₦airaland Forum

This is the classical inconsistency of Christian doctrine: if you believe in an omniscient (all-seeing) God, then, by definition, you believe in predestination. Some protestant denominations (e.g. the Calvinists) accept that this is a consequence of believing in an omniscient God.

lifexpress:
Leave language alone for awhile!
You are the Image and Likeness of God!
Your name is a name of God too, but it's for you alone until you can make it available to everyone. That's if you can grow up to be godlike in this lifetime! You'll see how you have lived before and will live again until you become godlike in a lifetime. It is the role of religion.
Music is the food of love and God is love. Sing your Song of God, and you'll discover more how you are God's child! And eventually discover your guardian angel who'll lead you onward home to be godlike!

I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. If you believe in God, define what God is and explain what is evidence of his existence

I would go for a female boss. The women I worked for are usually better managers and know how to deal with people better. if you want to go for a clear objective in a competitive environment, I'd rather work with men, they're more focussed

lifexpress:
Let me add that there is absolute proof of God's existence!

I am yet to see such proof. I've been looking for it for a long time, but to no avail. If you have that proof, maybe you can present it in this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-3833.0.html

Anyway, I was wondering how an all powerfull God, that is in full control over his creation, could be mocked at at all, unless he wants to be mocked at?

This is one of the most wonderful threads here on the board. Read it from the start, you'll be touched

There are certain things in society that are never acceptable. Partner abuse is one of them. Unless Princeth is lying about her situation, she should bring herself and her children in physical and mental safety asap. You can hope the man will change his ways, but I wouldn't count on it.
Marriage is a bond between two people; the man did not fulfil his obligations and broke that bond through his behaviour. He is the one that destroyed the marriaeg bond by strangulating the personality development of his wife and keeping her in a bondage that is no better than slavery.

Hi pendelite,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I personally would advise anybody to choose that career path, but I personally think that we shouldn't look down on it so much, after all there are no real valid reasons to hate the practice so much.
Now, as far as acceptance in society goes, maybe Belgium is more tolerant in that regard, but it is still very much a marginal thing in society. It's not going to be accepted as just another job for a long time, if ever.

As to the hypothetical question of me being able to marry to a prostitute, I personally would not let that be an issue in my decision. I know that prostitution correlates with a lot of other social vices, so it would be unlike that I did, but not for that reason.

Seun:
I got to know him through Fantasia Barrino when she rendered his song 'I Heard It Through The Grapevine'. I like the original rendition a bit better, and also 'How Sweet It Is To Be Loved By You', 'You Are Everything', and 'Ain't No Mountain High Enough'.

I am completely unimpressed by 'Sexual Healing', which seems to be his most most popular song. I don't see why people like it.

Maybe it's got something to do with not having a frame of reference

spikelord:
Hey, Diana Ross takes blues not what u thinking!

What are you trying to say?

@ pendelite
I finally found time to answer your post.

pendelite:
To my prostitute friends out there, I never said you should not get married, I just said that everyone else should consider you as a last choice. If a man had a choice between a woman that values herself and one that does not, he should choose a woman that knows that her body and her soul can not be purchased for another’s pleasure.

You are reasoning from a position that prostitutes, by definition, do not value their bodies and themselves as human beings. It may be so that many in society do look upon prostitutes as being morally deprived, but that does not need to be so. It's only because you attach that specific value to your sexuality that you think that hiring out your sexuality is by nature a bad choice. People that work as janitors, supermarket clerks, parking guards and the like are not living up their potential as human beings either, yet they are not scoffed at like prostitutes.
This is a double standard that is actually very discriminatory.

pendelite:
On the question of if prostitutes will return to the former activities, this is based on the laws of probability. I can provide additional empirical evidence if you require it. The fact that someone devalues themselves for material gain is indicative of the possibility that if the opportunity presents itself such a person will have no reservation in profiting from it.

If you could give empirical evidence of that fact and establish causation between the act of prostitution and those prostitutes returing to their former activities, please do so. Mind you, correlation does not equal causation. Also please ensure that you have a representative data set.
If you cannot provide the above, your statement is merely an anecdotal opinion, not an established fact.

pendelite:
It is most unfortunate that poverty not opportunism is the excuse used by young men and women to engage in this act, however labels say very little for a decadent attitude amongst today’s youth. Prostitution is an act of choice, you look at yourself, value yourself and give up yourself for material gain.

All payed labour is giving yourself up for material gain. Why single out prostitution?

pendelite:
The option always exists for one to find another way to solve a problem such as working to pay school fees, attending classes and reading to pass exams. People of easy virtue rarely make good committed partners and that is what marriage is all about.

It is you that assign a negative moral value to the act of prostitution, there are no hard laws that make it so.

pendelite:
My prostitute friends can stand on top of the mountain and shout themselves hoarse. Unless they were sold into prostitution they made the choice and are inclined again towards that choice when the opportunity presents itself.

Where's the evidence in support of that opinion?

pendelite:
Please note that I used the law of probability, which means that they will probably return to this vice and not that they will certainly, always return to the vice. However, it’s up to the person making the choice of marrying a former prostitute to make this determination.

Can you make your law of probabiblity explicit? I have not seen any rigorous application of probability in your post, but maybe I missed it.

pendelite:
Oya, I have opened a can of worms, we can eat it or kill the worms.

Well, by eating them, you will definitely kill the worms

pendelite:
@nferyn , if you have data to support the concept of redeemed prostitutes I would be interested to see it.....

No, I don't have any data, but I do not need any data, I did not make the statement that prositutes will probably return to their former employment.

chrisd:
Scientific method, what scientific method. Is more like are really.

