₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
Are you the same person as Arda1000?

Because i really don't get why you suddenly started responding to posts not meant for you?😟

why are u triggered?
Isn’t this a public forum?

MaxInDHouse:
The book that said the earth is spherical and that there is a magnetic force gluing the inhabitants to it's surface thousands of years before your people later discovered it's correct? Isaiah 40:22

Or that explained water circle thousands of years before your people began doing gragra as if they discovered something new? Job 36:27-28

Or that explained how God suspended the earth upon nothing in space thousands of years before your people knew it? Job 26:7

Ọmọ that book has a lot that you and all your teachers can't discover in the next thousand years to come!🙂

for your information many civilizations have discovered much more about bible than your Bible,infact bible knew very little about the earth and the universe I don’t even want to waste my time trying to educate you on that one cause you even bringing such a thing means you believe the Bible writers knew much better than scientists 😂

Arda1000:
why are u triggered?
Isn’t this a public forum?

Jesus didn't train us to speak to people like barbarians do so it's one person at a time that we reason with based on the person's perspective not talking out of nowhere when two persons are trying to reason together.

Arda1000:
for your information many civilizations have discovered much more about bible than your Bible,infact bible knew very little about the earth and the universe I don’t even want to waste my time trying to educate you on that one cause you even bringing such a thing means you believe the Bible writers knew much better than scientists 😂

What i want you to know is that the Bible is not a science textbook but when it touches on science it's message is accurate.

MaxInDHouse:
What i want you to know is that the Bible is not a science textbook but when it touches on science it's message is accurate.

am tired of your rants ok Bible is everything

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus didn't train us to speak to people like barbarians do so it's one person at a time that we reason with based on the person's perspective not talking out of nowhere when two persons are trying to reason together.

jesus trained u?
😳

Arda1000:
am tired of your rants ok Bible is everything

Do you say rants?
Better start thinking about how people who lived thousands of years ago could accurately tell the shape of the earth, the gravitational force keeping the earth in space and the water circle if they were not being taught by the supernatural: GOD!🙂

Arda1000:
jesus trained u?
😳

YES! That's our TEACHER!🙂

MaxInDHouse:
YES! That's our TEACHER!🙂

your delusions are really strong man

Arda1000:
your delusions are really strong man

Your personal opinion!🙂

@MaxInDHouse

^{I am sure that you won't understand this either 😭}

Don’t confuse applause from believers with knowledge. You don’t know better - you only believe harder.

I didn’t start this discussion with you. When you joined, I took no offence. Yet you misquoted and misunderstood posts, maligned fellow Christians, dismissed evidence, and crowned yourself enlightened - all while offering imagination and an unquestioned book in place of logic or history.

^{You don’t belong in conversations that demand evidence, history, and logic if all you offer is imagination propped up by a book you refuse to question. Humanity progressed by interrogating beliefs, not by freezing them in reverence while silencing conscience and reason. The corruption and historical baggage of your faith are invisible to you only because you’ve never examined them honestly.}


And stop projecting your framework onto me. I don’t operate on belief or faith.

Roycemadeit:
@MaxInDHouse
^{I am sure that you won't understand this either 😭}
Don’t confuse applause from believers with knowledge. You don’t know better - you only believe harder.
I didn’t start this discussion with you. When you joined, I took no offence. Yet you misquoted and misunderstood posts, maligned fellow Christians, dismissed evidence, and crowned yourself enlightened - all while offering imagination and an unquestioned book in place of logic or history.

^{You don’t belong in conversations that demand evidence, history, and logic if all you offer is imagination propped up by a book you refuse to question. Humanity progressed by interrogating beliefs, not by freezing them in reverence while silencing conscience and reason. The corruption and historical baggage of your faith are invisible to you only because you’ve never examined them honestly.}
And stop projecting your framework onto me. I don’t operate on belief or faith.

This is the topic of your thread:

"Is sin innate in us?"

