₦airaland Forum

VolvoS60: Sir, I will concede that there may be more to this story than we know at the moment. We await further details.

But it isn't your place to say that resisting rape is 'not one of those things worth loosing life for'. It isn't your place to say that at all.

Do your research on rape and you may just be able to get a small, tiny glimpse into the pain and sorrow it causes its victims. There is no violation more painful and destructive than the violation of a woman's body.

Some women are simply not prepared to live with the aftermath and so they resist. Isn't that the expected reaction? Why should that choice be criticised? If all women had a choice in the matter, which woman would consent to rape?

Bro, please help me drum these words into the ears of my Nigerian brothers. Many of them are amazingly ignorant of what räpe means at all. Imagine some of them implying that since she is (presumably) not a virgin, then she should have given in. Or the one that is trying too hard to be smart claiming that because she is into Aristo affairs, she doesn't seem like she'd die fighting to ward off her assailants, therefore suggesting that there is more to the story (there really could be more indeed, but that's an incredibly poor logic to present). At times like this, I join my voice with those that clamour for homo armed robbers and let's see how many of these men will still maintain their idiotic stance.

pro01: Look, Mr. Man, I certainly have no time for any rigmarole with anyone over what is indeed a straight-forward matter. According to the report in the link below,
www.gistexpress.com/2012/09/10/female-student-murdered-by-armed-robbers-at-“aristos”-house/
the young lady was possibly killed in an Aristo's house. Seemingly, even the accounts that say she was killed in a "male friend's" house are only being charitable for the sake of decency.

Now, I insist that in my view, the sort of girl that engages in Aristo affairs or illicit liaisons doesn't look (i.e. seem) like the sort of girl that would rather die than be raped. One does not need to elaborate more on this. Whether or not you choose to understand this point of view is your damn business. I did suspect that you were trying to be clever by half.

I get into arguments and debates on my own terms and at my own leisure, not to humour some neophyte that has a point to prove. For now, I'd let the dead rest in peace. Feel free to continue your soliloquy if that helps your self-esteem.

You're getting worked up; relax.

As expected, you failed to offer a decent rebuttal. Of course you've got a ready cop-out to hide your blooper: "The argument does not interest me and I'd rather respect the dead by not engaging you" --- something you totally failed to consider initially when you bumped in here with your half-assed opinion formed from a gossip site. Even the gossip site people were smart enough to put "Aristo" in quote.

It is "a straight-forward matter", you say? Yet another fallacious appeal to common sense. You do realize that there is a stark difference between giving something freely of your own volition and having that same thing taken from you forcefully, right? You do realize that some people will go to any length to resist having what they normally give freely, taken from them without consent? I doubt you realize this.

Anyway, you, sir, should also feel free to continue "insisting in your view" about "the sort of girl she is" and what she is capable of doing to defend herself, even when you have already admitted that your opinion is based on a mere assumption (so much for respecting the dead), if it makes you sleep better at night.

In fact, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Do you have any reasonable argument to support your insistence that girls that engage in Aristo affairs are less/not likely to ward off räpe attacks even if it will cost them their life? Do you? I'd really love to read your brilliant analysis that formed this opinion in your mind. But then, I'm asking too much.

pro01: Well, with a little more discernment you would know I was even being charitable by putting it that way. The sort of girls that die fighting to defend their virtue can never be found dead in an aristo's house where they went to spend the night and whatnot (assuming that version of the story is true). But then, we have to respect the dead and leave it at that. No need to try and be clever by half.

I try not to read too much meaning into what people say beyond what they have unambiguously expressed, so you may want to leave the discernment talk out of it. Now to your main point. . .

1) Your initial comment suggested that your opinion about "the kind of girl she was", was based on how she "looked", and not as a result of where she had been or not been. Here's your comment in case you've forgotten what you typed earlier: "In my view, she doesn't look like the sort of girl that would prefer to die than be Molested." Maybe it was your choice of word, I don't know, but that's the impression I got.

2) You formed your opinion about the girl based on an unsubstantiated claim --- "assuming the version of the story is true" --- and then proceeded to build a fallacious argument on that. Faulty premise.

3) You then topped off your uninformed opinion by presenting a classical red herring fallacy to buttress it. Your argument as I see it:

(a) You presume knowledge about what all "aristocratic" girls are just capable of doing to defend whatever ounce of virtue they have left in them. In your opinion, they would "never" die fighting to defend their virtue -- this girl inclusive.

(b) Because they are already "immoral", they wouldn't bother to resist an (even greater) immoral act against them even if it will cost them their life. In this case, Wunmi Adebayo is already a "bad" girl and is therefore not likely to risk her life fighting her assailants. This is similar to saying that a pröstitute cannot be defiled, since she already "defiles" herself on a daily basis.

