₦airaland Forum

EnlightenedSoul:
Humiliating? Moronic? Hah! Just stop it already. Who can argue with the god of infinite ineptitude, shytty be thy name?

We've a dire situation in our hands. As you know, I've a vested interest in sea-life, and currently, this little fella here needs to breathe...

https://i.imgur.com/x3K9kAj.gif


Now, have you seen him?!

You are a moronic fuuktard!

This is what I just did to you in public.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ykyLNIZeLM

Alephilomath:
You were talking to yourself, weren't you?

This dimwit does not even understand that simple explanation.

EnlightenedSoul:
All my repeated answers to all your fvcked, repetitive questions can be found in my posting history. They will forever be a living testament as to exactly how much time one should never spend on a sag-a-dumb-shyt like you.

Now, just answer my question so I can sleep at night!

Shut the fck up, fuuktard!

Your answers to questions not asked?

Next time, never make moronic statements you can not defend. I take pleasure in humiliating fuuktards like you.

jennykadry:
ROTLFMAO
So in other words Seun is the cause of the headache you are experiencing on nairaland?

You are helping SEUN get rid of the fucktardds

Abeg sagamite leave me alone

Yes o.

All the intellectuals have disappeared. I can't even get the basic diet of intellectual polemics.

Alephilomath:
One was trying to have a logical debate, the other was busy creaming, "I am God; I am heaven; I am intelligent; I am hell"

Why does anyone need that much reassurance??

Logical to a fuuktard like you.

For the record, a second party does "reassurance", not the subject.

EfemenaXY:
Hannibal lector?

Saga, you're definitely high...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-HD2xXo-lw

jennykadry:
Who even waste their time arguing with SAGAMITE?

@sagamite

Is there ever a day you come online without arguing with someone?

First of all, that is what I come to do on NL.

No 2, Seun has allowed the place be flooded by absolute fuuktards with his policy of quantity over quality and "right to moronic speeches". The intellectually standards has dropped drastically. Go though my post history and pick a year like 2009, go and look at my posts then and see how it was less frequent I used "fuuktard", "cretin" etc. Now virtually every sentence begins with those because the clerisy have left NL for the fuuktards.

carefreewannabe:


I will have nightmares because of this.

EnlightenedSoul:
Stfu. You can't digest logic, so we're not going back to that pathetic charade. Aight?!

I've answered all your stu.pid questions, now stop dodging the only I'm asking you. To the question...






[size=20pt]Did you, or did you not FREE the starfish?! [/size]

You are a fuuktard!

A dumbfuck like you talking about logic?

The logic you could not use to explain how merchadise is sexualised or which sex is impacted by divorce laws?

Tell us:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URRcxWrBVkI&index=361&list=FLRUGdBFtrNhxxTkghQ0Qegg

to be publicly humiliated by the God of Logic.

carefreewannabe:


Lord have mercy!

Makes the cross sign, tries to say the rosary and faints.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx_hlStCL7g

EnlightenedSoul:
"How is a feminine product feminine/Sexualized? Are men banned from using it? Is Charlyboi BLAH-BLAH *more 'godly' gibberish* BLAH BLAH"

If you're the god of anything, you're god of utter and infinite ineptitude, complete with a short memory and the childish love of emoticons. Truth be told, you're dumbest, most repetitive, dumbfvck I've ever come across. It is with gr8 sincerity that I ask you this one last question...


[size=14pt]Did you free the starfish? [/size]

You are a moronic fuuktard!

If you were answering the questions instead of dodging, running from them or trying to divert the conversation, I would not need to repeat the questions.

You knew if you answered them and answered truthfully, you were toast.

As I said, I was toying with you. I could have gone ahead and just said: "Laws which its origins is based on helping women, created and its principal spirits was for the benefit of women and which negatively & disproportionately impacts men unjustly is sexist".

But NO, I did not do that because I would have more fun playing with you like the suya you became when you brought moronic claims to Sagamite.

Why?

Because I am a psychopath!

I know I am.

I was not going to make it easy.

