₦airaland Forum

MaziObinnaokija:
USELESS XENO REPUBLIC. The people sha don comot from una country .Body go tell una soon

Oh wow! This coming from a Nigerian whose country literally allows illegal immigrants with machine guns to roam its streets, massacring its people with impunity?

floss:
Future generations will wonder why other African countries hate South Africa after their people feed them half baked truth on history

Let me guess, current generations love Nigeria more for allowing illegal migrants with machine guns to roam its streets, massacring and raping women and children?

jordyspices:
Rubbish set of people that's why the whole of africa no like them

Oh wow! This coming from a Nigerian whose country literally allows illegal immigrants with machine guns to roam its streets, massacring its people with impunity?

Shellsploit:
Xenophobic action Like for Nigeria, share for xenophobians

Oh wow! This coming from a Nigerian whose country literally allows illegal immigrants with machine guns to roam its streets, massacring its people with impunity? Yes, likes should be for allowing illegal migrants coming in to massacre your Nigerian people.

Kobojunkie:
Oh wow! This coming from a Nigerian whose country literally allows illegal immigrants with machine guns to roam its streets, massacring its people with impunity? Yes, likes should be for allowing illegal migrants coming in to massacre your Nigerian people.

Who says Nigeria is "allowing" them?

morpheus24:
➜Who says Nigeria is "allowing" them?

Wait a second! Are you not a progressive globalist, one of those who believe that people should be allowed to flow in and out of any space they choose?

Nigeria literally has no border walls or security, and these invaders are not only allowed to flow in freely but also allowed to roam unimpeded by the Nigerian government. What part of that appears counter to the meaning of the term "Allow"?

Kobojunkie:
Wait a second! Are you not a progressive globalist, one of those who believe that people should be allowed to flow in and out of any space they choose?

Yes. They've been doing it since the dawn of time. Its just regulated now.

Kobojunkie:
Nigeria literally has no border walls or security, and these invaders are not only allowed to flow in freely but also allowed to roam unimpeded by the Nigerian government. What part of that appears counter to the meaning of the term "Allow"?

Those invaders are counter intuitive to the meaning of "freedom of movement" since they have sinister motives and evil intent.

morpheus24:
➜Yes. They've been doing it since the dawn of time. Its just regulated now.
➜ Those invaders are counter intuitive to the meaning of "freedom of movement" since they have sinister motives and evil intent.

1. That is obviously not true! Humans have almost always been territorial.

2. I am sorry, what? 😒😒

Are you telling me that you are not necessarily for handing freedom of movement to everyone after all? 😒😒

Northsouth:
Me I don't hate them
Nigeria don do Ghana must go before
These policies are right sometimes for some countries
Of course you can't understand such necessary steps.
I guess you're my fellow Nigerian with just different view

So we should not complain, go and read better about lots of countries that have done such and some such as America self are part of the recent

Sometimes hard choice to clean the country are strongest to make

We self suppose do Niger must go with all those illegal Niger people coming in from the north

I Hope you Know Ghana first did Nigeria must go ?... I am sure you won't know that ...or probably chose to be blind to that ...but then ..during those Times ...did you ever hear in history that Nigeria and Ghana were violent against each other ?

Kobojunkie:
1. That is obviously not true! Humans have almost always been territorial.

If they didn't move and were basically territorial, how did they populate the entire planet and inter breed to produce different types of populations?

Kobojunkie:
Are you telling me that you are not necessarily for handing freedom of movement to everyone after all? 😒😒

You don't "hand" freedom of movement to anyone. Its a fundamental human right that people with power and control of resources try to limit.

morpheus24:
➜If they didn't move and were basically territorial, how did they populate the entire planet and inter breed to produce different types of populations?
➜You don't "hand" freedom of movement to anyone. Its a fundamental human right that people with power and control of resources try to limit.

1. I think you probably need to look up the meaning of the term. Saying that humans are territorial refers to our human need to claim, control, and defend specific spaces, resources, or even abstract concepts (like ideas or relationships) as our own. Doing that does not deter migration when necessary. Humans, also like animals, migrate as needed to form new territories or with the hopes of joining other already established territories.

2. Yet moments ago, you suggested that this right be denied the terrorists ravaging Nigeria and Nigerians' lives. How come?

More importantly, what exactly is the force behind this so-called right, which you claim as a fundamental human right? What Force out there is there to enforce/provide needed backing for this right, which you claim all humans have?

Kobojunkie:
1. I think you probably need to look up the meaning of the term. Saying that humans are territorial refers to our human need to claim, control, and defend specific spaces, resources, or even abstract concepts (like ideas or relationships) as our own. Doing that does not deter migration when necessary. Humans, also like animals, migrate as needed to form new territories or with the hopes of joining other already established territories.

Ergo nature has thus endowed us to be both territorial in nature as a means of survival owing to the the concepts you have listed above and adventurous- the need to seek out new spaces as a means of that same survival instinct. If we don't move we become extinct.

Kobojunkie:
2. Yet moments ago, you suggested that this right be denied the terrorists ravaging Nigeria and Nigerians' lives. How come?

Remind me of that again. I have no clue what you are on about?

Kobojunkie:
More importantly, what exactly is the force behind this so-called right, which you claim as a fundamental human right? What Force out there is there to enforce/provide needed backing for this right, which you claim all humans have?