(c) Finally, you seem to suggest that warding off räpe attacks is essential only when the victim's virtue is in question. Again, this betrays an astonishing lack of understanding of what räpe constitutes on the part of the Nigerian menfolk. How about something as basic as human rights? Yes, she may give her body freely to all manner of men, but that does not mean she wouldn't fight to defend her right to refuse if there's no consent, even if she'll die in the process. Bro, even 'whores' have standards.

flanrey: What the thieves probably wanted was a quickie and she could've just succumbed.

No, you FLIPPING MORÖN! What the thieves wanted was not a 'quickie'. They wanted to RÄPE her!!

Do you understand that? Do you understand the word "räpe" at all? Of course not, you dimwit!

lol. . . Anony is quite an intelligent fellow, I must admit. He regularly employs the ultimate cop out when boxed to a tight corner: "God has a higher plan that is beyond our understanding" - basically rephrasing the biblical phrase, "His ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts."

Another Anony cop out: "It's his universe and he sets the rules. You don't like it? Go make your own universe!"

Anony's God appears to me very much like some divine Kim Jong-il.

God, grant us the. . .
Serenity to accept things we cannot change,
Courage to change the things we can, and the
Wisdom to know the difference.
Patience for the things that take time
Appreciation for all that we have, and
Tolerance for those with different struggles
Freedom to live beyond the limitations of our past ways, the
Ability to feel your love for us and our love for each other and the
Strength to get up and try again even when we feel it is hopeless.
- [Commonly attributed to Reinhold Niebuhr . . . erroneously attributed to St. Francis of Assisi]

joe4christ: You just dont get it, or do you?
If the life you live was not authored by you but rather was created by God then you owe him your very life, or dont u think so? Even though u deny it it does'nt realy change the fact that you're God's product, can a clay dictate to it's potter/maker how to mold it? No of course, it's the will of the potter to mold his clay as he deem fit. Is'nt it?

God made man in his own image and gave man freedom to live freely like god on earth over every living thing (Dont you yet understand?) that God wanted a replica of himself to rule the earth, he was'nt looking for a slave to impose his will on else he would'nt have given man free will.
you need to understand that God the creator is a God of creativity, he delight in doing this, but remember the free will he gave to man makes man a responsible being else we would have been like animals who cannot be held responsible for their actions cause they know little to nothing cos they were'nt given free will, they only live as nature dictates for them.
But for man, God did not just gave him free will but he also gave him a law to keep man under check else we all know man would have gone beyond boundries, so God gave man laws of do and donts to keep man under check, those laws were plain so man had the choice to either obey or disobey God's command, the consequencies of man's actions are being meted out clearly so he has no excuse for choosing to disobey.

[size=15pt]No wonder the bible says where there is no law the people are not held accountable for sin - Romans 5:13 [/size]
But that's not the case, cos God gave man this laws, do you wanna know why God gave man this free will and a law?

I'll tell you here, though it's a mystery but i'm allowed to unvail it, cos just like the story of Job, God wanted to prove an everlasting point to whole of creation both spirits and the living, both angels and demons, both principalities and powers and rulers of this dark age, both all living in the heavenlies and the inhabitants of hell that [size=15pt] Man despite being given freewill and laws even without seeing this God can still chose to believe, obey and trust this unseen God and even love him and because of that love chose to stay away from anything that would go against his laws, meaning man can still use his free will for God's purpose and benefit believing they owe their very life to him and remain loyal to him without him God influencing their actions.

So it's just like the whole of creation are watching us act, no wonder the bible says we are daily watched by a great cloud of witness - Hebrew 12:1 [/size]
So is it wrong for God to boast about his own creation as he did in the days of Job?
He gave man freewill and sits back to watch those who would freely chose to obey him and those who would disobey - without the influence of both God and the devil.
So it's your choice either to follow God all the way or use that same life given to you by God to glorify God's adversery (satan) each of this choices have eternal consequences and they are not hidden but made plain by God in his written word - The Bible.

Nough said already. God bless!

So basically, God gives freewill to humans just to see the possible outcome of their choices and then rewards or punishes them accordingly, even though she is supposed to be omniscient?

Also, if I get you correctly, another reason why God gave us freewill is to prove an "everlasting point" to the devil? What would be the exact purpose of trying to prove this "everlasting point" if I may ask?

pro01: In my view, she doesn't look like the sort of girl that would prefer to die than be raped.

Pray tell, how is "the sort of girl" that would prefer to die than be räped supposed to look?

