₦airaland Forum

Nyascobar1414:
..
This is the problem with y'all females, y'all think all men are simps or weak, you all think all men are emotional to pander to their wives feelings?

Till they meet a man who doesn't give a fvck about their beauty and they become sad and intimidated..

Go out there and experience how detached some men are..




Beautiful compliment
That guy hmmmm hmmmm
Very hilarious😂😂😂😂😂
He would have smile and say thank you dear


So back to the topic..
I went to sew my boot,some young guy wanted to buy something,a female inside the shop was like,woow you smell nice(a complement to the guys cologne).
But the guys demeanor showed that he wasn't even impressed or he saw the complement as nothing,proved everything..
The future will be 🤣

Nyascobar1414:
..
This is the problem with y'all females, y'all think all men are simps or weak, you all think all men are emotional to pander to their wives feelings?

Till they meet a man who doesn't give a fvck about their beauty and they become sad and intimidated..

Go out there and experience how detached some men are..




Beautiful compliment
That guy hmmmm hmmmm
Very hilarious😂😂😂😂😂
He would have smile and say thank you dear


So back to the topic..
I went to sew my boot,some young guy wanted to buy something,a female inside the shop was like,woow you smell nice(a complement to the guys cologne).
But the guys demeanor showed that he wasn't even impressed or he saw the complement as nothing,proved everything..
The future will be 🤣

Diamond098454:
Hmmmm hmmmm tenrack
No matter what
A woman should be respected

Diamond098454:
You are being economical with the truth

Host78:
Before now everyone say don't touch a woman no matter what.

That landscape is changing really quickly. Men today are saying "if you hit, you should be able to take back"

And this taking back is where the danger lies for women in the future.

Women have rights not because they are deserving of these rights or because they "fought" for these rights.

Women got their rights because stronger men allowed it.

Yes, women have rights because men allowed it.

They may think they fought for their rights. But there was no fighting at all.

Men simply passed laws to protect them. And these laws are not built in nature. They are merely documents protected by strong men.

And like every document, they can be torn up and thrown into the trash bins by the strongest (which are always men).

Take for instance, in democracy the government is protected by constitution which is merely a piece of paper protected by the strongest (our armed forces)

Once sufficient numbers of armed forces get together and say no to it, the president and civilians suddenly become powerless.

Yes, now the president can reign supreme, pretend to be all powerful and behave like he's the almighty.

But that's because the armies are playing the pretend game of living by the constitution.

And I think women today are pushing most men towards each other.

They are daring more men and these men are getting into the same mental space.

And more importantly, they are banding together on social media.

A few years ago, it was believe all women, today fewer and fewer men are believing women.

A few years ago, a man gives up his chair to a woman, opens doors and will stop to help if she's been attacked.

Today, no man does this.

That protective nature which made men draft women's right is getting lost and once that is completel eroded, it becomes the survival of the strongest.

Nyascobar1414:
.

Tell me more sir about this females 😹
Are they really of the devil?

Dtruthspeaker:
Track and watch their behaviours and speech,you would see that they always behave like devul.

Tenrack:
once again, I pity man wey dey take that gender seriously. For me I have started seeing them as nothing but tools for pleasure and recreation. Expecting them to be more than these, is inviting trouble and great disappointment

Dtruthspeaker:
You are still in their trap if you see them as instruments of pleasure

Tenrack:
so avoiding them totally?

Merry100:
Wow ... you have single-handedly condensed centuries of history, law, and human civilization into the idea that everything depends on the ego of the strongest man. Lazy ass, you simply don't understand power, society, or rights.

Let me unpack your masterpiece of nonsense: Women didn't receive rights because men woke up generous one morning. They protested, resisted, voted, and risked their lives to force societies to change. Laws weren't written out of kindness; they were written because chaos, oppression, and brute force don't work long-term.

