₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Every grown person knows what bias is and the types of bias people play and how biased people never listen to nor consider any information opposing their bias. And that is what you have already done as your question "Where did you get your data, analysis, and survey to come..." proves it. Especially as I even showed you where they all came from in rebuttal of the facts that fuel your bias, yet here you asking for what I have already answered.

So, your bias rules you beyond reason and you cannot be reasoned out of it especially as it stands you have still not challenged none of my rebuttals.

which rebuttals did you reveal here that i will have to challenge?...
By using an olosho and a thief example..is that even a befitting rebuttal to the previous discourse?
You haven't given me any reasonable tangible data, or questionnaires you carried out recording the content of discussion neither have you given me analysis and statistics for you to arrive at this ur futile conclusions?

Your rebuttal of your olosho and thief analogy is very lame..as I have given you a rebuttal on that as well whereby the double standards is seen visible in a realistic perspective...you are just going in circles

Umbrateeth04:
which rebuttals did you reveal here that i will have to challenge?...
By using an olosho and a thief example..is that even a befitting rebuttal to the previous discourse?
You haven't given me any reasonable tangible data, or questionnaires you carried out recording the content of discussion neither have you given me analysis and statistics for you to arrive at this ur futile conclusions?

Your rebuttal of your olosho and thief analogy is very lame..as I have given you a rebuttal on that as well whereby the double standards is seen visible in a realistic perspective...you are just going in circles

Is it now after you have already responded to it but you could not counter it that you real eyes that it is not a "befitting rebuttal"?

Now you are lying that you countered it forgetting that this is a thread and that everything we said is permanently recorded down here and you cannot change your mouth by Lying.

And your Lying just makes it worse and proves that you do not have any valid argument to make again so now you have started resorting to lying in your loss of the argument.

See what you said.

"cut that crap

You forgotten the adage used by your fellow scum men...I type in quote "a padlock which many key can open is disregarded as useless and should subsequebtly be thrown away while a key that opens many padlock is called the masterkey"....you failed to understand that women will be shamed for doing the exact thing men do..to them men and women are not the same...stop trying to defend what is undefendable

You mentioned the 2natashas...hahaha haha boy is trying to use the minority to uphold a vague viewpoint
1.How many matriarch do we have as opposed to patriarch?...."


I knew you were going to forget what you have said and that you must lie when you real eyes that you don't have any valid argument to make again. So, i set you up.

And now you real eyes you have nothing to reasonable and valid to say again, do noe you have returned back to your very statement, which of course you thought was a counter at the time whereas the whole thing was OFF POINT and Fallacy of Appeal to the suffering of woman

The issue is not whether the woman is shamed nor that men do the same thing (Tu que quo Fallacy) nor that many women do not achieve matriarchy.

All these are Outside the point of argument (O.P) OFF POINT

Whereas the, point is what valid counter can you give to my rebuttal that when you do a wrong and disgraceful thing, you get lowered and shamed and all your equals will become better than you.

And there is nothing like that here.
Only empty wailings and emotional noise making.

Umbrateeth04:
Point of correction equality never existed even before the fall/curse
evidence that God established a functional hierarchy from the start.
Key Arguments for Pre-Fall Inequality
often from a complementarian perspective, suggest that while Adam and Eve were equal in essence (both bearing God's image), they were unequal in role and authority based on the following:
The Order of Creation: The fact that Adam was created first is seen as a sign of "primogeniture"—the biblical principle where the firstborn or first-created holds the leadership position.
The Source of the Mandate: God gave the original command regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam before Eve was created. This implies Adam was the primary moral guardian and was responsible for teaching the law to Eve.
The Naming of Eve: In ancient biblical culture, naming something was an act of exercising authority over it. Adam named the animals, and he also named his partner "Woman" (Ishshah) before the Fall.
The Purpose of Creation: Genesis 2:18, which states Eve was created for Adam to be his "helper" (ezer). the direction of this service (Eve helping Adam, rather than Adam helping Eve) indicates a specific authority structure.
Representational Headship: When humanity fell, God called out to Adam first, even though Eve had eaten the fruit first. this shows God held Adam accountable as the "head" or legal representative of the pair...

Though, this departs from the point but i will address it.

And correction as you can see that the name "Eve" came only after she had made them fall but her name too was Adam. Genesis 5:2 shows you this.

So, you see, even the name "Adam" belonged to both of them even though male Adam was first.

So you see none of these prove that male Adam was superior to female Adam for Genesis 1: 26 -31/ 2:23 and 25 shows that everything male Adam had was equally shared by female Adam, even down to his name.

Thus, when God was calling for Adam after the fruit, any of them could have answered but female Adam could not answer because she was more wrong than male Adam so, knowing women she must push him to answer on their behalf for as we all know that a person who has sinned the most cannot come out from hiding first exactly how the student who always comes late is always at the back of the line of late comers. (Anyway, this is aside)

But the bottomline is that there is no evidence of male Adam being superior to female Adam before the fall and all that you presented are unsubstantiated constructs created to give male Adam an edge of superiority over female Adam because they could find no substance.

