₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Angel_7]pla can I subcribe with an etisalat easyclick data sim card? Or it must be voice sim?[/quote]Cliq,starter... any one...

nairamaverick: my line has stopped browsing and yet i have over 2gig left

Load N100.. resub for bb10 plan again...
Check ya APN..correct?

Then you are good to go!

Those having p with their 3g network should call cc!!
Request to speak with a geek.. and make the geek restore it for you himself over there..

forkinsonlolo: its not working jor. i used it with my note 2, i exhausted all my remining balance by testing with speed test at first. i was shocked when i saw download 4.5Mbps. Rubish thing no work after my money fininsh

Don't Blame them ...na you miss road!

docbindl: what will I do if my MB rans out before my validity period. please help

Then resub"!

jude4us: Please, how much is the 3gig ETI subscription?

1K... plus N100 for bb10

sathel: diz pple re cursd...y BB.....my tecno nid MB nah

Don't you know the bb10 plan converttothe bis to mb?!!!

[quote author=ib_bryte]MORE !!!!!!![/quote]Hmm on?..

Reyginus: Is this 'certain level' by nature of being a 'certain level' good or will the 'certain level' be evil?
Better still
Will any good 'certain level' render a good phenomenon impotent or will the 'certain level' promote a good phenomenon?

the 'certain level' by nature of being a 'certain level' evil..
It will promote a good phenomenon..

It should..

Reyginus: The question still is, As the morally good phenomenon that you agreed Evolution is, do you agree that it should be interfered with or you agree that it should not be interfered with?

At certain level.... yes it should..

Reyginus: Lol@graceful death. Do you think that suicide is a good thing or a bad thing?

Suicide is a bad thing...only in your religion.

I will argue this,if discussed logically..

Reyginus: Lol. C'mon lady! You see, the definition of goodness CANNOT change. A trully good man cannot be a trully bad man in the objective sense. What you are describing is a SEEMINGLY good man and not a good man. Don't confuse the two again.

The perception of one person or two does not define nor negate a good thing. If a thing is good it is good.

A good thing Is a good thing ! I dint say otherwise in my prev post!!

We are talking about persons here.... a good person(with a diff moral society settings) will see that good thing as a good thing... but another person(with another moral society settings) will see it as a bad thing! ... you can only say a good thing is a good thing(generally) in some cases.. but the difference in the societal ,cultural,religion settings can change the fact in the way people view it..
Here to me; death is the good thing..
To you; pain is the good thing... but ain't he gon die at last? Is the good cause(the nature) altered?

Reyginus: Now back to my question:
'Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?'

Dude have answered this!... if your questions are confusing me... why then should we push on? Esp if my answers ain't what you'd like to hear..
Goodness can not change... but in selected cases,in another person's view its remains goodness..while in another its a diff thing.. this topic as an e.g..

But if you are talking about a generally accepted goodness cause . Then a good man should go against an evil man..

Reyginus: You sound like oxymorons are stupid figures of speech even when literature never said so. But it is not even an oxymoron. You know why. The reason is because I am not establishing a simple sentence speaking only of a single idea. In this case two distinct unralating ideas are involved.

It would have been an oxymoron if I had asked, is good not evil? And at that moment you will begin to weigh level of intelligence.

Abeg cut the grammar...

Reyginus: You still don't get it. A good man will always go for a cause. If not why is he a good man? Whatever he does is good. So, the basis of the matter cannot be whether if it is for a good cause or a bad one.

A good man will always go for a good cause if it seems so in his settings.. another good man will go against the good cause coz In his own view its bad!.. there are many cases as this!..
E.g is the jihadists!! In their settings what they are doing is right..(as they are killing the bad people in their own view) and so they are good people.. while In other people's settings its bad...and they again are good people . Even tho killing is bad.. the latter startd fighting the jihadists killing them in the process... isn't the cause intact?! They are both killing the bad people(in their views!)

a wack e.g tho.. hope it passes the info..
If I don't seem to grab ya q . Then let it go![/quote]

Reyginus: I see that you are still clinging to the pillar of 'seeming'. You are still employing the services of a seemingly good and bad man.
This your 'more' is stiil not cleared up. Let's clear it in your rebuttal 1.

There's nothing seeming here..

Reyginus: Nne ogini du sef? But you still fail to see that both good men cannot go against what is good so they cannot go against each other.

But the good can never propagate a bad cause.

Go back to my posts up there

Reyginus: Interesting. I think you need at this juncture a deep thinking of what good and evil is, imagining how they are reflected when personified in a being. A good man will never do what is not good.
Some weird examples:
A goat will always act like a goat and not a lion.
A dog will not act like a sheep but a dog
A snake will also act as a snake and not a millipede.