Esss: Actually, that was my first thought!! Why not just let them fhuck you and immediately they leave, dash off to the hospital after taking certain first aid measures..

Because "fhucking" is actually very different from räpe -- a distinction I've come to realize that many Nigerian males fail woefully to understand. This comment reeks of an amazing level of ignorance of what constitutes räpe and the longstanding effects on the victims of such assaults.

Esss:
Is that dignity really worth losing ones life over?! She was 21 for bleeps sakes.. Like was it really worth her life in the end?!

Unfortunately, yes, it was worth it. Better to be die honorably than live traumatized and miserably for the rest of your life because one of lunatic's moment of madness.

Esss:
i would rather have my r@pe victim daughter alive than a dead virgin daughter..

Good on you. But have you actually considered what your räpe victim daughter would have preferred for herself? Have you considered the fact that she's the one living her own life and at the end of the day, she would be the one to bear with all consequences that follow from that singular despicable act, especially after you're long dead and gone? Have you considered that it is not proper that you allow your own selfish desire of not wanting to lose a daughter to override your precious daughter's bliss -- yes, even in death?

Esss:
Im sorry, but I dont think that the niggas post was rubbish at all.. He made a valid point.

Well, I'm sorry, but I think his post was not only rubbish, but also a grave insult to the memory of that brave girl who fought off her assailants even to the point of death.

Esss:
Infact, I have heard several women advice girls in such situations to remove their minds and allow their assailants r@pe them.

Well, good on them. But different strokes for different folks. If they felt they could handle the consequences, no problems. But you should also respect the choice that this brave girl made, especially now that she's dead. It's no use arguing over what she should have or shouldn't have done.

Esss:
Do you know how many Nigerian girls have been r@ped in their life time?! Heck, if girls would be honest, atleast 3 in 5 girls have been r@ped. I know several of them that have been r@ped. Infact, one of my friends was r@ped twice by her driver and armed robbers.. Today she is happily married. Another girl was abused constantly for years by a relative before her father found out..

She would have survived it. It takes time and counselling, but eventually she would have overcome it.. Time heals all wounds..

And that shiit about your paryers and her soul tormenting them is crap.. I'm sure she cried and called God just before she got shot and he didnt answer her distress call, ne your prayers wan come turn water to wine?!

Dude, she didnt need to die.. As much as its commendable her fighting for her virtue, but she didnt need to die. It would have been a different ball game if she got merked after the r@pe, but in this case, I beg to differ.. She didnt have to die.

The fact that you know so many previously räped girls (you should be investigated by the way) that now "appear" happy means that they have coped just fine? It means it's no big deal right? After all, there are so many of them that are now "happily married", isn't it? Read your comment again and see just how that sounds. Do you have any idea what räpe means at all?

^^ Because you said so?

@Mr_Anony: See this post in the link below (the one in quote) and tell me what you think.

https://www.nairaland.com/52324/beautiful-analogy-atheist/2#12122015

Come on guys, this picture has been circulating the internet for a few years now and is clearly a hoax. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to be some kind of magic trick meant to entertain people for money, but somehow people have twisted the story over the years with various versions left and right.

Wow, reading through this thread again kinda gave me a nostalgic feeling. I remember this thread very well, I was still somewhere between Christianity and agnosticism then. I wonder where all these guys are now: nferyn, KAG (NL's "first generation" atheists), ricadelide, etc. Good ol' times!

By the way, this quote below explains quite well what I've been labouring to explain to Mr_Anony lately on the problem of evil. This man simply put it in a few sentences so brilliantly.

nferyn: I'm getting mired up in several threads at the same time, sometimes I don't know what to respond to first. Here I just copy my contribution from another thread:

1. Falsification on logical grounds:

The omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God is self contradictory: omnipotence and omniscience contradict the fact that God, in his holy books, has needs, wants and desires: an omniscient, omnipotent God cannot have needs and wants because reality cannot be anything but the emmanation of God's mere being. As reality is not the emmanation of God's wants (God having negative feelings about his creation: sorrow, sadness, anger, etc), he cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

Omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and the problem of evil in the world: with an omnimax God evil cannot exist in this world, because everything God wants, just is. If God doesn't want evil to exist, it wouldn't, as God is omnipotent and omniscient. Evil exists, thus God is either not omnibenevolent or he isn't omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. The classical apologetical anwser to this contradiction is the existence of free will, but that's only a weak defense, as free will logically implies choice, choice implies an indeterminate future, an indeterminate future contradicts God's omniscience. Even if you would assume that intentional evil (as being carried out by independent agents, such as humans) could be explained away by waving the free will card - which it can't on logical grounds - the problem of natural evil (earthquakes, droughts, tsunami's, etc) still remains.

