I made it clear, I think, that human embryo is what I considering. Your topic itself doesn't intuitively imply abortion of other animals

Doesn't every other animal satisfy that condition?

given the definition of my word "human" and the embryo I and your topic are talking about, NO.

Actually it is not clear.

You are yet to define what a human is which is necessary for the premise of this argument.

What you are doing is; instead of saying what a human is which is a biological classification; You pick out isolated features like (heart) you think makes something human, the problem is, other species develop heart, so there is nothing that can be demonstrably shown in this your (heart) criteria that changes the essence of something into what we know as "human" it is just like Coolusername setting his own criteria as physiological and neurological.

once again, we are talking what stage a HUMAN embryo must get to before it is considered "human." Be sure to know my intended meaning of the word "human."

So, what is human?

It is not that i don't get what you mean as human, i am saying that it is vague and arbitrary and doesn't hold up.

Oh yes, a kidney is not human, a kidney is not remotely close to an embryo.

Do you want to commit the fallacy of false equivalence?

Technically, you are also just a cleavage of cells.

So, i ask again; Define human?

Okay I get. All cells are not equal and are technically alive but it's not immoral to burn a bunch of kidney cells and a bunch of brain cell, same for an embryo but when it satisfies my condition, it's still a cleavage of cells but it's now human and it's immoral to kill it. At any stage, a bunch of kidney or liver cells are not human so you can waste them when you want and the same for the embryo except when it has satisfied my condition. If it has not satisfied my condition, it's still remotely close to a kidney or liver cell.

NB: a Homo Sapien embryo is to be considered human(my intended meaning) once it has attained a heart that is pumping blood.

budaatum:
Jesus (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30 / 33), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ, was a first-century Jewish preacher and religious leader. He is the central figure of Christianity. Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited Messiah (Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament.

He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities, turned over to the Roman government, and was subsequently crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect.

I love the way he is said to have stood up to the religious people of his day telling them their understanding was wrong and that they did not temper the word with its spirit to steal from the poor. Then the poor yelled, "Cricify him!" Irony, you'd think. Now he's their saviour, and I stick my neck out and say they still crucify him!

Jesus is my favorite favorite heretic. The greatest atheist too.

.

LuciferElohim:
And a drug lord is somewhere in South America torturing his bookies.

Every misfortune that happens benefits someone else.
It's just life.


This is why I wish misfortune on everyone reading this post to my advantage in Jesus' Mighty Name. AMEN!

RECEIVE IT!!!


[img]https://media1./images/eef9490236a6df7a81e4a2e561623357/tenor.gif?itemid=7714913[/img]

babyfaceafrica:
why should we care?..if you maintain your lane..no yahoo plus will go near you....but you want to by shoes,use iPhone xmax and ride car?..work hard and stop relying on a man....greedy ladies need to have sense...I pray good and faithful ladies are saved in Jesus name..but for slay mama and babes....it may be your turn

True.

But most girls are helpless in the case of forceful kidnap. So I think in addition, there should be an educative campaign and activism letting people know that shedding human blood to spiritually make cash is a myth --- a dangerous and ridiculous one at that. Finally, security should be tightened and improved.

obataokenwa:
Villages should learn from my village.. Every 31 December night, the mothers in my village go to all the roads that leads to my village and pour extracts from palm oil and place curses that any of their children that will be involved in armed robbery will be caught and anyone that wants to get involved in ritual will run mad. One guy from my own kindred was shot dead last six years at umuahia during robbery and others escaped. About four people are mad right now in my village cos they wanted to use their mum for ritual.

Let mothers start questioning the sudden wealth of their children. A student will be in school driving Benz without any source of income. This rubbish is coming up as play play till it gets out of hand and by then altars has been raised against a generation forever

We need to stop all these supernatural and spiritual nonsense. People should be taught that shedding human blood to spiritually make cash is a myth; girls should be extra careful and security should be tightened.