Muscle isn't power. Real power is political, moral, and social. Without laws, institutions, and societal order, even the strongest would be unsafe, and nothing could be controlled.

Your obsession with "survival of the strongest" exposes the biggest flaw in your argument: if humans truly lived by brute strength, there would be no laws, no armies, no governments; and people like you wouldn't last long at all. Life doesn't reward ego; it rewards cooperation, intelligence, and systems. That is why civilization exists.

What we call armies would just be organized mobs if they weren't operating within laws and societal systems. Strength alone never guarantees control. Even armies are not powerful on their own, they are tools of power
shaped by political leadership, and the legitimacy that directs their use. Which is why they surrender when larger systems, alliances, or collective pressures demand it.

Rights aren't pieces of paper protected by men or fragile gifts from strong men. They are social contracts that protect everyone, including ordinary men like you. The "survival of the strongest" idea is a naive fantasy: the same laws that protect women also prevent someone stronger from taking what you have. Strip those away, and you don't become powerful; you become expendable.

Strong female leaders, like Queen Elizabeth I, ruled and survived because they understood power, laws, alliances, and institutions; not through physical strength. Strength alone never guarantees survival or power; something your whole argument completely ignores.

Civilization isn't about brute force; it's about cooperation, intelligence, and systems. Social media hasn't erased men's protective nature; it exposes insecurity in men who confuse dominance with strength and fear equality because it removes imagined leverage.

If rights only exist because men allow them, then your entire sense of security depends on pretending civilization is optional. It isn't. And if "survival of the strongest" were true, trust me; you wouldn't even survive a week.

Stop fantasizing about power and start understanding why society exists in the first place. Laws and rights aren't optional gifts; they are the backbone of civilization.

Dtruthspeaker:
Totally, avoid having sex with them and you would be fine

Merry100:
Wow ... you have single-handedly condensed centuries of history, law, and human civilization into the idea that everything depends on the ego of the strongest man. Lazy ass, you simply don't understand power, society, or rights.

Let me unpack your masterpiece of nonsense: Women didn't receive rights because men woke up generous one morning. They protested, resisted, voted, and risked their lives to force societies to change. Laws weren't written out of kindness; they were written because chaos, oppression, and brute force don't work long-term.

Muscle isn't power. Real power is political, moral, and social. Without laws, institutions, and societal order, even the strongest would be unsafe, and nothing could be controlled.

Your obsession with "survival of the strongest" exposes the biggest flaw in your argument: if humans truly lived by brute strength, there would be no laws, no armies, no governments; and people like you wouldn't last long at all. Life doesn't reward ego; it rewards cooperation, intelligence, and systems. That is why civilization exists.

What we call armies would just be organized mobs if they weren't operating within laws and societal systems. Strength alone never guarantees control. Even armies are not powerful on their own, they are tools of power
shaped by political leadership, and the legitimacy that directs their use. Which is why they surrender when larger systems, alliances, or collective pressures demand it.

Rights aren't pieces of paper protected by men or fragile gifts from strong men. They are social contracts that protect everyone, including ordinary men like you. The "survival of the strongest" idea is a naive fantasy: the same laws that protect women also prevent someone stronger from taking what you have. Strip those away, and you don't become powerful; you become expendable.

Strong female leaders, like Queen Elizabeth I, ruled and survived because they understood power, laws, alliances, and institutions; not through physical strength. Strength alone never guarantees survival or power; something your whole argument completely ignores.

Civilization isn't about brute force; it's about cooperation, intelligence, and systems. Social media hasn't erased men's protective nature; it exposes insecurity in men who confuse dominance with strength and fear equality because it removes imagined leverage.

If rights only exist because men allow them, then your entire sense of security depends on pretending civilization is optional. It isn't. And if "survival of the strongest" were true, trust me; you wouldn't even survive a week.

Stop fantasizing about power and start understanding why society exists in the first place. Laws and rights aren't optional gifts; they are the backbone of civilization.