Well the Bible's answer to that question is YES.

So if you have anything further to ask let me know there's no need labeling me for coming to your thread and if you feel i shouldn't have come please let me know and off i'll go.

Roycemadeit:
Fine, All the culture in the world believes in Christianity, and blames the devil...

That is not what we are talking about. You and I know that there is no people or place or culture where they do not know that there is a very evil being in existence

Dtruthspeaker:
That is not what we are talking about. You and I know that there is no people or place or culture where they do not know that there is a very evil being in existence

You don't know what you are talking about. There cultures that don't believe in evil existence.


I'll give you some examples for your inability to know but to only believe.


1. Buddhism
2. Taoism
3. Confucianism
4. African philosophy and spirituality like Ubuntu, Igbo and Yoruba.
5. Shinto

Roycemadeit:
You don't know what you are talking about. There cultures that don't believe in evil existence.


I'll give you some examples for your inability to know but to only believe.

1. Buddhism
2. Taoism
3. Confucianism
4. African philosophy and spirituality like Ubuntu, Igbo and Yoruba.
5. Shinto

Except for Igbo and Yoruba the others are not tribes or cultures but religious practices.

@MaxInDHouse

I am sure that you won't understand this either 😭

Don’t confuse applause from believers with knowledge. You don’t know better - you only believe harder.

I didn’t start this discussion with you. When you joined, I took no offence. Yet you misquoted and misunderstood posts, maligned fellow Christians, dismissed evidence, and crowned yourself enlightened - all while offering imagination and an unquestioned book in place of logic or history.

You don’t belong in conversations that demand evidence, history, and logic if all you offer is imagination propped up by a book you refuse to question. Humanity progressed by interrogating beliefs, not by freezing them in reverence while silencing conscience and reason. The corruption and historical baggage of your faith are invisible to you only because you’ve never examined them honestly.


And stop projecting your framework onto me. I don’t operate on belief or faith.

Roycemadeit:
When it comes to what happens after death, I do not claim to know. Even Christians disagree among themselves. Catholics believe the soul remains conscious after death and faces judgement, while Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the dead are unconscious until a future resurrection.

These views contradict each other, yet both are treated as truth. That tells you these ideas are based on belief, not knowledge.

I choose to say I do not know. And nobody could tell until they die otherwise whatever belief you have is one of many told by a person who probably hadn't died yet or had some type of illusion from prior indoctrination.

am back
What is your take on men being the superior being and women being the inferior weaker vessels?

Do you belief in this analogy if yes explain?

Do you disagree with this analogy if yes elaborate why you don't agree with the assumption?

Am anxiously waiting for your reply

Do you have any group or school of thought where all members perfectly agreed on terms regarding knowledge?

If not then you don't have anything to say against my way of handling matters after all you believe everyone is entitled to his or her own personal opinion!🤣

Kikelomogbenga:
@MaxInDHouse
I am sure that you won't understand this either 😭
Don’t confuse applause from believers with knowledge. You don’t know better - you only believe harder.
I didn’t start this discussion with you. When you joined, I took no offence. Yet you misquoted and misunderstood posts, maligned fellow Christians, dismissed evidence, and crowned yourself enlightened - all while offering imagination and an unquestioned book in place of logic or history.
You don’t belong in conversations that demand evidence, history, and logic if all you offer is imagination propped up by a book you refuse to question. Humanity progressed by interrogating beliefs, not by freezing them in reverence while silencing conscience and reason. The corruption and historical baggage of your faith are invisible to you only because you’ve never examined them honestly.
And stop projecting your framework onto me. I don’t operate on belief or faith.

Umbrateeth04:
am back
What is your take on men being the superior being and women being the inferior weaker vessels?

Do you belief in this analogy if yes explain?

Do you disagree with this analogy if yes elaborate why you don't agree with the assumption?

Am anxiously waiting for your reply

I suspect you know my stance on this idea.