Nature-natural design

morpheus24:
➜Ergo nature has thus endowed us to be both territorial in nature as a means of survival owing to the the concepts you have listed above and adventurous- the need to seek out new spaces as a means of that same survival instinct.
➜ If we don't move we become extinct.
➜Remind me of that again. I have no clue what you are on about?
➜Nature-natural design

1. This literally reads like gobbledegook!

2. What a crock of bull! The Aboriginals of Australia have inhabited the land for 50,000 to 70,000 years. They didn't move, and they are doing well to this day. The Chinese have lived mostly in China for about 4000 years now. There are examples out there to help you realize the absurdity of what you keep regurgitating!
3. These are your own words.

morpheus24:
...Those invaders are counter intuitive to the meaning of "freedom of movement" since they have sinister motives and evil intent.

If it is not a fundamental human right than what the heck is this nonsense you keep referring to as a right?

4. Nature comes down to enforce it? How? How does nature go about enforcing this so-called right when by your own words, it can be restricted by human laws and actions?

Murketeer:
I Hope you Know Ghana first did Nigeria must go ?... I am sure you won't know that ...or probably chose to be blind to that ...but then ..during those Times ...did you ever hear in history that Nigeria and Ghana were violent against each other ?

yes I know Ghana did it first, I only mentioned the Nigeria own Ghana must go as a notice to Nigerians that our country self don chase foreigners self before.
Just to let you guys know it's normal sometimes and it's any country's decision
Though am strongly against the violence some south Africans have resulted to
And I believe the Nigerian government have a responsibility to ensure the south Africa government too take responsibility in securing the lives and properties of those foreigners even if they have to go

Many people are only getting me wrong
Anyway I hope you do understand my point

Kobojunkie:
1. This literally reads like gobbledegook!

Take it as you will.

Kobojunkie:
2. What a crock of bull! The Aboriginals of Australia have inhabited the land for 50,000 to 70,000 years. They didn't move, and they are doing well to this day. The Chinese have lived mostly in China for about 4000 years now. There are examples out there to help you realize the absurdity of what you keep regurgitating!

Reasoning in the same breadth as the above statement it is also clear that the Aboriginals did not exist in that land 100,000 years ago. What pushed them into the island of Australia?

The Chinese did not originate in the Land mass as they do today 100,000 years ago. How did they end up there.

The Chinese are are spread out all over the globe today. Why did they not stay put in China. What drives them to move anywhere else but the land that has been created for them?

Kobojunkie:
3. These are your own words. If it is not a fundamental human right than what the heck is this nonsense you keep referring to as a right? :-

A fundamental right is that which we cognitively and collectively recognize as being endowed by a force or power beyond us such as the right to life. If you didn't have this right then we all would be free to go about killing each other willy nilly.

Even animals are cognitive of this law of nature which is why a Lion hunts a herd of zebra for food and not for sport.

Kobojunkie:
4. Nature comes down to enforce it? How? How does nature go about enforcing this so-called right when by your own words, it can be restricted by human laws and actions?

You cannot restrict nature's laws, you can only delay them. You will die one day because your body will wear out eventually. You can delay that process but you cannot stop it.

morpheus24:
➜Take it as you will. Reasoning in the same breadth as the above statement it is also clear that the Aboriginals did not exist in that land 100,000 years ago. What pushed them into the island of Australia?
The Chinese did not originate in the Land mass as they do today 100,000 years ago. How did they end up there. The Chinese are are spread out all over the globe today. Why did they not stay put in China. What drives them to move anywhere else but the land that has been created for them?
➜ A fundamental right is that which we cognitively and collectively recognize as being endowed by a force or power beyond us such as the right to life.
➜ If you didn't have this right then we all would be free to go about killing each other willy nilly.
➜ Even animals are cognitive of this law of nature which is why a Lion hunts a herd of zebra for food and not for sport.
➜ You cannot restrict nature's laws, you can only delay them. You will die one day because your body will wear out eventually. You can delay that process but you cannot stop it.

1. So, never mind that the two groups marked their territories in which they have mostly lived for thousands of years, you bring it down to the claim that since they must have moved at one point in time, therefore, that nonsensical idea of yours must apply? I see why folks try their best to avoid engaging people with these sorts of talking points.

2. Who are the we in this case, the power behind this illusion you claim as a right? Endowed by what force or power?

3. This makes no sense! How does not having this "freedom of movement" right result in a freedom to kill each other? Please, help me make this make sense!

4. Now, I know you are just bullsheeting! Does a lion hunting prey amount to a lion having the right to freedom of movement? Are you sheeting me? Actually, you are definitely sheeting!

5. This is literally hogwash thinking!

Kobojunkie:
1. So, never mind that the two groups marked their territories in which they have mostly lived for thousands of years, you bring it down to the claim that since they must have moved at one point in time, therefore, that nonsensical idea of yours must apply? I see why folks try their best to avoid engaging people with these sorts of talking points.

Marking one's territory does not negate the fundamental right of people to move from one place to another. The same people who marked these territories were "free" to move to those territories. This is not hard to comprehend.

Kobojunkie:
2. Who are the we in this case, the power behind this illusion you claim as a right? Endowed by what force or power?

Why did your mother not unalive you when she had you. What force drove her to take care of you and nuture you?

Kobojunkie:
3. This makes no sense! How does not having this "freedom of movement" right result in a freedom to kill each other? Please, help me make this make sense!

One is a natural right the other is an abberation of nature.

Kobojunkie:
4. Now, I know you are just bullsheeting! Does a lion hunting prey amount to a lion having the right to freedom of movement? Are you sheeting me? Actually, you are definitely sheeting!

The Lion is designed to hunt for food and roams the savannah freely in the state of nature. If it is restricted by artificial forces or boundaries. It will eventually die.