Dude! Your e g has nothing to do with goodness!! These are natural phenomenon can't can never be changed for either a good/bad cause..
A goat shouldn't be changed to a man technologically or scientifically..
A snake is a snake!!
A man is a man!!
We are not talking about changing a cat to a dog here..


A man with terminal ailment is a dead man!!
the only thing that can be changed here is the time death actually comes..



And I thought you Christians do say; a man who God doesn't kill..no man can kill him.. or if he dies,then its God's time..

Using euthanasia in this case is God's time for him..
Nature ain't altered..



Can we go back solely to the topic?

[quote author=god_of_music]My delivery on this track is perfect... Though a line may seem too long, it's just perfect when i'm saying it.

Thanks baby.



#TeamGOM[/quote]... if delivery is perfect about the flow..?
You know bars are calculated on a beat.

Anyways, wish you the best dear

Mr Troll: would you like your machine turned 'on'?

no, thanks

[quote author=god_of_music]It's a verse from the song i'm writing ''DEEP''


#TeamGOM[/quote]Cool dear...
But I'd suggest you shorten some of ya words (without losing their meaning)for better delivery... except if you know you are going faster on the longer lines..

Mr Troll: lol. have you ever been in a real situation where euthanasia is being considered?

you are introducing a false dichotomy. it is not a case of pain or pleasure. there is pain, no pain, and then pleasure. a dead man experiences nothing, that is, no pain. that is the aim, no pain. definitely better than pain to me

i'm afraid you do not fully grasp the question. a brain dead man IS on life support, which takes a lot of money to maintain. 'allowing' him to die means turning off his life support...

I bet he'd rather the machine is turned off...

Kay 17: The act of killing is not immoral, rather the intent /bad faith is what has the moral weight. Also, if you pay a bit attention, self defence is basically murder in good will! So also euthanasia, it is administered in good faith.

For example people in the most advanced stages of Parkinson disease, find themselves useless to themselves and their society, and worse they feel the worthlessness and the lack of power/strength. They lose their self worth.

Muah!!!

Not forgetting the schizophrenia patients ...
In the worse stage oofcourse..

Reyginus: Will a good man go against another good man, even when goodness cannot go against itself, or will he go against a bad man, who is against a good man?

Your definition of a good man might be diff from another...
A good man in a specified position is a bad man when others look at it..
So with this,a good man can go against another good man so far the reason is for a good purpose...
Here I'm a good lady,you a good man..
I don't want my patient to be in a long suffering which I as a medical doc know he cant survive it . So with hisconsent(psychologically balanced) and his FAM.. I opted for euthanasia..
But you here are another good man ,you felt such a patient should rather endure the pain(caused on himself and family) than to be euthanasized...
Knowing fully well the chances of his survivor us very slim..but you would prefer he die a natural death..
When people wanna judge this scenario.. some will see me as the bad person..while others will see you as the bad person geddit?

Reyginus: Yeah it is actually 'will'. With me, you can never deviate from the topic.

Your chose the later, which is that a good man will go against a morally evil person 'more'. Let's rectify the 'more' in the first question above before you take a step backward to reflect on your previous answer below.

A good man should go against a morally evil person more..
But don't you think that's an oxymoron.?

So,to say... a good man should go against an evil man so far the basis matter is for a good cause ...
coz sometimes that evil man might be the good one.
I watched a movie and it displayed this scenario perfectly...
But mostly,an evil man is an evil man... a good man should go against him more..

So all in all, a good man should go against another good man for a good cause.
A good man should go against an evil man for a good cause..

The cause should be the important thing..

Double posts!

I will follow up later please...


Gotta do somethings..

rationalmind: I was the one

are you in the medical field?

Oh ... the first letter confused me..


Yeah...and nah

Reyginus: This doesn't answer my question as agreed. Don't bash the truth with impatience. I thought we had a deal

The question still is:
'When a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?'

They could go against both...

But on the weight,its the latter...

Hope we aint deviating from the topic tho..

And I hope your 'when' is actually 'will'..

Do you hope to spit this one on a beat?

Or its just a textcee thing?

Reyginus: But I never asked for this or is it going to help the argument in any way?

I thought someone ,yeah you!! Asked Mr troll the question... dint you?

Reyginus: You are trying to compound the problem but I will help the cause.

When a morally good thing/person go against a morally good thing/person or a morally good thing/person will go only against a morally evil thing/person?

Chai! :/
Is death evil??
Is pain reliefment evil??

Here, in the first instance... under the sense of the discussion... you refer to mean death and pain is the morally good thing right? If yeah! Then my stance on the topic is cleared!
Going against the morally good nature for a good will while putting other things into consideration isnt evuls ..
You are only altering nature for a good cause so far nature itself isn't affected or persons involved..

The morally good phenomenon of nature isn't affected...is it?

Also in the sense of the topic,euthanasia isn't applied when there's hope... sooner or later the patient will die... so here, I don't think there is any alteration of the morally good nature..