9

Dtruthspeaker:
Though, this departs from the point but i will address it.

And correction as you can see that the name "Eve" came only after she had made them fall but her name too was Adam. Genesis 5:2 shows you this.

So, you see, even the name "Adam" belonged to both of them even though male Adam was first.

So you see none of these prove that male Adam was superior to female Adam for Genesis 1: 26 -31/ 2:23 and 25 shows that everything male Adam had was equally shared by female Adam, even down to his name.

Thus, when God was calling for Adam after the fruit, any of them could have answered but female Adam could not answer because she was more wrong than male Adam so, knowing women she must push him to answer on their behalf for as we all know that a person who has sinned the most cannot come out from hiding first exactly how the student who always comes late is always at the back of the line of late comers. (Anyway, this is aside)

But the bottomline is that there is no evidence of male Adam being superior to female Adam before the fall and all that you presented are unsubstantiated constructs created to give male Adam an edge of superiority over female Adam because they could find no substance.

you are even more ignorant than i thought you are

Let me school you..you naive, clueless, unknowledgeable being
In Book of Genesis 5:2, the verse says that God “called their name Adam” (in some translations). Here’s what that means:
The word “Adam” comes from the Hebrew (adam)”, which can mean “human,” “mankind,” or “humankind”, not just a specific male name.
So in this verse, it’s being used in a collective sense—referring to both the man and the woman together as humanity.
What about Eve?
The woman is specifically named Eve later in Genesis 3:20, where Adam gives her that name.
Simple takeaway
Genesis 5:2 is not saying Eve’s personal name was Adam.
It’s saying that both male and female together were called “human” (Adam) in a general sense...

I still repeat Adam and eve were not equal before the curse take for instance their biological and physical differences as evidence that God did not intend for them to be equal in role or authority, even before the Fall.
The primary arguments regarding physical strength include:
Designed for Protection and Labor:Adam was created with greater physical strength, he was naturally designed for the roles of protector and provider. if God intended for them to be interchangeable or exactly equal, He would have given them identical physical capabilities.
The "Weaker Vessel" Concept: Some interpretations of 1 Peter 3:7, which refers to women as the "weaker vessel," are applied retrospectively to the Garden of Eden. this "weakness" refers to a physical body that is a "vessel" for the soul, suggesting that while their spirits may be equal, their physical design creates a natural hierarchy of capability.
Adam’s Role as Worker: Adam was placed in the garden to "till and keep it" (Genesis 2:15) before Eve was created. this heavy physical labor was assigned specifically to him because of his superior strength, establishing a distinct, non-equal role from the beginning.
Eve as the "Helper": the term "helper" (ezer) implies a secondary role where Eve supports Adam's primary mission. her physical design—typically smaller and less muscular—was a deliberate choice to reflect this supportive, rather than leading, role.

Umbrateeth04:
sexist men don't share the same world view as yours...to sexist men penetration means dominance and power while reception means submissiveness and weakness..they don't uphold contrast as complimenting one another..they view it as a perfect definition of a master and slave.

how many matriarch do you know as opposed to patriarch?
How many Goddesses do you know as opposed to Gods?

Check every religion around you their God's always embody a male persona
The world ain't balanced..its All about the survival of the fittest...in which the strongest always triumph...while the weak will suffer shame, ridicule, Pains, anguish, agony and death...its a very sad reality

You see a strong successful independent financially stable woman who is blatantly shamed for not having a man tied to her...just one thing small minds falsely deems as flaws and error tragically undermines her success and achievement...we are in an era where a womans worth is tied to her husband while a spinster successful accomplished financially stable well to do woman is shamed...and the same is quite opposite of the male counterpart[/b]pathetic...the double standard is nauseating

Don't get it twisted I am with you on this however we cannot overlook the very system which brought about this dysfunctions and Stereotypes.

I don't blame women who wants to stay single and child free all the days of their lives as they have experienced patriarchy and have had an ugly bitter taste of it..[b]they are of the notion that if they are to create a world they are not safe in..then they better not create it at all...[b]do you think those women will be happy birthing their oppressors?

Come to think of it do you think animals don't have feelings?
We have encountered animals that display emotional pains and grief in the slaughter house...take for instance i have witnessed a horse shedding tears about knowing its inevitable fate of being slaughtered...animals have feelings they can distinguish pain from comfort..you will know this when you are a conc animal lover

That's why in my previous quote I used the analogy of a lion and an antelope.
It is in the nature of a lion to devour an antelope while it is the nature of an antelope not to fight back but to endure and escape hence from this allegory prejudice, sexism and misogyny was born, fed; groomed, nurtured and raised to lay its ugly head and deadly claws to traumatise, maim and kill those it perceive as weak, defenseless and powerless...
Pv
i dont blame men but i blame their creators for making them more powerful and ruthless

I get what you are saying. But, it's a little all over the place. We can't equate men to lions and women to antelopes, if we are gonna do that let's all be lions. That'l lions feed on antelope is a natural instinct.

Their creators didn't make anyone more special than the other. It is the men who told this lies that also told that their creator is male.