Cc. Coolestchris

JESUSBOIY:

Mr Jesus Boy, go and read your bible my friend. Touching toucher.

coolestchris:
agreed they should be responsible, so we should clap for this ritualists ryt

He never suggested that we should clap for the ritualists. It's a known fact that a lot of girls are materialistic and are on the fast wanting to live the Kim Kardashian lifestyle and that, in some cases, makes them easy prey for the ritualists.

Anyways, I suggest that there should be a campaign and activism fighting against magical thinking of all sort. People should be made aware that shedding human blood to get money is a myth. Also, girls should take good measures and security should be tightened.

JESUSBOIY that wants to touch, is that one JESUSBOY?

Must you touch?

.

JESUSBOIY:
i would write in summary, so you can read.

... I now understand her insatiable desire for sex and how she happens to F*ck a lot of random men.

This is killing me, Since I am emotionally attached to her, I had practically worshiped her and gave money when she request for it, sometimes discomforting myself.

I want comments especially from girls .
Don't know where to go from here.

SMH

MrPresident1:
You are like one of those mumu motivational speakers that will be talking nonsense upandan...Thomas Edison failed 999 times but on the 1,000th trial, he got the successful light bulb filament.

Unlike Edison, none of my dates failed. I got it right 100% all the time

SMH

armadeo:
The land is rich and pure. If people from outside come they would drain thenland in the name of resource and kill Gaia.

Rip for trying to spread the gospel but religion has actually caused a lot of problems. Not the religion it self but the followers and thier beliefs

Religion itself is also a problem, don't exclude it.

czarina:
There are still savages? In 2018?




modified:

For those quoting me to say all sorts, their actions classified them as savages, not how far they seem from "civilization". After all, the so-called "civilization" is only relative.


#Shalom

Those that are quoting you and attacking you need to go back to school.

Goshen360:
Okay, in the same logic and response from you. If your relatives or any of your family members come here and overstayed or out of status and becoming ILLEGAL....do you still agree that Trump send them back still?

Yes.

johnydon22:
Do you want to bring up the "it is not human argument too" Warning; that won't go so well.

Technically, this is also what you and i are. a cleavage of many cells but this doesn't make you think it is morally permissible to kill me.

Why? i wonder.

But i am just a cleavage of cells.

Actually, an embryo is not remotely close to being the same thing as a spermatozoa or an ovum. It is very apparently different that i didn't expect to see this.

1 is a human offspring
2. is a human cell

connect both to me

So, to be human you must have a heart? Any human that does not have a heart is not human? Let's be sure.

When an embryo is still a cleavage of cells, it AUTOMATICALLY has no consciousness, no feelings and is very much the same as "other cells". That's simple biology. Note the key words: embryo and cleavage of cells. Both used together has the implication that consciousness and feelings are out of the picture.

You and I are still indeed cleavage of cells but we are not embryo. We are well beyond the stage of the development of the heart (organ of the body ) and we have consciousness and feelings. @Coolusername, I said once we are at and beyond the development of the heart, we are human not if you have a heart or a complete and fully functioning one at that. Kanu Nwankwo is well past the stage of the development of the heart

All cells are not the same. I placed them in the same category based on the fact that destroying or wasting both does not involve the elimination of consciousness and/or torture of feelings because both have none. I never intended a biological classification here. I thought that was apparent.

For me, to be human doesn't mean having a heart. To be human, you must be at or beyond the stage of the development of the heart.

It depends on the stage of development of the embryo

If it's still a cleavage of cells, then it's not immoral to wipe it off because it's in the same category of a spermatozoa and we know it's not immoral to masturbate even though we waste spermatozoa cells (which have potential to become humans). Both have no consciousness or feelings and they are just cells.

if it has already formed a heart, then na human being be dat, no try am

LordReed:
You are the one being illogical. Do you reduce something you like? Do you make it harder to have something you perceive as good? Like what kind of backwards thinking are you doing?

SMH. The reduction is not done out of hatred for non-Americans but for the interest of America. Reducing quota does not mean they hate non-Americans, America comes first. See, you know what? Let's end this discussion here. Bye. SMH

blueAgent:
True.