If you're talking about social sciences, you do have a point, but that has got more to do with the quality of the people entering the field than anything else. I could write a book about my experiences with some professors that knew how to play the publis-or-perish game very wll, but had basically nothing to say. It is the reason I started working in the private sector instead of going for an academic career.
Fortunately, you have less of this kind of probelms in the exact sciences

chrisd:
I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up--in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.

Yes, but here you're looking at the problem in isolation. Teaching methods my have improved, but there is more to learning than the strict school environment. And pedagogy is one of the softest applied sciences you can find (i would hardly call he field scientific).
Concerning how to treat criminals you're again talking about one of the softest [i]sciences [/i]you can find. Again, I wouldn't call criminology scientific. They may sometimes use statistics, but that's as far as it goes.

In both cases, they shun the use of the recent findings of evolutionary psycology (or sociobiology if you fancy that name) and neuroscience.

chrisd:
Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts.

You are so right on that one. The expertise of these so-called experts is founded on hot air in many cases. E.g. t's amazing how much many psychologist stil rever Freud and how psycho-analysis is sugarcoated in a scientific
sauce

chrisd:
So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science.

I think the educational and psychological studies I mentioned are examples of what I would like to call cargo cult science. In the South American Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Nice story. Good analogy

chrisd:
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards.

Integrity is the key point here. Social sciences allow you to muddle the waters way too easily by using jargon.

chrisd:
For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

If you're in an experimental context, it is far easier to control for these factors. E.g. sociology does not give you that kind of luxury. It is paramount that your paradigmatical assumptions are very explicit in the construction of your quesionnaires and that you insert enough control points to test for the validity of these assumptions.

But then again, I think it has more to do with the general quality of the people entering the field than with a lack of integrity on the part of the participants.

@ viviansam

Sometimes I cannot get you people. You are advising someone to stay in an abusive marriage, where the husband beats his wife, where he does not leave her any room for self realisation, where he even does not provide for her and her children while at the same time not allowing her to take care of herself. On top of that he even made implicit death threats.

By doing so you are condoning a situation of violent abuse, a trampling on women's rights.

chrisd:
I tell you, considering physicists here, that some came up with ideas and concepts that fell ouside the scope of rational scrutiny, yet were proven right. Example is non conservation of energy and parity violation.

The source of your hypothesis does not need to be rational. The investigation thereof however does need to be rational. The scientific method is entirely rational.

I can understand that in physics it must sometimes be very hard to operationalise and test your concepts.

@ chrisd
Just an interesting article by Carl Zimmer on the thing your geneticist friend is working on (if I understood correctly)
http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2006/articles_2006_Lynch.html

Oh yes you can. You're in the US, full of cheap chinese electronics

Anyway, it's a bit difficult to describe music in words

Just go and find a microphe and do the test, we're patient

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4923.msg163425#msg163425 date=1136876680]Between soul and blues? And all those categories u listed. poilish summin[/quote]Google is your friend
Anyway, better search for some music by those people, listen and you'll notice the difference
Your don't need to worry about Polish Polka, it something like square dance, but then even worse

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4842.msg163428#msg163428 date=1136876735] I don't have a microphone. [/quote]Les excuses sont fait pour s'en servir

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4923.msg163407#msg163407 date=1136876322]What's the difference?[/quote]Difference between what?

He used to live in Belgium (trying to get off the heroin) and wrote probably his best song over here: Sexual Healing

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4842.msg163370#msg163370 date=1136875136]a green worm in green glass [/quote]Now, put on a sound recorder, repeat that 5 times in a row and speak loadly. Attach the soundfile to your reply so that we can judge you french pronunciation

spikelord:
I'll pick Phil Collins and Diana Ross as the best blues singers I have ever come across!

Phil Collins is a much blues as Polish Polka. Diana Ross is an R&B singer, I haven't heard her perform the blues

casper:
ray charles

This is edgy. He mixed elements of R&B, blues, gospel and country music. Not a pure blues artist, although he definately could perform the blues magnificently

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4923.msg163311#msg163311 date=1136872583]I think marvin gaye is.[/quote]Marvin Gaye is more sould and R&B. He was an absolutely a fantastic performer, but not a blues artist per se.

If you want to discover the blues, go and look for people like Buddy Guy, John Lee Hooker, BB King

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4842.msg163349#msg163349 date=1136874255]Vous dit votre ordinateur a ce qui ? J'ai dit que vous devriez parler en français[/quote]I'm coming from a country where about half of the population speaks french. I do manage reasonably well in french, you on the other hand...

maybe you can translate this:
un ver vert dans un verre vert

lifexpress:
To keep reform ongoing, the CBN could consider to set a new upper limit, such as 100billion, for the more progressive banks to distinguish themselves. Talk about learning from the lessons of past reforms.

What actually were the requirements that the banks had to meet. We recently opened a Euro account with UBA and they dare to ask a 1% commission on all transactions. This is horrificly high by international standards, unfortunately there is little alternative.

Merde, j'ai un clavier QWERTY ici, je ne peux plus ecrire avec des accents.
Mademoiselle hot-angel, est-ce que je peux vous demandez ce que signifie votre question ci-dessus:
[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=4842.msg163258#msg163258 date=1136871058]Parlez dans monsieur français[/quote]Est-ce que je dois parler a monsieur francais ou dois-je parler en francais a monsieur ou est-ce je suis ce monsieur francais moi-meme?

Automatic translators only give you an untillegiable mish-mash. Don't use them