The world is held together by force, illusion, and inherited arrogance. The idea that men should rule because they are stronger is not wisdom, it is primitive thinking that survived long enough to disguise itself as truth.

Strength has never proven intelligence, only the ability to control, and control without restraint decays into chaos.

Before dominance hardened into systems, there were societies that understood balance. Not perfection, but cooperation. In places like Ancient Egypt, power was not imagined as a lone authority. Even in their divine order, figures like Isis stood alongside, not beneath.

Patriarchy is not nature, it is repetition turned into belief, a system that transformed difference into hierarchy.

Now the consequences unfold. Men cling to control, women resist subjugation, and both sides mirror the same struggle for dominance. This is not progress, it is conflict in symmetry. Relationships become contests, respect becomes conditional, and cooperation is mistaken for weakness.

Roycemadeit:
I get what you are saying. But, it's a little all over the place. We can't equate men to lions and women to antelopes, if we are gonna do that let's all be lions. That'l lions feed on antelope is a natural instinct.

Their creators didn't make anyone more special than the other. It is the men who told this lies that also told that their creator is male.

The world is held together by force, illusion, and inherited arrogance. The idea that men should rule because they are stronger is not wisdom, it is primitive thinking that survived long enough to disguise itself as truth.

Strength has never proven intelligence, only the ability to control, and control without restraint decays into chaos.

Before dominance hardened into systems, there were societies that understood balance. Not perfection, but cooperation. In places like Ancient Egypt, power was not imagined as a lone authority. Even in their divine order, figures like Isis stood alongside, not beneath.

Patriarchy is not nature, it is repetition turned into belief, a system that transformed difference into hierarchy.

Now the consequences unfold. Men cling to control, women resist subjugation, and both sides mirror the same struggle for dominance. This is not progress, it is conflict in symmetry. Relationships become contests, respect becomes conditional, and cooperation is mistaken for weakness.

its quite funny how you tossed the antelope aside as if it was an inconsequential fraction and centered more on the lion persona that's the same way sexism has closed their minds to the voice of women on prejudice and centered more on exalting themselves in the bandwagon of patriarchy..you said is in the nature of a lion to hunt for antelope...your points solidifies and strengthen the patriarchal system but you didn't notice that you inadvertently shot yourself in the leg. A sexist man can also say it is in his nature to dominate and rule over a woman...so therefore that makes him a man...after all his religious indoctrination permits that

The men didn't tell the lies..what their senses can see, observe and perceive became their reality

It was wisdom for them to decipher the contrast...they found weakness in the feminine figure..and were so smart enough to sabotage and exploit it...its another kind of wisdom that stood the test of time...and that was enough reason for it to be their truth

I disagree,,, you control what you have power over...and the controlled cannot rebel cos they lack the strength, willpower, fortitude and defence to resist oppression...chaos can never be in the picture cause the controlled was compelled by their controller to endure in silence...

Guy don't compare immortality with mortals...spirits are equal but when it takes on a human form then equality seizes to exist

Patriarchy is the nature.. for it to have stayed so long without confrontation or dethronement..then that's the model nature will follow till the end of time.

I object..men will keep on controlling like you previously typed in quote "that lion feeds on antelope it is a natural instinct"...so therefore it is the natural instinct of a man to assert his hunger for control on a woman..after all women will always resist but will eventually end up being controlled..just like the antelope will resist but later ends up being devored by the lion..it is the sad reality of life...both sides can never mirror the same struggle for dominance...it is not a conflict of two rivals of equal strength..this is a conflict of the powered and the powerless..one mirrors being dominated and the other mirrors being the dominator..this is progress to exalt patriarchy and belittle matriarchy..there was never a symmetry in the first place life itself is not balance the male figure is not identically proportional to the feminine figure so equality will never exist..so your point on this symmetry is null and void..there was never a contest in the first place majority are drooling over men for poverty alleviation scheme, to avoid loneliness and societial stigmatisation...the only contest is in the minority where we have Pack load of feminist and radical misandrist...their numbers are insignificant to start a revolt...yes respect has always been conditional...everybody wants what they want for their own personal gain..and lastly a beggar has no choice...if you can't beat them you join them to exalt patriarchy to high heavens..that's another form of weakness

Umbrateeth04:
its quite funny how you tossed the antelope aside as if it was an inconsequential fraction and centered more on the lion persona that's the same way sexism has closed their minds to the voice of women on prejudice and centered more on exalting themselves in the bandwagon of patriarchy..you said is in the nature of a lion to hunt for antelope...your points solidifies and strengthen the patriarchal system but you didn't notice that you inadvertently shot yourself in the leg. A sexist man can also say it is in his nature to dominate and rule over a woman... so therefore that makes him a man...after all his religious indoctrination permits that

The men didn't tell the lies..what their senses can see, observe and perceive became their reality

It was wisdom for them to decipher the contrast...they found weakness in the feminine figure..and were so smart enough to sabotage and exploit it...its another kind of wisdom that stood the test of time...and that was enough reason for it to be their truth

I disagree,,, you control what you have power over...and the controlled cannot rebel cos they lack the strength, willpower, fortitude and defence to resist oppression...chaos can never be in the picture cause the controlled was compelled by their controller to endure in silence...