@cyrexx:

lol, you forgot to add the clearest of them all (which strangely, Christians on this board ALWAYS seem to ignore so happily):

Matthew 5:22
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am not dishonest when I argue. When you ask a loaded question, I have to give you a true answer. The manual in the analogy represents the Word of God.[/quote]Okay, fair enough.

EDIT: But I still don't think you answered his question.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I think God has made Himself very clear already. Any other clarity you seek would mean that God will have to brainwash you.[/quote]I don't think he was clear enough, else, there wouldn't be thousands of denominations in Christianity today (a result of thousands of interpretations from a supposedly clear "Word of God" ).

[quote author=Mr_Anony]God's law is written on our hearts. The bible tells us that the word of God is Spirit and Life. The bible also tells us that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life[/quote]lol, this guy and his antics. I believe musKeeto's question was clear enough. Does the manual represent a holy book OR the heart?

Possible answers:

a) It represents a holy book
b) It represents the heart
c) It represents neither

But as usual, you have to respond the Anony way. Hope you see why some us think you're being dishonest when you argue?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]to make my manual "impossible to interpret in any other way unintended by me" would mean I'll have to take away your free-will which you love so much.[/quote]And by the way, you don't have to take anyone's freewill to make yourself very clear. How on earth did you arrive at this conclusion?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here we go again..........scroll up to post 224[/quote]Well, you're the one that keeps bringing up the manual and assuming that it is without errors, and that if I don't operate my TV according to the instructions, I'd have to face the punishment. I'm simply showing you the other side of the argument.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]lol, you amuse me even more. What you just said sounds like saying "not using a TV according to the TV manual does not necessarily mean that you are misusing it". I hear you.
The TV is in your possession, you can use it however you like. Just don't go blaming the TV manufacturer when your TV breaks because you used it to test your baseball batting abilities.[/quote]Not when the TV manual gives contradictory instructions on different pages. The TV manufacturer is totally culpable.

Zikkyy: It all depend on your interpretation of predestination.



Freewill (free-choice) does not imply control over 'every' outcome. the fact that there are more than one outcome indicates existence of choice; otherwise the only outcome would be for everybody to do God's will (that's the way i see it). or maybe i still don't understand what you are saying here



aw com'on if God says he is not happy hanging out with armed robbers, child rapist, fraudsters e.t.c and decides to send them to the other direction (dissociate himself), what's wrong with that. you might see that as punishment (not being able to hang out with the Almighty ), but you have only yourself to blame. If you want to roll with God, you must be his kind of guy afterall he is the boss

Interesting examples you have there. Anyways, none of you has yet been able to demonstrate the freewill offered by a God who condemns you if you don't serve him. The "freewill" to choose otherwise? lol. The only "choice" I see here is the same offered by the tyrannical Head of State who allows his people freedom of speech, but then goes ahead to lock them up when they say something he doesn't like. The people have a "choice" too, apparently. If you want to roll with the president, you must be his kind of guy (say only what he wants to hear). After all, he's the boss.

If that's your definition of freewill, then I accept: God gave us "freewill" indeed.

Ihedinobi: Right there in the bolded is your faulty knowledge, fool.

According to genetics (and your answers hehehe), they need not have been superhuman. They only need to be the first parents, fool

I smell. . . Enigma.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]and my argument is that your punishment is in the misuse itself. If you destroy your TV, you lose your TV. If you damage your chances at eternal life, you lose eternal life. It's that simple[/quote]Not doing it your way does not automatically translate to misuse. You assume that by not using the TV the way you deem fit, I'd be destroying it in the process. Not necessarily.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]lolololol........the aim of the analogy was to explain why you have free-will. I think that bit is clear to you now.

You have now adapted the analogy to attack the creator. . . well, I'll oblige you....

The TV destruction is punishment in itself. You've lost the benefits of having a TV

Notice that you have already admitted that I am the omnipotent manual-giver, therefore the fault can't be mine. The fault must come from your ability to understand and keep to the manual.

to make my manual "impossible to interpret in any other way unintended by me" would mean I'll have to take away your free-will which you love so much.

You are contradicting yourself. You want freedom to make your choices and yet you don't want to bear the consequences of your choices.
You cannot eat your cake and have it.[/quote]There's no contradiction. My point is that you cannot claim to give me something and then punish me for not using it the way you want it done. That's not freewill, and that's my argument.

