₦airaland Forum

@ Olorididan
I think democracy in Spain is firmly established now. The population would never accept any coup attempts and within the army, they would never find enough support for any such an attempt. Aznar sort of tried to turn back time, but it backfired. You cannot govern for too long without the consent of the population. He was riding on the economic accomplishments, but that does not give you eternal credit.

I am personally much more affraid of the situation in Italy, although it seems that Berlusconi, in all his hubris, went too far and that the bill will come next elections.

@ododoman, Sesan2 & ijebuman

Thanks for the first input, especially the account ododoman gave is very helpful. I was asking the question, because I'm working on a project that would require me to have a historic account that is as accurate as possible. As I have some background in historical criticism (even though I'm not a historian), I can weigh the accounts on their merits, if I have access to primary sources.

Can any one of you point me to contacts that can help me on my way in my research

Thanks a lot already

chrisd,

I'll reply later. i won't forget you

chrisd:
You should not believe everything that is published. I tell you from experience maybe one in 100 or 1000 is a real good one. I also find a lot of mistakes sometimes.

Of course not, but don't forget that you're working in a field that's very different from biology. You cannot apply the same standards and methods anyway. On what basis should I reject these findings?

Seun:
Nferyn, is it possible that the cold weather in your country is partly responsible?

Holland is slightly colder than Belgium. We do have things like isolation, central heating and excessive energy bills, you know. Inside, it's quite warm. This would rather have an effect on my wife anyway. I'm quite used to the cold.
Just as a point of reference, for our house we have a monthly gas and electricity bill of €120

chrisd:
It has all to do with the discussion. It shows that a lower level of consciousness does not go in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet because of lower level on consciousness.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

chrisd:
The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier? What kind of idea is that. You get out because it's your time.

As the humanoid brain increased in size during it's evolution, labour and childbirth became painful and dangerous for women, especially if you compare it to other mammals. Add to that walking upright has some anatomical consequences. Mutations that caused the child to be born earlier proved to be beneficial, but this caused a need for a longer period of care for the newborn.
I can get you the references if you like.

chrisd:
It is not just the capacity to perceive sensations. The question should me how does the brain generate consciousness. Then we can look to define a when. Till now we cannot even understand how. And we still do not understand the human phyche. Go ask any pshycologist.

Never said it was. We indeed cannot understand how, but we certainly can understand at what moment consciousness certainly cannot be formed yet. This is what the article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947 (although the full text is now requires registration) was implying.

chrisd:
Consciousness cannot be said to have a single (or more than one) fixed location in the brain but can be triggered off almost anywhere in the brain and then spread out via the interconnections between neurons. Consciousness must also be a continuum to allow for the possibility of changes in the levels of consciousness. For example, at what stage can a foetus be said to be conscious?

You can talk about a lower limit of neural development to allow a minimal consciousness. That this does not mean that consciousness stops developing, is quite obvious.

chrisd:
The only rational explanation is to think of consciousness gradually increasing, rather than suddenly coming into existence.

Yes, in the same manner that during a day, it requires a certain level of daylight to be called day and no longer night. The exact time when night changes into day is difficult to determine and arbitrary, but a some points you can, with absolute certainty, be saying that it is day and no longer night, just as you can say that at a specific moment it is definitely night and not yet day. The process of speciation works along similar lines. Now, what does that tell you? Only that you cannot define the exact moment at which consciousness starts.

chrisd:
Physiological behaviour which seems to confirm this is that new-born babies, which we assume have a very low level of consciousness, have fewer connections in their brains than adults.

Certain biologists claim that human babies resemble larvae in that regard. They are not yet full humans. the argument makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The head of the new baby would be too large for a woman to give birth, so the moment of delivery is set earlier, meaning that the baby is still very much undeveloped.
This goes rather in the direction that a newborn baby is not fully human yet.

chrisd:
It appears that the amount of inter-neuron connectivity is related to the level of consciousness. Professor Greenfield Professor of Pharmacology at Oxford University explored the idea of different levels of consciousness and the possible physiological reasons for these different levels. For example, people who do activities such as bungee jumping or white water rafting report having a feeling of time standing still i.e. having a lower level of consciousness, which could be because such activities cut out external stimuli.

Interesting, but how does this observation have anything to do with the discussion we're having?

Sentience is not the capacity to feel pain, it is the capacity to perceive sensations, and undifferentiated conscienceness. The ability to feel pain is just an indicator of sentience under specific circumstances (if an organism is capable of feeling pain, we can definitely speak of sentience). This requires specific neurological developments.
So, I think we agree on this treshold

PS; excuse me if I err against specific scientific terminology, correct me, I'm just a lay person.

chrisd:
You ensure that there is absolutely no chance that sentience is present (that's why 26 weeks is a reasonable limit)? Weren't we talking of margin or error?