Guy don't compare immortality with mortals...spirits are equal but when it takes on a human form then equality seizes to exist

Patriarchy is the nature.. for it to have stayed so long without confrontation or dethronement..then that's the model nature will follow till the end of time.

I object..men will keep on controlling like you previously typed in quote "that lion feeds on antelope it is a natural instinct"...so therefore it is the natural instinct of a man to assert his hunger for control on a woman..after all women will always resist but will eventually end up being controlled..just like the antelope will resist but later ends up being devored by the lion..it is the sad reality of life...both sides can never mirror the same struggle for dominance...it is not a conflict of two rivals of equal strength..this is a conflict of the powered and the powerless..one mirrors being dominated and the other mirrors being the dominator..this is progress to exalt patriarchy and belittle matriarchy..there was never a symmetry in the first place life itself is not balance the male figure is not identically proportional to the feminine figure so equality will never exist..so your point on this symmetry is null and void..there was never a contest in the first place majority are drooling over men for poverty alleviation scheme, to avoid loneliness and societial stigmatisation...the only contest is in the minority where we have Pack load of feminist and radical misandrist...their numbers are insignificant to start a revolt...yes respect has always been conditional...everybody wants what they want for their own personal gain..and lastly a beggar has no choice...if you can't beat them you join them to exalt patriarchy to high heavens..that's another form of weakness

You’re confusing what exists with what is justified.

A lion hunts out of natural instinct. A man dominating a woman is not instinct, it’s conditioning reinforced by culture, religion, and history. One is survival. The other is a system.

Power lasting a long time doesn’t make it natural, it just means it wasn’t challenged effectively. Slavery lasted too. That didn’t make it truth.

Roycemadeit:
You’re confusing what exists with what is justified.

A lion hunts out of natural instinct. A man dominating a woman is not instinct, it’s conditioning reinforced by culture, religion, and history. One is survival. The other is a system.

Power lasting a long time doesn’t make it natural, it just means it wasn’t challenged effectively. Slavery lasted too. That didn’t make it truth.

existence and justification are two sides of the same coin...human life requires a purpose or rational validation to be valid whereas a lion has found its purpose for hunting and killing antelopes and creating bloodlines.to the lion life itself has found validity in that course.both have found a different purpose to validate their existence..so what are you insinuating?

You are misinterpreting the whole concept...how you neglect the antelope persona is a cause for concern...you and the sexist are one and the same with a different agenda...if you claim one hunts to survive without taking into account the feeling of the antelope(the oppressed) then It also depicts that a man controlls a woman to create a survival hierarchy...a subject needs an object to survive while the object is at the mercy of the subject

Funny how you think this way...power lasting a long time is the nature...when a power is held by patriarchy and their is no disputable challenger or strong governing force against it then it becomes the nature...where you expecting matriarchs to dethrone it?. Oh don't be delusional...the same way a lion has been hunting antelope for survival since the beginning of time without any resistance or any force pulling it down in its mission is the same way patriarchy will forever control matriarchy
Slavery was a rule set up by the higher patriarchs but was the same time abolished by the same patriarchs ...cos lower patriarchs(the black men) were at the receiving end of the harsh treatment..they didn't abolish it because of women they abolished it cos the black men were at the receiving end of it...

Umbrateeth04:
9you are even more ignorant than i thought you are

Let me school you..you naive, clueless, unknowledgeable being
In Book of Genesis 5:2, the verse says that God “called their name Adam” (in some translations). Here’s what that means:
The word “Adam” comes from the Hebrew (adam)”, which can mean “human,” “mankind,” or “humankind”, not just a specific male name.
So in this verse, it’s being used in a collective sense—referring to both the man and the woman together as humanity.
What about Eve?
The woman is specifically named Eve later in Genesis 3:20, where Adam gives her that name.
Simple takeaway
Genesis 5:2 is not saying Eve’s personal name was Adam.
It’s saying that both male and female together were called “human” (Adam) in a general sense...

I still repeat Adam and eve were not equal before the curse take for instance their biological and physical differences as evidence that God did not intend for them to be equal in role or authority, even before the Fall.
The primary arguments regarding physical strength include:
Designed for Protection and Labor:Adam was created with greater physical strength, he was naturally designed for the roles of protector and provider. if God intended for them to be interchangeable or exactly equal, He would have given them identical physical capabilities.
The "Weaker Vessel" Concept: Some interpretations of 1 Peter 3:7, which refers to women as the "weaker vessel," are applied retrospectively to the Garden of Eden. this "weakness" refers to a physical body that is a "vessel" for the soul, suggesting that while their spirits may be equal, their physical design creates a natural hierarchy of capability.
Adam’s Role as Worker: Adam was placed in the garden to "till and keep it" (Genesis 2:15) before Eve was created. this heavy physical labor was assigned specifically to him because of his superior strength, establishing a distinct, non-equal role from the beginning.
Eve as the "Helper": the term "helper" (ezer) implies a secondary role where Eve supports Adam's primary mission. her physical design—typically smaller and less muscular—was a deliberate choice to reflect this supportive, rather than leading, role.