But, here goes nothing.

1. What is my take on men being the superior being and women being inferior, weaker vessels?

That idea is a social myth dressed up as nature or divine order. It’s not neither proven by biology, nor sustained by history unless force is involved. What it really describes is who held the penis, not who held the power of life. Superiority here is defined as authority and physical dominance, while everything that sustains existence is classified as secondary.


2. Do I believe in this analogy? If yes, explain.

No. The analogy collapses the moment you apply it consistently. If women were truly weaker vessels, they would not be the primary carriers of life, lineage, culture, and continuity. Women endure emotional, and social pressures that would break most systems designed only for dominance. Calling one vessel “weaker” because it does not resemble the other is like calling the womb inferior to the seed. One initiates, the other completes. Without completion, initiation is meaningless.

3. Do I disagree with this analogy? If yes, elaborate why you don’t agree with the assumption.

I disagree because the assumption is inverted. The belief originates from Abrahamic theology that needed hierarchy to function, so it encoded hierarchy into cosmology. God becomes male, authority becomes masculine, creation becomes command, and difference becomes defect. The woman is labeled weaker. Generative power has always frightened systems built on rule. So it was renamed weakness, moralized as submission, and preserved as doctrine.

P.S:
Men and women are not arranged on a hierarchy but exist as complementary forces, two points that only achieve meaning and wholeness when they meet. The moment one is placed above the other, relationship collapses into domination, and domination inevitably produces resistance, which is why prolonged subjugation gives rise to counter-movements like feminism. This struggle is not a failure of cooperation but the consequence of denying it. Wisdom lies in understanding that difference is not competition for control but an invitation to completion. Had divinity been imagined as feminine, the hierarchy would simply have flipped, with men labeled the weaker vessels, proving that these ideas were never about truth or nature, but about power deciding who speaks for God.

Roycemadeit:
I suspect you know my stance on this idea.

But, here goes nothing.

1. What is my take on men being the superior being and women being inferior, weaker vessels?

That idea is a social myth dressed up as nature or divine order. It’s not neither proven by biology, nor sustained by history unless force is involved. What it really describes is who held the penis, not who held the power of life. Superiority here is defined as authority and physical dominance, while everything that sustains existence is classified as secondary.


2. Do I believe in this analogy? If yes, explain.

No. The analogy collapses the moment you apply it consistently. If women were truly weaker vessels, they would not be the primary carriers of life, lineage, culture, and continuity. Women endure emotional, and social pressures that would break most systems designed only for dominance. Calling one vessel “weaker” because it does not resemble the other is like calling the womb inferior to the seed. One initiates, the other completes. Without completion, initiation is meaningless.

3. Do I disagree with this analogy? If yes, elaborate why you don’t agree with the assumption.

I disagree because the assumption is inverted. The belief originates from Abrahamic theology that needed hierarchy to function, so it encoded hierarchy into cosmology. God becomes male, authority becomes masculine, creation becomes command, and difference becomes defect. The woman is labeled weaker. Generative power has always frightened systems built on rule. So it was renamed weakness, moralized as submission, and preserved as doctrine.

P.S:
Men and women are not arranged on a hierarchy but exist as complementary forces, two points that only achieve meaning and wholeness when they meet. The moment one is placed above the other, relationship collapses into domination, and domination inevitably produces resistance, which is why prolonged subjugation gives rise to counter-movements like feminism. This struggle is not a failure of cooperation but the consequence of denying it. Wisdom lies in understanding that difference is not competition for control but an invitation to completion. Had divinity been imagined as feminine, the hierarchy would simply have flipped, with men labeled the weaker vessels, proving that these ideas were never about truth or nature, but about power deciding who speaks for God.