It certainly sounds charitable and fair to say that it is equally good – until you think about it. What would we think of a geologist who said, "Some people believe the world is round and some believe the world is flat, and I think we should let everyone choose the belief with which he is most comfortable"? Would you say he’s an exceptionally wise and tolerant geologist?

This has nothing to do with what I was saying. The two are not comparable.

Assume that the neurological wiring that makes sentience possible is available at 27 weeks, but that there are no tests that allow you to measure sentience before 30 weeks. In that case it is reasonable to take a legal limit of 26 weeks, which includes a 27 weeks +/- 1 week margin of error and starts from that fact that it physically impossible to have sentience before that limit, even though it is more likely that sentience only is there after those 30 weeks.

chrisd:
Is very interesting. But is difficult to define reasonable margin of error. One needs a quantitative calculation. Perhaps we can come up with a differential equation or something.

Way too complex (maybe I should quote Einstein on this one ):

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler

chrisd:
Reasonable margin of error means overlap. Adam Smith said, the best result comes from everyone doing what's
best for himself, right?

Indeed you take you margin in the direction where you know it should be taken. In case of abortion, you ensure thatthere is absolutely no chance that sentience is present (that's why 26 weeks is a reasonable limit)
Please don't bring Smith into the discussion, it wil quickly result into an ideological shouting contest, but Ill respond anyway
Economics is also ignorant of externalities that it cannot quantify or have no economic value, therefor economics should not be the only guiding principle for society and it's properties should be taken with an ocean of salt (after removal of the water).

chrisd:
That means there is overlap yes?

What do you mean? Overlap between what?

Whether you go for larger or smaller entities all depends on your setup.
Within the EU we have two movements, one that gives more say to the regions (e.g. Catalunya in Spain, Flanders in Belgium, Wales in the UK, ...) and another one that gives more power to the supra-national level (The EU in this case). nation states become less and less important.

I sincerely believe that a similar process for West-Africa could remove a lot of the problems that came with colonial legacy of all those unnatural boundaries. Nationalism (as in nation states) is only useful in a traditional industrialised society, globalisation makes it irrelevant.

chrisd:
Federal law. Ah. I won't rust those lawyers. Let's say abortion is a decision. At this point in history we cannot understand where to drawn a line. Perhaps the line does not exist. What shall we do then. We have to decide some way or the other. In the US they decided that way, no?

Legislation always has something arbitrary to it. E.g. when is a sex between consenting partners legit and when is child abuse. The legal line needs to be drawn somewhere. As long as you build in a reasonable margin of error, it's Ok.

Hey good people,

Chrisd invited me to contribute to this threas, so I'll gladly oblige.
Note: this is from an ethical unbeliever, giving his opinion on the matter at hand, so take it for what it is.

chrisd:
After my job in Slough (my boss tried to have me fired, she says I made pass at her.
Is not true, that is the real problem, she was angry at me I think. Maybe I should have
[SNIP]
the institution all the old people is treated the same, they happy at last yes? Ha ha.


The same with tithing.

You're very much into parables and alegory, aren't you? At least you're in good company

I think Christians should copy the Muslim requirements for charity. The money certainly shouldn't go to the self professed men of God. the current day Catholic Church (but certainly [b]not [/b]the historical one) has got it right in that regard. People should be judged by their actions, not by their words

chrisd:
Feeling of pain and consciousness are two different things

Yes, and?
I never said that the sensation of pain should be the only determining factor

Omniscience is one of the properties as declared by the great monotheistc religions. I reason from that point onward, but it does not mean that I accept that assumption. I use reason and evidence to give meaning to the world around me. The concept of a supreme being does not fit in that picture.
I am an athiest, I lack the belief in the concept of a supreme being. What would make me change my stance is conclusive evidence or proof of that being. I am incapable of faith; I could possibly believe in it, but not on faith alone.
I have read the Bible and found it lacking as a source to give meaning to the world or my life, as it contradicts too much knowledge I have that is based on belief in the evidence of science. On top of that the Christian concept of God is also full of logical contradictions that need to be explained aways by using epistemiological tricks (such as ascribing God's omniscience to be of a different kind than ours).
This is why I remain atheist unless someone brings me evidence of the existence of God.

Chrisd,

look at this link:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947
and this debate:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=88699

That's where I get my information from.

cya

nicetohave:
you give me something to think about.do you speak here for yourself or is it a general statement?