How you waste your time talking Off Point and on irrelevancies in the guise teaching is wonderful to behold.

And it just proves that you have nothing valid to say hence the resort to the fallacy of Red Herring.

In the end you said nothing.

And you can repeat all you want but you have still not given any valid counter to the argument and your red herring seals it.

If anything, you rather even confirmed that before the fall they were equal for he only called her eve after the fall which is what I have been saying since.

So, you see, you are arguing phoo....shly

Roycemadeit:
You’re confusing what exists with what is justified.

A lion hunts out of natural instinct. A man dominating a woman is not instinct, it’s conditioning reinforced by culture, religion, and history. One is survival. The other is a system.

Power lasting a long time doesn’t make it natural, it just means it wasn’t challenged effectively. [b]Slavery lasted too. That didn’t make it truth.

You too just made the same error of confusing what exists with what is justified for is slavery justified?

Umbrateeth04:
existence and justification are two sides of the same coin...human life requires a purpose or rational validation to be valid whereas a lion has found its purpose for hunting and killing antelopes and creating bloodlines.to the lion life itself has found validity in that course.both have found a different purpose to validate their existence..so what are you insinuating?

You are misinterpreting the whole concept...how you neglect the antelope persona is a cause for concern...you and the sexist are one and the same with a different agenda...if you claim one hunts to survive without taking into account the feeling of the antelope(the oppressed) then It also depicts that a man controlls a woman to create a survival hierarchy...a subject needs an object to survive while the object is at the mercy of the subject

Funny how you think this way...power lasting a long time is the nature...when a power is held by patriarchy and their is no disputable challenger or strong governing force against it then it becomes the nature...where you expecting matriarchs to dethrone it?. Oh don't be delusional...the same way a lion has been hunting antelope for survival since the beginning of time without any resistance or any force pulling it down in its mission is the same way patriarchy will forever control matriarchy
Slavery was a rule set up by the higher patriarchs but was the same time abolished by the same patriarchs ...cos lower patriarchs(the black men) were at the receiving end of the harsh treatment..they didn't abolish it because of women they abolished it cos the black men were at the receiving end of it...

Existence and justification are not the same thing. They only look like it when you benefit from the system in question.

A lion doesn’t justify anything. It doesn’t sit and construct meaning. It acts. Humans are different precisely because we question, evaluate, and change what exists. If survival alone justified behavior, then every form of oppression in history would be valid by default.

You keep bringing in the antelope, but the antelope resists. It runs, it fights, it adapts. That alone breaks your idea that the “object” exists to be controlled. In human society, women are not passive objects in a food chain. They think, resist, organize, and reshape systems. That’s why your analogy keeps collapsing. You’re forcing biology onto social structures.



And power lasting long doesn’t make it nature, it just means it faced limited resistance or had the tools to suppress it. _{P.S. Slave resistance wasn’t passive, it actively pushed the abolition of the slave trade.} By your logic, anything that dominates long enough becomes truth. That would make every empire, every injustice, every outdated system permanently correct.

Are you describing nature or are you describing dominance and calling it destiny?

Ow sorry Umbrateeth04, nairaland's bot is kicking out your answers because even them know that they are invalid (just kidding and hoping you truly do not have a valid counter )

Maybe if you remove all the words were you insalting me the bot may allow your post.

Dtruthspeaker:
How you waste your time talking Off Point and on irrelevancies in the guise teaching is wonderful to behold.

And it just proves that you have nothing valid to say hence the resort to the fallacy of Red Herring.

In the end you said nothing.

And you can repeat all you want but you have still not given any valid counter to the argument and your red herring seals it.

If anything, you rather even confirmed that before the fall they were equal for he only called her eve after the fall which is what I have been saying since.

So, you see, you are arguing phoo....shly

ur lucky the mods are removing my quotes...but I feel compelled to reply you out of pity to make you reason along rational lines..if I want I choose not to reply you but I will just to ascertain the vacuity rocking your boat...but I will reply u in a more civil manner just to avoid the bot removing my quotes

Back to the topic...funny how you didnt counter my previous rebuttal but went ahead going In circles as usual cheesy

Whereas the, point is what valid counter can you give to my rebuttal that when you do a wrong and disgraceful thing, you get lowered and shamed and all your equals will become better than you.

So this is lame👆 rebuttal that I highlighted above that keeps u bleating inconsistencies like a broken record?
How many men are shamed for sleeping with multiple women as compared to women sleeping with multiple men?...do the maths and see where the double standard lies
you fail to see in your state of cluelessness that women will be shamed and ridiculed for being a harlot while the casanova man in that regard would be respected and cherished

Your last paragraph..hahahahaha...Your lack of compr...ehension coupled with ur inappr..opriate choice of words is a cause for concern and shouldn't be ovelooked...man reflected the image of God more directly, while woman reflected it through man, implying a difference in the "nature" or standing of their souls...male soul was associated with "reason" and the female soul with "sensuality" or "emotion." this creates an inherent inequality in the spiritual essence of the two figures.

