₦airaland Forum

Mr Troll: No. It is for fake.

It's a warning that you are about to blow.

aManFromMars: So by your second statement, you accept that homosexuality doesn't go against nature, it's simply an 'anomaly' that occurs in nature.. A,mO right?

If something became an anomaly, then automatically it had upsetted the natural order of things. Some call this phenomena "freak of nature"

Occuring in nature doesn't make it natural in the true meaning of the word.

Greater percentage wins the vote, and in this instance normal order wins.

aManFromMars: If nature doesn't permit it, how did it occur in nature?

That's why I called it an anomaly which is deviation or departure from the normal or
common order, form, or rule.

Anomalies occur consistently in nature in many forms, but that doesn't make it right.

aManFromMars: So your problem is procreation?

Yes, procreation is big part of it. Another aspect is the morality of it. No parent would consciously want their kids to become homosexuals, not even a gay parent. It just doesn't seem right. I mean, having sex with somebody of your own gender doesn't process well on an average human way of thinking. Some gays know this, and that's why many hide it from the families.

Evolution is more believable.

Reyginus: You strike me as one who doesn't respect any contrary opinion. Must everything tally with what you have in mind?

Sure, I do. If the opinion is less fantastic and more realistic in nature. I'm a realist, after all.

aManFromMars: Define nature. And explain how one can go against nature,

There is a reason for 99% of all living organism having male and female, you know? When you deviate from that formula, then you are going against nature.

bolaino: lol, ok sire, so from the bottom of your heart what do you think about homosexuals?

Now, that one, I can answer.

The idea of man humping fellow man give me the creeps. It's against nature, an absolute anomaly. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

aManFromMars: Oh, it's relevant.

What's the topic again?

bolaino: why do you despise christians, if I may ask?

Irrelevant. We are not talking about Christians, we are talking about gays. Don't derail the topic.

aManFromMars: Do you hate or like Christians?

I depise them.

What's your point?

Pastor Olu T: Smiles, reality would soon done on U!

Really? From where I'm sitting, the world is real enough, thank you very much!

bolaino: yeah you're very right sire, u know I won't lie to you ooo, I'm not a fearful person ooo, but seriously, I can't be in the same room with somebody who is openly gay, cos I have this kind of notion that u could be infected with homosexuality, and as I am right now. The worst thing that could happen to me is if I turn gay, I go just kee myself, so right now I'm trying to work on my fear of gay people,

I do not hate gay people, not at all, but I find the ones who behave like women annoying. Women are annoying on a normal day, then imagine a blend of man and woman, how annoying can someone be. Lol, I do not hate gay people, I just don't find the whole homosexual act funny, but I love lesbians, I wish my girlfriend was a lesbian, I'm all for lesbians, they have my full support.

One moment, you don't like gays, the next you don't hate them...

Look fella, it's either you like gays or you don't, stop all this nonsense.

Paranoid much?

It's a typical behavioural pattern. Christians customary avoid topics their Christian brain couldn't deal with. Their excuses are always the same.

-It's not sincere,

-it's a calculated move to undermine Christianity,

-it's bullying, etc

The bible which is the core of their Jewish religion, is so inconsistent in its complexities that it left them with insufficient ammunition to defend and justify their belief.

Whenever you hear "Seek Jesus in your life" and such crap, know that it's a stalling tactics. A tactics they have perfected to dodge certain questions that they are unable to give clarification to.

I myself, created a topic questioning the credibility of their precious Holy bible sometime last week, and up till the present, only 2 or 3 Christians ever showed up, and they took to their heels when they were unable to successfully refute any of the contradictions that I posted. The rest didn't even bother to try.

That incident sent a loud message:

Christianity is a fraud

Alright.

El Guapo: [color=#0066ff]Nay I wouldnt settle for Ray, sounds way prim n' proper for my likening - I needed something sophisticated - Say Drinkwater, Carragher or even Cattermole [/color]

Who told you Ray ain't sophisticated? What made all those Irish names you mentioned better than Ray?

Ray is as sophisticated as being sophisticated gets, mate.

Let me start by pointing out something to you, El Guapo. McSinclair's not of Anglo origin, it's a Celtic name.

If you want a typical English name, then take a gander at my moniker. Except for the Mic part with is Irish, you can tell what Ray and Blue mean almost immediately, depending on the level of your general knowledge. Now, those are typical English names.

2buff, why don't you start by telling us your real name, don't tell me it's 2buff, cuz it's kinda hard to swallow, unless your parents were hip.

luxanne: it was a nice game by the way, do post some more questions later.

Okay, but no promises!

My presence is needed elsewhere, Logging off.

A root beer is a kind of soda that is not yet common in the African continent. It's sometimes referred to as Cola.

luxanne: then what is? there's no one here to answer the question and am curious to know.

Alright, root beer.

luxanne: no, am not. am just letting you know that, a necklace is a chain or a bead, as long as it's worn round the neck, so if the chain option is wrong, then the bead is too. I get you though, but you explanation is restricting.

Beads in a singular nature is not a necklace! Why are we even dragging this issue?

No matter. They both send the same message. You are welcomed to Google it if you want.

luxanne: as cola is to coke? now, are these not one and the same word? i.e, if correct?

Lager is to ale as cola is to a coke?

Nope! Too obvious!

luxanne: a necklace is a chain and also a bead, any jewelry worn round the neck is a necklace

You are still missing the point. Every necklace with or without a bead is automatically a chain. By putting the chain option, my intention was to confuse.

luxanne: this should be juice and the potato question, french chips.

French fry is correct.

Juice is wrong.

luxanne: whoa! my bb just shut down. I can't type neatly with this device but am gonna try, so apologies. Why is beads correct and chain wrong?

Necklace in itself is a chain, a string if you prefer. To make it a finished product, you need a bead. There are different kinds of beads, gold beads, diamond bead, pearl bead, wooden bead, etc.

That's why the chain option is invalid.

lana_Vello: no 5 should be sweet potatoes then

Still wrong!

lana_Vello: 2.beads

Nice!

The word analogy is the a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects.

Simply put, it's similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

For example;

Portrait is to picture as ___ is to book.

A) ethnography

B) biography

C) autobiography

In this case, answer would be biography.

Reasons; Portrait is to a picture.

Portrait can be defined as a painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person.

Picture is simply a painting or drawing

Both definitions depicts them as similar but necessary not the same thing. Portrait is more complex, while picture is more simpler. But their similarity brought them together. A picture can be upgraded into a portrait by housing it in a frame.

Okay, now let's look at book.

It's a written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers.

Then take a look at the 4 options and try to find one that have the most similar aspect. If you look closely you will see that it's biography.

Now let's defined biography: An account of someone's life written by someone else.

Where was the account written in?

In a book.

Do you see the similarity now? It's what is known as analogy.

Someone might contest the argument by pointing out that autobiography also have a similar nature.

Not really. Autobiography is more personal than the impersonal nature of both book and biography definitions.