Actually both, this follows from the assumption that God is omniscient. If he is omniscient, then that contradicts with free will, unless his omniscience is of another kind entirely than our conception of omniscience, but in that case we cannot possibly understand the property omniscience, it becomes meaningless for us humans. The same goes for the other properties of God.
I personally believe that, if God were to exist, it would be impossible to have any knowledge of him. On the other hand, I don not believe in the existence of God, but that belief is not absolute (i.e. I acknowledge the fact the God might exist, but then he would be very different from all the conceptions of all humans of him)

nicetohave:
in your opinion then those that have something to say about him speak falsehood?

No, there is just no way to know whether or not it is true or false. A contradicting accoun can be just as true or just as false. No way of knowing

Read my account here for starters
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2598.0.html#msg91683
It's in several parts, so it might take you a while

lioness:
i just don't see why the woman should pay for her wrongs and that of the man too. Good or bad, the axe still falls on her.

Exactly. It shouldn't be like that

Valentine's day happens to be our marriage birthday. As usual, we'll go out for a romantic dinner - no kids

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4965.msg166630#msg166630 date=1137051810]Everybody run away from benin girls oo. *sighs*. [/quote]What makes you say that?
Married for 8 years and still going strong

My wife's Edo and I do my best to inform myself about Edo culture, including the history of her people.

There seems to be quite some controversy on the origins of the respective Yoruba and Edo dynasties, especially the link between the Benin Oba dynasty and Ile Ife. The sources I have found so far are either old (A short History of Benin by Jacob Egharevba) or it's is impossible to trace the validity of these sources (internet).

I also would like to know the links in the different cultural practices. Are there any cultural anthropological studies available on the relations between the Edo and Yoruba peoples?

I would be very grateful if there were some skilled people over here that can help me out in my quest for knowledge.

Please try to refrain from ethnic chauvinism from either side, I want a historical account that is as reliable as possible.

lifexpress:
That's one riddle 4 all to resolve! Welcome to it, now or later.

The result of the ridle is that this makes God and his intentions totally unknowable to human beings. Not partially unknowable, but not knowable at all to any extent. Anything and everything people say about God is equqlly valid or invalid, there is no authority (be it the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, tradition, a priest, a rabbi, an imam or anything) on God or his intentions.
Nobody can say anything at all about God.

Hi Nnenna1,

Thanks again for making a meaningful contribution to the board. I wish more people would think before they spoke.

You indeed have an emotional approach to the problem of abortion and there is nothing wrong with that. Now, if I were a woman, I have no idea how I would react if I were placed in such a situation. It would be a very hard dilemma and I cannot imagine that something like undergoing an abortion would not leave emotional scars behind. Therefore it is important that we, as a humane society, try to avoid being placed in such a postion. This goes both for your personal choices in life as for the policy we implement.

That being said, policy cannot directly be guided by emotions. When developing or implementing a policy, you need to look at the cold hard facts and investigate what the overall outcome of that policy would be. Suppose your child get brutally murdered. It is only natural for the parents to have feelings of revenge toward the perpetrator, but we cannot let those emotions guide the judging and sanctioning of the crime. they are to be considered, for sure, but they are certainly not the only issues at stake.
The same goes for abortion. What is the overall impact of abortion on society, on all actors involved? What are the facts and what are the effects of our actions in a specific case, but also, what are the effects on society? All studies I know of point in one direction: the best way to avoid or limit abortions and unwanted pregnancies is by implementing a policy of allowing abortions under controlled circumstances, coupled with comprehensive sex education. Either banning abortion or allowing abortions without the proper societal guidance have shown to give worse results.

One thing more about legalised, controlled abortions (such as we know in Belgium, I consider the US an example of how it should not be done). They force [b]not one [/b]woman to undergo an abortion. If an individual woman has moral or other objections against abortions, she is given all possible guidance into finding a suitable solution for her unwanted pregnancy.

So all in all, it is important that a policy does not codify a morality that is not shared by the whole population. Nobody's moral values should be forced on other people by means of legal prohibitions. The law should only consider the cold hard facts.

That's an easy cop out. You can explain away anything an everything like that. This would mean that God's omniscience is different in kind than our own conception of it, making it empty of meaning. You can just as well say that God is hdfsjsdf

kenflavor:
Wife battering is a very serious case in your place. I am not saying it isn't in Nigeria but wife are always advice to endure over here, until relatives have tried all their best to solve the problem.

If it were only battering in this case, then you might have a point, but it isn't. The man is trying to excercise total control over the humanity of his wife, denying her to grow as a human being, he is even acting at the expense of the children.
Cultural differences in these cases are really a smokescreen, human dignity is a universal value, not something that is uniquely reserved to men or subject to cultural variation.