I suggest you join religious comedy as a circus clown 🤡 so you can act as a laughter of relief to help console religious maniacs like you to gather more momentum to spread uncertainty and misinformation...

Mutant001:
..
How many men are shamed for sleeping with multiple women as compared to women sleeping with multiple men?

Do you not know what Off Point/Change of Post in argument is?

Please go Google it, for this is Off Point.

And just to lightly respond to it, all men who are promiscuous are always shamed; all of them. That is why none of you would allow such a guy to even date, (not to talk of marry) your sister/cousin exactly how you guys don't want to date or marry OS.

https://www.nairaland.com/6643789/why-most-guys-dont-allow#103560131

https://www.nairaland.com/5476278/why-guys-hate-seeing-friends#83200136

And the only reason you all like and "respect" the promiscuous man is because of he is your best friend for for food, drink and girls and money (BFFDGM), if not, you all abuse him and call him a male hoe.

So, you still Missed even with this Off Point.

There is no valid argument you can make.

Roycemadeit:
Existence and justification are not the same thing. They only look like it when you benefit from the system in question.

A lion doesn’t justify anything. It doesn’t sit and construct meaning. It acts. Humans are different precisely because we question, evaluate, and change what exists. If survival alone justified behavior, then every form of oppression in history would be valid by default.

You keep bringing in the antelope, but the antelope resists. It runs, it fights, it adapts. That alone breaks your idea that the “object” exists to be controlled. In human society, women are not passive objects in a food chain. They think, resist, organize, and reshape systems. That’s why your analogy keeps collapsing. You’re forcing biology onto social structures.



And power lasting long doesn’t make it nature, it just means it faced limited resistance or had the tools to suppress it. _{P.S. Slave resistance wasn’t passive, it actively pushed the abolition of the slave trade.} By your logic, anything that dominates long enough becomes truth. That would make every empire, every injustice, every outdated system permanently correct.

Are you describing nature or are you describing dominance and calling it destiny?

what is existence without purpose?
Your create meaning to life to benefit from it and that alone can be justified.

A lion hunts for antelope to survive that alone is justified...in the animal kingdom there is circle of life and that circle of life is their system..one feeds on the other to exist and that alone is valid and has meaning...the same applies to human...patriarchy needs to dominate and control matriarchy to survive that's what creates distinction and differences..for patriarchy to have strived so long without objection, question, evaluation and changes then that means thats the guidlines nature mapped out for humans to follow...do you see a lion going to am..bush an antelope on a full stomach?..it only hunts when it's hungry...you see nature knows what it is doing...so any form of oppression has its validity if you do it for the right course

The antelope symbolises the weak effeminate nature of women...the antelope doesnt fight it only resist by escaping, enduring and adapting...the symbolism doesn't form a ruthless revolt...but a means of escaping or adapting to the harsh nature of patriarchy...it doesn't break anything cos even if the antelope resist by only escaping it will however be hunted down by a predator...its only means of survival is to come into the cognizance and awareness that it was created by nature to be feast upon by predators and by adaptability it should find awareness to escape whenever it sights a lion from afar...that alone doesn't stop the lion from being a predator or the antelope from being a prey...women are passive object in the food chain cos they don't create their own rules..they follow the rules mapped out by patriarchy...that alone is another form of control...they think organize and reshape structures only if the patriarchy approves of it..you have forgotten its a mans world...my analogy have never collapsed cos am presenting you reality the way it is..you on the otherhand have conflicting and unsettled analogy..you are just all over the place and unfixed ...biology have everything to do with social structures all thanks to nature for making the women weak and fragile

Me and you are not on the same page on this..let's get it straight...so you are saying a lion continuously feasting on an antelope doesnt make it nature?
That a lion since time immemorial keeps the antelope on his food menu and acting upon it without any strong force stopping it...simply means is how nature wanted it to be...so therefore that patriarchy had rained since the dawn of time without any opposition or striking force stopping it..so therefore is how nature wanted it to be...you are not getting it...slave trade was passive at a point in time that was why it took place in the first place...we call it "nature's long lived permanent marks"..then again why it was abolished was because slavery has already served its purpose and therefore it was no longer needed cos its job is complete.so what are you insinuating?..by my logic anything that dominates long and is still in existence is the truth..slave trade is a truth even though it outlived its lifespan..it was allowed by nature for a significant course and will forever be a permanent mark both in nature and history...for every injustice, empire and outdated system to stay this long simply means nature wanted it to be like that..nature removes whatever it wants to remove and keep whatever it wants to keep

Infact there are two sides of the same coin..one needs the other to feel nature..it is the nature of a lion to hunt antelope for survival and that alone makes him to feel like a lion...what is a predator without a prey?...and in that route has the lion found its destiny..so therefore does the patriarchy has to lead matriarchy to feel empowered and in control to find fulfillment and meaning to its existence.

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you not know what Off Point/Change of Post in argument is?