This was what I was doing with you instead of killing you outright.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0qMT2YBIcg

FUUKTARD!

EnlightenedSoul:
The only conclusion here is how effing inept you're.

Congratulations!

No, the conclusion is you are a feminist drowning in the ediot's ocean.

Your moronic feminism makes you conclude that if a law is made with the potential AND INTENTION to mostly impact men, it is not sexist but if the same is done for women, it is outrightly outrageous and sexist!

You should never have brought such a moronic argument to Sagamite!

SAGAFUCKINGMITE!!!

That was foolhardy.

You know why?

Because I am your GOD! I am the appointed God of Logic on fcking planet Earth.

In that case feminist, let me put this in the open for you ...........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlxPXH37xVI

EnlightenedSoul:
https://mashable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/freak-out-olan-rogers.gif

WHAT?

You can't tell us how a product used by women and men is sexualised and which sex is "generally" the breadwinner and is hit by sexist divorce laws, feminist?

Can you see now why it is never smart to put moronic argument (yep, an oxymoronic paradox right there) to a God like Sagamite?

Logic || Brick Wall || Women

EnlightenedSoul:
@ crossed out: Sorry, I can't help you further with that. I'm not answering stu.pid questions. Feminine products = Sexualized items. End of!

What stewpid questions?

You can not explain your moronic excuse?

What makes them feminine products when men and women use and can use them?

How is it sexualised?

What stops Charly Boi from going to buy himself a skirt or wear make-up?

When he does, he is female, according to your feminist logic?

EnlightenedSoul:
60% of US men are primary breadwinners. Only 7% of that accounts the 'traditional structure' wherein the female is a full-time housekeeper w/ no income, and that would be the only time the male is only one affected by the division of divorce assets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WPlvZguZ4

Easy question:

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

ANSWER THE GADDAM QUESTION and lets finish your public portrayal as a moronic ediot swimming in an ediot's ocean and made a mistake of bringing moronic feminist arguments to your GOD!

EnlightenedSoul:
LMFAO!




Dang! Reading comprehension issues. Read it again, Sagamite. Slowly this time.

ANSWER MY GADDAM QUESTIONS, FEMINIST!

Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?


So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Use "generally" when you do.

EnlightenedSoul:
Sexualized items specify a sex. Tranny males don't magically stop feminine products from being feminine products by using them.
!

Amsorry?

How is it a feminine product when everyone can use it and some men use it?

Are men banned from using it?

What makes is sexualised?

EnlightenedSoul:
Oh? 40% of women in US are primary breadwinners.

Of those female breadwinners, 37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, (63%) are single mothers (includes divorced and the never married).

So now based on your stats, answer my question which you dodged answering :

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

Let me give you a hint to answer it: "37% are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands" That is, 37% of 40% is 14.8%.

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

White people are destroying Africa1

They are the common enemy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30363052

EnlightenedSoul:
*edited


Seeing as I've consistently included them in all my posts, how am I "maintaining" the above??

Two words: Sexualized Items.

Explain how it is sexualised?

Men are not allowed to use it under the law?

EnlightenedSoul:
Yes, I am. And that's becoming clearer and clearer by your every post.

Where did it fail??

Money is earned. Males (general) and females (general) earn money. Products are used. Feminine products are used by females (general) and tranny males (subset of a subset)

Simplified once again:

1) Money [neutral item] ---> ability to earn ---> Male vs. Female

2) Feminine products [sexualized item(s)] ---> use of product ---> Female vs. Tranny Male



Nah, that would be you. Till this point you still haven't grasped my one, oft-repeated gripe with your 'law'. Hint: It hasn't been about "who's affected".



Jesus-Frickin-Christ

I've spelt it out multiple times, in the simplest terms I could think of, underlining, italicizing, and even using color to your benefit, and you still have trouble grasping anything I've had to say. You've been recycling the same statements/questions (complete with multiple smilies) with the tenacity of a blind bulldog.

Can you tell me WTF it is I'm supposed to do for you at this point?

OHHHH!