It has been a long time, but I am back now

Your perspective on this issue is quite interesting but yet again not above criticism

1.How do you beyond reasonable doubt convince sexist men that think superiority is only characterised and measured by physical strength, financial independence, social status and being the breadwinner of the family which absolutely a considerable amount of women lack at their disposal....
a.how do you counter them with that mindset analogy?.. am waiting anxiously for your reply

2.you said you don't believe in the Christian God standpoint...
a.what's your stance on the existence of human..is it more of theological or scientifical? ..buttress your point on why you are for or against

3.the mindset from which triggered women being inferior vessels from a worldview stems from religious indoctrination lingering towards adam and eve creation story
a.now my question is do you believe in the adam and eve theology..if you do..can you vividly explain why with good reasons?
b. If you disagree...give justification for your dismissal?

4.my last question...critics will hereby assert that man was created in the image of God and woman created in the image of man..They use this bibilical clause as an argumentative weapon to help solidify their sexist agenda.. on this premise was the surge in Sexist Attitudes/Beliefs, Sexist Language/Remarks, Sexist Discrimination, Sexist Stereotypes and above all femicide(when men prey on the weakness of women to murder them)... unfortunately the jabs they themselves throw that hits the nail on the head is God first intent to create man before considering the need to create a woman..according to them first priority equates to superiority while the second equates to subordinate..
a.throw more light as to why you concur and object to this particular assertion above?

I am anticipating your feedback

Umbrateeth04:
long time back again

Your perspective is quite interesting but yet again not above criticism

1.How do you beyond reasonable doubt convince sexist men that think superiority is only characterised and measured by physical strength, financial independence, social status and being the

I am anticipating your feedback

Roycemadeit:

You are both getting it twisted.

Go and watch babies and children, do you see any boy feeling superior to the girl?

No!

Why?

Because both are equal.

However, when does the superiority start?

You would see it is in the things that they have done.

Even among boys, if a boy is a thief, all other boys who have never stolen will be superior and 'better" over him.

Same thing for a girl.

And the reason why women are lesser than men is because of they oloshod.

Go and check it a virgin girl is always equal to a boy and she is even better (superior) to guys who fornicate around which is why we all say "you no worth her'.

But because women become olosho, they lost many of their natural rights, just like the thief or rapist and have become lesser beings.

That is what happens as no one respects an olosho as with a rapist

Roycemadeit:
Fine, All the culture in the world believes in Christianity, and blames the devil...

he is our resident lunner atic...you will do well to ignore him.

Umbrateeth04:
It has been a long time, but I am back now

Your perspective on this issue is quite interesting but yet again not above criticism

Having reviewed your questions, I will give a brief rundown of my perspective, though it revisits points from earlier discussions..

We are given many ideas before we ever question them. Strength, belief, authority, and even the tales of our beginnings are often presented as undeniable truths. Yet when examined rationally, many of these are not truths at all, but beliefs. The notion that strength alone determines superiority is not original; it is learned from environment and influence. But reverse the argument: if someone who values strength were born without it, or as a woman in a society that subjugates the feminine, would they accept being treated as inferior? Reality proves they would not.

The imbalance is most evident in how societies have treated women. For centuries, men have been placed on pedestals while women were expected to remain beneath them. If God is a Father, then the absence of a Mother represents a philosophical imbalance. A society that refuses to honor the feminine builds itself on only half its foundation. But voices long silenced will eventually speak. No human being can remain tied down forever. The old system cracks when people awaken. Today, women are discovering their strength, and societies are being forced to correct their own imbalance, most likely the old system would give way to a dysfunctionally aligned system. The thumb cannot exist without the forefinger. Our existence is a team effort.

The same principle applies to a deity considered the creator of all humanity, yet who sides with one tribe against another. One might never have been part of the chosen tribe if born elsewhere, in cities defeated in biblical tales. History adds another layer: the God ferried across oceans by conquistadors, subjugating peoples first and demanding belief afterward. Even creation myths invite scrutiny when examined alongside archaeological, genetic, and historical records of older cultures with similar narratives. And yet belief persists, not necessarily from understanding, but because it has been preserved from analysis.