Please go Google it, for this is Off Point.

And just to lightly respond to it, all men who are promiscuous are always shamed; all of them. That is why none of you would allow such a guy to even date, (not to talk of marry) your sister/cousin exactly how you guys don't want to date or marry OS.

https://www.nairaland.com/6643789/why-most-guys-dont-allow#103560131

https://www.nairaland.com/5476278/why-guys-hate-seeing-friends#83200136

And the only reason you all like and "respect" the promiscuous man is because of he is your best friend for for food, drink and girls and money (BFFDGM), if not, you all abuse him and call him a male hoe.

So, you still Missed even with this Off Point.

There is no valid argument you can make.

how does this two topic u raised relate to the topic of discussion?..

What was our bone of contention you said if a man or a woman does bad thing he isn't equal to his mate...and I ask who is sinless In this world?

Then you gave unrelated statistics about how a man will protect his sister from his friend...doesn't it tell you that the man and his friend are birds of the same feather...This is common among play boys counting scores with women, building stats using ladies as data and gisting and laughing about these with their friends...while in the case of women they are being counted as scores, expanded pussiess, ashawo, public toilet, used and dumped and many more derogatory words society lashes them with...now off topic...my concern is the double standards between the male prostitute vs the female prostitute in the eyes of society...and I iterate that a male prostitute and a female prostitute won't be viewed in the same weight and angle when been justified...

Mutant001:
how does this two topic u raised relate to the topic of discussion?..

What was our bone of contention you said if a man or a woman does bad thing he isn't equal to his mate...and I ask who is sinless In this world?

Then you gave unrelated statistics about how a man will protect his sister from his friend...doesn't it tell you that the man and his friend are birds of the same feather...This is common among play boys counting scores with women, building stats using ladies as data and gisting and laughing about these with their friends...while in the case of women they are being counted as scores, expanded pussiess, ashawo, public toilet, used and dumped and many more derogatory words society lashes them with...now off topic...my concern is the double standards between the male prostitute vs the female prostitute in the eyes of society...and I iterate that a male prostitute and a female prostitute won't be viewed in the same weight and angle when been justified...

Now you are pretending to have amnesia whereas you just off pointedly asked in the post before this one "How many men are shamed for sleeping with multiple women..?" Hence why I showed you the threads proving that promiscuous men are equally shamed and have no worth when it matters just like women.

Also in the last post before this you stated what the issue was. No talk about who is not sinless.

All these you are saying are completely Off Point. The topic is not about male prost. and female olos

So, you see, like Roy, you cannot make any valid argument against my rebuttal. And that is the bottom line

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you are pretending to have amnesia whereas you just off pointedly asked in the post before this one "How many men are shamed for sleeping with multiple women..?" Hence why I showed you the threads proving that promiscuous men are equally shamed and have no worth when it matters just like women.

Also in the last post before this you stated what the issue was. No talk about who is not sinless.

All these you are saying are completely Off Point. The topic is not about male prost. and female olos

So, you see, like Roy, you cannot make any valid argument against my rebuttal. And that is the bottom line

just see how you are moving around in circles bleating contradictions and error

The number of men been shamed are insignificant compared to the number of women been shamed

I will talk about who is not sinless cos you started the sin mantra here..you said if a woman is an olosho he is automatically not equal to a man and blah blah..that was why I asked you who is not sinless?

Hahahahaha...see how your brain is retrogressing on a simple post?..That thread is not about promiscuous men been shamed..but about a promiscuous guy who wouldn't want his sister to be bleeped by his fellow promiscuous friend...this is a case of a casanova not wanting his sister to be among girls who will be used as scores during their ridicule session...he wouldn't mind an outside casanova bleeping his sister but wouldn't want his inner circle casanova friends do that...they are not shaming one another his preventing his sister from being an object of ridicule which will directly affect him...

so you see which ever way you turn it..you are been checkmated but I know you will be so clueless to see that...loooool

Mutant001:
what is existence without purpose?
Your create meaning to life to benefit from it and that alone can be justified.

A lion hunts for antelope to survive that alone is justified...in the animal kingdom there is circle of life and that circle of life is their system..one feeds on the other to exist and that alone is valid and has meaning...the same applies to human...patriarchy needs to dominate and control matriarchy to survive that's what creates distinction and differences..for patriarchy to have strived so long without objection, question, evaluation and changes then that means thats the guidlines nature mapped out for humans to follow...do you see a lion going to am..bush an antelope on a full stomach?..it only hunts when it's hungry...you see nature knows what it is doing...so any form of oppression has its validity if you do it for the right course

The antelope symbolises the weak effeminate nature of women...the antelope doesnt fight it only resist by escaping, enduring and adapting...the symbolism doesn't form a ruthless revolt...but a means of escaping or adapting to the harsh nature of patriarchy...it doesn't break anything cos even if the antelope resist by only escaping it will however be hunted down by a predator...its only means of survival is to come into the cognizance and awareness that it was created by nature to be feast upon by predators and by adaptability it should find awareness to escape whenever it sights a lion from afar...that alone doesn't stop the lion from being a predator or the antelope from being a prey...women are passive object in the food chain cos they don't create their own rules..they follow the rules mapped out by patriarchy...that alone is another form of control...they think organize and reshape structures only if the patriarchy approves of it..you have forgotten its a mans world...my analogy have never collapsed cos am presenting you reality the way it is..you on the otherhand have conflicting and unsettled analogy..you are just all over the place and unfixed ...biology have everything to do with social structures all thanks to nature for making the women weak and fragile