Host78:
You talk too many things that are untrue.

Regardless of psychology or politics, strength is the sole determiner of power.

Politics, religion and psychology only works when there's already an underlying physical strength.

For instance, regardless of the psychology or religion or politics of the Venezuelan president, without the strength, he's an underdog.

During the race for the atomic bomb, the world was almost at an equilibrium regardless of politics, psychology or religion. Nations possessing these deadly weapons have the strength and they make and break rules as long as their interest is ensured.

Forget those tiny games in your brain. It bears no bearing in the real world unless there are made up rules by the strong.

And queen Elizabeth wasn't a queen because of anything spectacular or because she played any spectacular games.

She was because there was long an established order by her father's and forefathers which the people have come to accept and respect.

It's much like the african kings whose sons get elected almost by nature regardless of their age.

I mean, 7 years old boys were being made kings, were they also playing some spectacular psychological games to keep the people in line?

Again, this only happens because of the consequences of 1. A long established order and 2. Dedication of the physical force (the armies) to preserve these orders.

Now in a world where the dominant force start banding together and having the same thoughts towards the female gender they should watch out.

These same strong men once band together to create the background leveled society they can play their games in (protest for rights, legislate and so on)

The same men can scatter that background and pull every right away.

It happens all the time. Look at war times.

Ordinary, you cannot kîll anyone anywhere in the world and go free. But in war time, the strong men suddenly pull the constitution away and suddenly it becomes legal to kîll.

You think anything changed other than the withdrawal of the constitution?

I use to say this to my friends "while the Christians in Nigeria are trying to be politically correct and sensible, the Muslim terrorists don't care.

And who do you think are dying?

Politics, psychology, religion etc all mean nothing without raw strength in the background holding things together.

So much delusion. If strength alone ruled, why can't a physically strong man just walk into Aso Rock and take power? Or why can't Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson stroll into the White House tomorrow and declare himself president? He can't because real power isn't muscle; it is systems, alliances, legitimacy, and strategy. Even the strongest person cannot override the structures that organize and protect authority.

Host78:
@merry100

I stopped reading here because this opening alone shows that you have zero idea what I'm talking about.



For one, the strongest man cannot single handedly walk into Aso Rock because Aso Rock is protected by a strength greater than his, the military.

I have highlighted this many times in my writing.

Now the military is the strongest force of any nation and anytime they get organized and agree on any rule, that rule becomes the constitution.

In fact, if the military agree that civilian rule must come to an end today, the constitution will be torn up and your courts becomes useless.

Again strength alone is the reason for everything stability in a country.

There's nothing like systems, organizations or whatever.

There's only force. If the force is sufficient, every other thing permitted by that force thrives.

If the US force is sufficient, it can allow Nigeria to have sovereignty or remove the president today if it wants.

Doesn't matter the systems nigeria have in place.

This is why every powerful country spends heavily first on military and not politics, religion, systems or psychology.

The force comes first because without it, nothing else matters.

Now imagine a man who is stronger than any human. An indestructible man.

Think of superman.

If he wants power, he'll take over the whole world and bring everyone to their knees regardless of their "alliance, systems or whatever you can think of.

Watch every superman movies, there's always a quiet fear in which the people fears that since they cannot destroy him, he might want to rule the world.

So, the military first line is always to fight that superman, and then you hear quality from superman like, I do not wish to fight you or take over.

They make him a moral being. One that wants to be good.

Now let's look at AI. Imagine an Ai that's indestructible, super intelligent beyond your comprehension.

You think the AI wants to form alliances, be under your constitution and obey your tiny minds?

Why exactly do you think we fear AI? it's because it's a power far greater than anything we've got at the moment.

But even more so, we cannot control it. And so if we cannot control it, how does our alliances matter?

I can give you a gazillion examples but you just cannot comprehend it because your mind is fixed on the stability of the system and not the chaos.

Image: power is power. Nothing else matters.