Strength alone does not sustain civilization. Domination has never worked. What sustains the world is balance, understanding, and the humility to recognize that no single group, gender, or belief holds all the answers. A healthy order comes not from lifting one and crushing another, but from recognizing every part of humanity in its proper place.

If anything is worth defending, it is that no human being should kneel to ideas demanding division, ignorance, or submission. Healthy order is achieved through the discipline of balance. When we find balance, we move forward. When we deny it, we are doomed to have conflicts, ^{most likely it would be sponsored by the God who wants disunity}, _{Tower of Babel} .

In conclusion, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the questions you raised. How do you interpret them, and what is your perspective?

Roycemadeit:
..If anything is worth defending, it is that [b]no human being should kneel to ideas demanding division, ignorance, or submission....

So, are you saying that you would marry an olosho and treat her equally like a decent girl? Romance and family section has already answered you, so no need to lie.

And the bottomline is that as long as there is sin and dishonour there would always be a need to separate oneself from dishonourable people.

And if an employee does not submit to his master can there be balance?

Dtruthspeaker:
So, are you saying that you would marry an olosho and treat her equally like a decent girl? Romance and family section has already answered you, so no need to lie.

And the bottomline is that as long as there is sin and dishonour there would always be a need to separate oneself from dishonourable people.

And if an employee does not submit to his master can there be balance?

As usual, you are missing the point again . The question is not whether I would marry an olosho. The question is whether an olosho deserves to be treated as less of a human being. Those are two very different matters. A person’s circumstance does not erase their humanity. If you were the one in that position, would you enjoy being treated as something beneath dignity?

People are quick to condemn the fruit while refusing to examine the roots. Nobody wakes up one morning and simply decides to become an olosho without a chain of circumstances leading there. Poverty, coercion, desperation, and lack of opportunity all play their roles. Yet society prefers the easier task of pointing fingers at the individual rather than confronting the conditions that produced the outcome.

As for your argument about separation from “dishonourable people,” that reasoning is convenient but shallow. History shows that the same society that condemns the olosho is often the same society that creates the conditions that produce her. If we truly cared about honour, we would examine the system before condemning the individual.

And regarding your question about submission, balance does not come from blind submission to a master. Balance comes from understanding roles, responsibilities, and mutual dignity.

P.S. A system built entirely on domination will always produce resentment and imbalance.

Roycemadeit:
As usual, you are missing the point again . The question is not whether I would marry an olosho. The question is whether an olosho deserves to be treated as less of a human being. Those are two very different matters. A person’s circumstance does not erase their humanity. If you were the one in that position, would you enjoy being treated as something beneath dignity?

People are quick to condemn the fruit while refusing to examine the roots. Nobody wakes up one morning and simply decides to become an olosho without a chain of circumstances leading there. Poverty, coercion, desperation, and lack of opportunity all play their roles. Yet society prefers the easier task of pointing fingers at the individual rather than confronting the conditions that produced the outcome.

As for your argument about separation from “dishonourable people,” that reasoning is convenient but shallow. History shows that the same society that condemns the olosho is often the same society that creates the conditions that produce her. If we truly cared about honour, we would examine the system before condemning the individual.

And regarding your question about submission, balance does not come from blind submission to a master. Balance comes from understanding roles, responsibilities, and mutual dignity.

P.S. A system built entirely on domination will always produce resentment and imbalance.

I got the point.

Your dodging and refusal to even be seen associated with an olosho already proves that even you know that it is nature that has set it that they do not deserve to be treated like human beings.

And the fact that it is only at night and in dark and secret places that you meet with her is proof that even you cannot treat her like the people you normally relate with everyday.

And it is the same thing with crooked politicians, rapists, thieves and people who have done things that bring dishonour.