Me and you are not on the same page on this..let's get it straight...so you are saying a lion continuously feasting on an antelope doesnt make it nature?
That a lion since time immemorial keeps the antelope on his food menu and acting upon it without any strong force stopping it...simply means is how nature wanted it to be...so therefore that patriarchy had rained since the dawn of time without any opposition or striking force stopping it..so therefore is how nature wanted it to be...you are not getting it...slave trade was passive at a point in time that was why it took place in the first place...we call it "nature's long lived permanent marks"..then again why it was abolished was because slavery has already served its purpose and therefore it was no longer needed cos its job is complete.so what are you insinuating?..by my logic anything that dominates long and is still in existence is the truth..slave trade is a truth even though it outlived its lifespan..it was allowed by nature for a significant course and will forever be a permanent mark both in nature and history...for every injustice, empire and outdated system to stay this long simply means nature wanted it to be like that..nature removes whatever it wants to remove and keep whatever it wants to keep

Infact there are two sides of the same coin..one needs the other to feel nature..it is the nature of a lion to hunt antelope for survival and that alone makes him to feel like a lion...what is a predator without a prey?...and in that route has the lion found its destiny..so therefore does the patriarchy has to lead matriarchy to feel empowered and in control to find fulfillment and meaning to its existence.

Frankly, I don't know why it's pretty difficult to comprehend my argument. I'll try to augment it for better clarity.


You all keep calling everything “nature” as if that automatically makes it right. It doesn’t.

A lion doesn’t justify its actions, it acts on instinct.

Humans do something different, we build systems, assign roles, and then try to defend them. That’s not nature, that’s choice layered over biology. The moment you start talking about “purpose” and “validation,” you’ve already left the animal kingdom.

The analogy fails because women are not antelopes.

Antelopes don’t organize, challenge systems, or rewrite structures. Humans do. Women have resisted, shaped societies, and changed laws repeatedly. Ignoring that doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it selective.

And this idea that “whatever lasts long is natural and therefore justified” collapses under its own weight. As I wrote earlier, by that logic, every injustice becomes truth simply because it endured.

You may not be reasoning here but accepting power without questioning it.

Mutant001:
just see how you are moving around in circles bleating contradictions and error

The number of men been shamed are insignificant compared to the number of women been shamed

I will talk about who is not sinless cos you started the sin mantra here..you said if a woman is an olosho he is automatically not equal to a man and blah blah..that was why I asked you who is not sinless?

Hahahahaha...see how your brain is retrogressing on a simple post?..That thread is not about promiscuous men been shamed..but about a promiscuous guy who wouldn't want his sister to be bleeped by his fellow promiscuous friend...this is a case of a casanova not wanting his sister to be among girls who will be used as scores during their ridicule session...he wouldn't mind an outside casanova bleeping his sister but wouldn't want his inner circle casanova friends do that...they are not shaming one another his preventing his sister from being an object of ridicule which will directly affect him...

so you see which ever way you turn it..you are been checkmated but I know you will be so clueless to see that...loooool

Says the one who has been running all over the place talking Off Point since in your desperation to find something to say.
And, yet, finding nothing you are still talking Off Point, and now trying to pin a fabricated issue on me as you are still forgetting that this is a thread, so everything is recorded, so no change of post for you.

So, i had checkmated you since i told you that you had nothing to valid to say and you have been changing post since only for you to still find that my knights and rook and bishop have you snipered dead. So keep moving you would still find that you still have no more moves to make and that this was over since since even before i told you that there is no valid argument against the Truth.

Roycemadeit:
Frankly, I don't know why it's pretty difficult to comprehend my argument. I'll try to augment it for better clarity.

You all keep calling everything “nature” as if that automatically makes it right. It doesn’t.

A lion doesn’t justify its actions, it acts on instinct.

Humans do something different, we build systems, assign roles, and then try to defend them. That’s not nature, that’s choice layered over biology. The moment you start talking about “purpose” and “validation,” you’ve already left the animal kingdom.

The analogy fails because women are not antelopes.

Antelopes don’t organize, challenge systems, or rewrite structures. Humans do. Women have resisted, shaped societies, and changed laws repeatedly. Ignoring that doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it selective.

And this idea that “whatever lasts long is natural and therefore justified” collapses under its own weight. As I wrote earlier, by that logic, every injustice becomes truth simply because it endured.

You may not be reasoning here but accepting power without questioning it.

You are just going to argue with him forever as he thinks arguments are won only when an opponent stops arguing.

I don't think he got the memo that

You don’t win a debate by suppressing discussion; you win it with a better argument.
Frank Sonnenberg,