Zikkyy: What exactly is freewill (free-choice)? I think we see free-will (free-choice) from a different perspective; reading your post, i'll assume you see free-will as the ability to control the outcome of your decisions. You can only control what's within your power to control, e.g. you cannot chose to live & exceed Methuselah's record (atleast for now). But that's is not say you have no control over your actions.



The lack of freedom of speech does not imply lack of choice. Are you saying the existence of National constitution/law takes away the freedom of choice? if the law says stealing or fraud (419/yahoo) will land you in prison, it is not taking away your ability to choose. That's why the government went ahead and built prisons; for those that will make that choice. You have to be in charge (or be an island independent of God/nature/societal rules men set for themselves e.t.c) to control every outcome.



No, those are rules/commandments/guidance. You have a choice to be in God's good book or he send you packing. And it because he is in charge, he runs things. Your company can say visiting NL during working hours will earn you a two week suspension from work, that is not to say you cannot visit NL during working hours.

Perhaps I should have clarified my stance earlier on. My main grouse with the freewill concept is its incompatibility with the concept of predestination. Of course every human has a choice (freewill), you cannot argue against that. But when you begin to claim that it is God that gave this freewill (or you attempt to give the concept a religious feel), then that goes against the nature and notion of the monotheistic gods, because with them, "choice/freewill" is simply a farce (refer to Jeremiah 1:5, Romans 9:17, etc). Serve me or burn forever! Do my will or perish! -- dictator style; that's how they role. Revisit my freedom of speech analogy to gain some perspective.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]basically yes, in the same way your life is yours and if you destroy it, it is entirely your problem. . . . .but remember I gave you the TV, you did not buy it yourself so I have every right to be displeased but your punishment is in the sin itself i.e. as the breaking of the TV results in the loss of the TV so does sin result in death.
You cannot eat your cake and have it.[/quote]You sure have every right to be displeased, but if I found the manual to contain half-truths, untruths and contradictions, I shouldn't be punished for treating the TV in a way that would eventually lead to its destruction, especially if I genuinely felt that was the best way to go about it as logic dictated. You as the omnipotent TV giver on the other hand, should have handed me a manual that is so clear and without any equivocations, so easy to understand that it would simply be impossible to interpret in any other way unintended by you. But since it is clearly not the case, you're the most culpable and should be rightly sued.

You cannot eat your cake and have it.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If I give you a television set and give you an instruction manual about how best to use it, You have your freedom of choice on how to use it. if you break it, that's your problem not mine. You can't eat your cake and have it.[/quote]In that case, the television is mine, right? And if I break it, it is entirely my problem. I don't have to be punished by NTA or you (because you gave it to me) for breaking my own TV. This opposes the nature of the monotheistic gods and the explanation you put up earlier about "borrowed" life.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]If you scroll up, you'll see my discussion with weigraf about the nature determinism and freechoice, also I linked mazaje to a thread where these things were discussed in depth.[/quote]Okay, I'll look it up.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is you who doesn't get it.
The life is not yours in the first place, it is borrowed. you are told how best to use it so that it can benefit you[/quote]If the life is not mine, basically everything I do is according to the whims of the "owner" of my life. So tell me, whence cometh the freewill then? I'm told how best to live my life and if I fail to do as expected, I am punished for choosing otherwise. In essence, the so-called choice is at best a charade. Do you also believe in predestination?

Zikkyy: Have observed that when people say there is nothing like freewill (or is it free-choice) in the bible, they are actually telling you that freewill (free-choice)does exist. now compare the comment below:



with this one:



Same author, same post. LOL

You fail to get the gist. Look at it this way:

You are told that you have freedom of speech (freewill) and you decide to exercise this freedom (choice) by voicing out your displeasure, but then you're instantly arrested and locked up for choosing to exercise your right, would you still be able to say that you really have that freedom of speech (freewill) despite that seeming choice you had? Certainly not.

And that's the point. The idea that people will be punished for exercising their freewill negates the very idea of freewill in the first place. In other words, I am only allowed to do what God wants me to do, else I face the punishment --- that certainly does not sound like freewill to me.

It's always amusing to see someone delve into all the sciences of this world just to explain their cherished mythologies.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You've missed an important part of the mix: "God of love" and "free choice"[/quote]Do you care you to expatiate?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Small misconception here: For starters, God did not create evil. God created a good world. Evil is the damage. It is like when a potter makes cup if it breaks, you don't blame the potter for creating cracks in the cup.[/quote](1) If the potter is omnipotent, then he is to blame for making a cup with material that is breakable. An omnipotent potter cannot possibly have his work damaged.

(2) If the potter is omniscient, then he is to blame for being negligent and failing to prevent the break, since he knew beforehand that the cup would break.