And it is a shift of post for you to talk about the causes of her oloshoing for your topic was clearly "why women are treated inferiorly"

Of which it has been stated that poorverty is not an acceptable reason to do the dishonourable whether oloshoing or stealing, so your advocacy does not stand.

And on submission, see it, you moved post from submission to "blind submission" whereas you implied that submission is bad because it causes imbalance.

So, you see, you are swallowing up and changing your own words now that you see that you are wrong.

It is balance that a pilot Captain dominates over the stewardess and that the director is dominant to the clerk.

Dtruthspeaker:
I got the point.

Your dodging and refusal to even be seen associated with an olosho already proves that even you know that it is nature that has set it that they do not deserve to be treated like human beings.

Your view comes from long-held rules and dogma, based on the idea that certain teachings decide human worth and behavior. This way of thinking turns complex human life into simple boxes and ignores choice, context, and responsibility. By assuming authority, morality, or value comes from fixed standards, you mix up social roles with real human dignity.

First, your argument confuses social function with human worth. A pilot may command a crew during a flight, just as a manager directs employees in a company. That authority exists because of responsibility and expertise, not because the pilot or manager is a superior human being.

Second, the claim that certain people should not be treated like human beings simply because they engage in activities you consider dishonorable collapses under scrutiny. If dishonor strips someone of their humanity, then the same judgment must be applied consistently. Yet, we have society that condemns the woman who sells intimacy while tolerating the men who buys it.

Third, reducing a person entirely to one label ignores the complexity of human life. No individual can be defined solely by a single action or profession.

Fourth, using “nature” to justify social exclusion misunderstands what nature actually is. Nature does not assign moral rankings to human beings. Those rankings are cultural inventions, shaped by power, fear, and tradition, it has nothing to do with natural.

Fifth, the idea that balance comes from domination misunderstands how stable societies actually function Domination produces obedience, but never harmony. Stability emerges when authority is tied to responsibility and when humanism remains universal rather than conditional.

Roycemadeit:
Your view comes from long-held rules and dogma, based on the idea that certain teachings decide human worth and behavior. This way of thinking turns complex human life into simple boxes and ignores choice, context, and responsibility. By assuming authority, morality, or value comes from fixed standards, you mix up social roles with real human dignity.

First, your argument confuses social function with human worth. A pilot may command a crew during a flight, just as a manager directs employees in a company. That authority exists because of responsibility and expertise, not because the pilot or manager is a superior human being.

Second, the claim that certain people should not be treated like human beings simply because they engage in activities you consider dishonorable collapses under scrutiny. If dishonor strips someone of their humanity, then the same judgment must be applied consistently. Yet, we have society that condemns the woman who sells intimacy while tolerating the men who buys it.

Third, reducing a person entirely to one label ignores the complexity of human life. No individual can be defined solely by a single action or profession.

Fourth, using “nature” to justify social exclusion misunderstands what nature actually is. Nature does not assign moral rankings to human beings. Those rankings are cultural inventions, shaped by power, fear, and tradition, it has nothing to do with natural.

Fifth, the idea that balance comes from domination misunderstands how stable societies actually function Domination produces obedience, but never harmony. Stability emerges when authority is tied to responsibility and when humanism remains universal rather than conditional.

You are still talking off point in trying to find where you suppose my view comes from as if your own view is not coming from somewhere also thereby missing the issue of the discussion not being about where our views come from but about the Truth that is seen naturally. which you yourself have seen and are partaking in.

And the fact is that we come in boxes: a man must think like a man and a woman must think like a woman. Do you not see all the the threads here are boxes? Car section box, politics section box, Romance section box etc.

So, like it or not this life is in boxes and things are fixed exactly how there is no way an olosho will be respected. Even you with all your claim for equality has not gone to give dignity to an olosho or rapist or a thief. And it is not man who set morality: no human went about telling people not to respect the olosho or the rapist or the thief,

And on the pilot superiority, the bottomline is that you see that your "antisubmission" statement was not correct as there is something called "authority" and that makes a person superior to his fellow man. And as companies and airlines have shown there is harmony and stability.