But i think it goes far deeper than votes. most of the Demorats are just sheepie used by the elite to foster One World Order by promoting a World where there is no border race or religeon.

That's also very possible given their immense desire for socialism. These guys don't mean we'll for America.

LordReed:
LoL. I thought you said Trump doesn't what to stop legal immigration, you are given proof you now change mouth.

He doesn't hate blacks but he'd rather not have them around him. LMFAO!

SMH. Why are you not being logical? Decreasing visa and immigration quota does not mean they are against legal immigration. Reducing the quota means they are going to now accept fewer legal immigrants. That's all. Whether the quota is high or low, you will be admitted, if selected, if you migrate legally but rejected if you choose to migrate illegally. That's how sane countries work.

blueAgent:
True. the funny thing is that if illegal migration is not checked most of the Demorats and liberals will become victims of its negative effects.

True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them.

LordReed:
Yeah that's why they want to reduce visa and immigration quotas because they love y'all.

Edit: BTW who is his closest black advisor or white house official? How many black people are on his cabinet?

You little ones and your unfounded sense of entitlement. America doesn't owe us sh1t. If they choose to reduce their visa and immigration quotas, they have the right to do so. You guys are not even ashamed of yourselves, implying that a government exercising their right to limit visa and immigration quota is hatred towards non-Americans. What happened to your country? Limiting visa and immigration quota doesn't necessarily mean a country hates others. America and other European countries are in need of reducing their visa and immigration quotas thanks to what they have suffered from open border policy and the need to fix their country.

He doesn't need to have black staff. It's not written anywhere that he must have a black staff. Stop playing the race card.

Goshen360:
Now let's talk facts and fact check our conversation.

The word "illegal" immigrants is a play down on words depending how you want to argue it in legal terms and under the Constitution of the USA.

If a Nigerian man comes here "legally" by obtaining visa AND AFTER HE OVERSTAYS OR DONT GO BACK....he/she becomes ILLEGAL in the USA.

The Mexicans who swim into USA or come through the back door without obtaining visa LEGALLY and stay here in USA are also illegal.

While I agree it is unfair to the Nigerian man who came here legally, I also say it's not the Nigerian man fault because the geographical location and immigration policies in place he had to follow. The Mexican man on the other hand geographical location favours him and he took advantage of the system.

Now, what's the solution since they both in USA ILLEGALLY? Send all of them back? That won't solve the problem because when the documents defines who is illiegal, it puts these two categories of people as ILLEGAL.

So what's to be done bipartisan is find a common ground to agree to solve USA immigration policies not send them back and by the way, sending them back is not compassion.

I can't argue if Trump hates black people or not but he's definitely a white nationalist and black people do not like such because of what it reminds us....check your history.

All these arguments do not, even in the slightest sense, make any solid case against Trump. Sending people, who came illegally, back is a sound idea and Trump is not breaking any rule by doing that. Regardless of your geographical location or advantage, coming into someone's country illegally is wrong.

darlenese:
surgery


well done


there is no way she can achieve that without having excesses sagging skin around
.


don't me all that skin flew to the sky.

BTW, why is she rude

Well, true! However, those with sag skin can correct them through surgery but it doesn't mean that they didn't do the necessary exercise.

itchie:
So Trump has to be a Christian for Nigerian Christians to support him? Are there no Christians supporting Buhari who is a Muslim in Nigeria? Your reasoning is faulty. Trump is doing a great job as US President and any Christian (Nigerian or not) who is inspired by him is free to support him. No article of faith in Christianity prevents any Christian from supporting Trump

Don't mind them. Just like Abbeyba!ley, Goshen360 is playing the "I live/have lived in America" card. Seems that's their last resort when they have nothing reasonable to offer. Logical fallacies everywhere.

JeromeBlack:
It would pay you to read properly. Trump administration has made the process for certain visas to be difficult.
http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2018/04/13/h-1b-visa-usa-applications-2017


Anyone can look at how Trump treats his black employees.

.