So, you are just trying to raise a tsunami in a plate.

Dtruthspeaker:
You are still talking off point in trying to find where you suppose my view comes from as if your own view is not coming from somewhere also thereby missing the issue of the discussion not being about where our views come from but about the Truth that is seen naturally. which you yourself have seen and are partaking in.

And the fact is that we come in boxes: a man must think like a man and a woman must think like a woman. Do you not see all the the threads here are boxes? Car section box, politics section box, Romance section box etc.

So, like it or not this life is in boxes and things are fixed exactly how there is no way an olosho will be respected. Even you with all your claim for equality has not gone to give dignity to an olosho or rapist or a thief. And it is not man who set morality: no human went about telling people not to respect the olosho or the rapist or the thief,

And on the pilot superiority, the bottomline is that you see that your "antisubmission" statement was not correct as there is something called "authority" and that makes a person superior to his fellow man. And as companies and airlines have shown there is harmony and stability.

So, you are just trying to raise a tsunami in a plate.

Always talking about “natural truth” like it dropped from the sky and everyone just knows it . All you’ve done is repeat what you’ve been led to believe and call it nature.

The fact that you put things inside boxes does not make those boxes fixed or meaningful in any absolute sense. Reality is more complex than painting everything white and black.

Then you jump from categories to conclusions, saying some people cannot be respected because of what they are or have done... Accountability is not the same as stripping someone of their humanity. The moment you decide who deserves dignity and who does not, you are no longer talking about justice, you are just defending a hierarchy that makes you comfortable.

And on authority, you’re still confusing role with worth.

Let me spell it out, not for you, since you seem more interested in reacting than understanding, but for anyone actually paying attention. Authority exists for function, not because one person is a superior human being. It is tied to responsibility and competence, not inherent value.
A pilot leads a flight because of skill and responsibility, not because he is more human than the passengers. That distinction is simple, yet you keep missing it. Authority organizes action; it does not elevate one person above another in dignity.

Roycemadeit:
Always talking about “natural truth” like it dropped from the sky and everyone just knows it . All you’ve done is repeat what you’ve been led to believe and call it nature.

The fact that you put things inside boxes does not make those boxes fixed or meaningful in any absolute sense. Reality is more complex than painting everything white and black.

Then you jump from categories to conclusions, saying some people cannot be respected because of what they are or have done... Accountability is not the same as stripping someone of their humanity. The moment you decide who deserves dignity and who does not, you are no longer talking about justice, you are just defending a hierarchy that makes you comfortable.

And on authority, you’re still confusing role with worth.

Let me spell it out, not for you, since you seem more interested in reacting than understanding, but for anyone actually paying attention. Authority exists for function, not because one person is a superior human being. It is tied to responsibility and competence, not inherent value.
A pilot leads a flight because of skill and responsibility, not because he is more human than the passengers. That distinction is simple, yet you keep missing it. Authority organizes action; it does not elevate one person above another in dignity.

You are the one making me repeat all i have said since you keep veering off point running and raising more off points.

Definitely, if you say "natural dropped from the sky" then you are right for that is the idiomatic expression that Natural is like rain and that Natural came to meet us or we came to meet it

And you have proven it that even today you have still refused to go and to give your dignity to an olosho or rapist or thief just like the rest of the world despite all you propose.

And on boxes, it is clear that everything is in a box. You are in the box of man, which is why we will find you in the boxes talking about getting a job and acquiring a house, erectile function and prostrate are things. No one will see you in cervical cancer and menstruation and womanstop (menopause) boxes. So you are decivjng yorsef when you think you are not in a box.

And on submission, authority and worth, it is you who does not appreciate that authority and worth go together. And that doing what everyone cannot do increases your worth and makes you superior to others. That is why a pilot is paid more than the driver of ABC transport, even when both of them are technically drivers moving goods and passengers with vehicles. Technically, every human can drive a car but not every human can drive a plane. So the difference is clear.

And that is why a pilot is more respected than and more dignified than the ordinary fisherman in his canoe in river state and even you, would readily and happily welcome with open arms the pilot to marry your daughter over the canoeing fisherman.

So, you are still wrong and making an unreasonable proposition

Dtruthspeaker:
You are the one making me repeat all i have said since you keep veering off point running and raising more off points.

Definitely, if you say "natural dropped from the sky" then you are right for that is the idiomatic expression that Natural is like rain and that Natural came to meet us or we came to meet it

And you have proven it that even today you have still refused to go and to give your dignity to an olosho or rapist or thief just like the rest of the world despite all you propose.

And on boxes, it is clear that everything is in a box. You are in the box of man, which is why we will find you in the boxes talking about getting a job and acquiring a house, erectile function and prostrate are things. No one will see you in cervical cancer and menstruation and womanstop (menopause) boxes. So you are decivjng yorsef when you think you are not in a box.

And on submission, authority and worth, it is you who does not appreciate that authority and worth go together. And that doing what everyone cannot do increases your worth and makes you superior to others. That is why a pilot is paid more than the driver of ABC transport, even when both of them are technically drivers moving goods and passengers with vehicles. Technically, every human can drive a car but not every human can drive a plane. So the difference is clear.

And that is why a pilot is more respected than and more dignified than the ordinary fisherman in his canoe in river state and even you, would readily and happily welcome with open arms the pilot to marry your daughter over the canoeing fisherman.

So, you are still wrong and making an unreasonable proposition

My Right!

We do not share the same worldview. Mine is reasoned and deliberate.

Man is not defined solely by profession, wealth, or social ranking. A fisherman is no less worthy of respect, of marriage, or of dignity than a pilot or CEO. Reducing human worth to material or functional achievement reflects not reality but the corrosive influence of poverty, fear, and social boxes. Love, humanity, and dignity cannot thrive in such a framework, no matter how many comparisons or examples you raise.

You treat people as lesser because of what they do or how society labels them, but that perspective makes the world more toxic.

Refusing to recognize the humanity in an Olosho, a thief, or anyone deemed dishonorable creates cycles of dehumanization. People denied respect and recognition will inevitably find ways to reclaim what was taken from them, often at the expense of the society that constrained them. Ignoring this reality demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of better human systems and the consequences of inherited prejudice.

Don't put me in the same box as yourself. I can marry an Olosho and my daughter could marry a fisherman.

Roycemadeit:
My Right!

We do not share the same worldview. Mine is reasoned and deliberate.

Man is not defined solely by profession, wealth, or social ranking. A fisherman is no less worthy of respect, of marriage, or of dignity than a pilot or CEO. Reducing human worth to material or functional achievement reflects not reality but the corrosive influence of poverty, fear, and social boxes. Love, humanity, and dignity cannot thrive in such a framework, no matter how many comparisons or examples you raise.

You treat people as lesser because of what they do or how society labels them, but that perspective makes the world more toxic.

Refusing to recognize the humanity in an Olosho, a thief, or anyone deemed dishonorable creates cycles of dehumanization. People denied respect and recognition will inevitably find ways to reclaim what was taken from them, often at the expense of the society that constrained them. Ignoring this reality demonstrates your fundamental misunderstanding of better human systems and the consequences of inherited prejudice.

Don't put me in the same box as yourself. I can marry an Olosho and my daughter could marry a fisherman.

Your reasons are basically wishful. The fact that you have not yet dated and married has already ridiculed all you say.

And this thread https://www.nairaland.com/8636767/went-clubbing-doing-drugs-becoming shows that you are dreaming as you have not gone there to express that you would marry her, even though you claim you can marry an olosho.

So, this is a case of you talking things even you yourself do not do hence why you are already wrong