General? Not Major?

Not Colonel or Brigadier?

So who generally, majorly and colonelly makes more money in relationships and is affected by divorce laws?

carefreewannabe:
I and Cococandy consider ourselves feminists, is that what you think of us?

Abeg, address the separate property argument. Why don't men make use of it?

I really want to learn, am open-minded.

When I have finished humiliating her for her sophism, then I can address any other part of her questions.

Not before then.

I live for my slow, painful intellectual torture and public humiliations.

I am a psychopathic sadist and intelligensist when it comes to that process.

A morrafcking KKK when it comes to people with a different and lower intellect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlxoPefvK5w

You are more on the advanced part of the feminist side of the women's spectrum than cococandy is, but you are not a feminist. Neither of you are.

You just mis-tag yourselves as one because of your concerns for women. If you know what a feminist is, both of you would not regard yourselves as one.

hydrazone:
Hi Sagamite,
I want your opinion on University of Liverpool. I intend going there for a PhD in Chemistry. What is the city like in general? And the rating of the school, especially for research output. It seems OK, with the research I've done online but I'll want the opinion of someone with hands-on related experience. Thanks

University of Liverpool is very good for research especially in STEM subjects like that. That is why it is in the Russell Group (the group of top research universities in the UK).

The quality of its research would be above average, maybe not premier.

https://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#19532067

That said, those are now old stats. We would find out the latest stats about research quality and power by the middle of 2015 when the latest assessment comes out.

As for the city, I have been there. It appears very good.

- it is cheap.

- it is modern and beautiful in the city centre (where I stayed).

- it is very close to Manchester (the UK's second city), so it is like if you are living in 2 cities.

- there are a lot of fine girls who are up for it.

- it has a high black population (even historically, considering that it was a port in the 1800s and many blacks settled there then and there generations are still there)

- it has the highest rate of mixed race couples I have ever seen in the UK, so your pool is not restricted and they are not racist.

Chiamaka01:
What are you saying? Have you heard of the Italian couple who decided to wed in the Igbo traditional way? It was their decision, it does not mean that they decided to live according to the Igbo culture. I have nothing left to say to you.

What has this got to do with the fact that you CHOOSE to be bought and it is not binding on you in your custom?

carefreewannabe:
Sagamite, she has made some good points. It would be fair to acknowledge it.

I would have liked to see you elaborate on the separate property point, which men can use as an opportunity to protect themselves from unfair distribution of the property after divorce.

She has not made any good point.

She has made a bias feminist stance.

A lie!

A blind denial!

An unprincipled sophism!

That is not a good point. That is the foundation of not only her argument, but her being. I torment such people. ..................EASILY!

That is one major difference between a feminist and a normal woman.

EnlightenedSoul:
On the contrary, I'm the only one in this 'discussion' of ours who knows exactly what she's talking about.

And no, his comparison is not apt.

The crucial (and mind you, there are more, but I'll simply lay out the biggest) difference between Sagamite's imaginary law, and divorce law is that it doesn't pick at a gender-specific item. By supporting his analogy using female merchandise and it's use among the female population vs. drag-queens, he's succeeded in sexualizing his 'argument' from the get-go, thereby making his 'law' inherently sexist, and his argument moot and confused.

In divorce law, does the higher earner stand to lose the most? Most probably, yes. Does that make the law, in a way, unfavorable against the higher earner? Yes! Have I not said as much from early on?! But is the tag "higher-earner" sexualized? Is money sexualized? The ability to earn? Does men being so-called "more affected", make the law inherently sexist against men? Absolutely not.

From here on out, to determine the fairness of a law, let's not look at the law itself. No, let's take a sample of "who it affects" in the population, and from there on we'll be able to label it racist/sexist/ageist, and what have you accordingly.

Is that the depth of your man-logic, Sagamite? Have you set the starfish free, oh god of logic?

In the spirit of toying with you, instead of going for the kill, I would not even go to the sexism you know and everyone knows is in divorce. I would focus on ridiculing your denial arguments.

Are you still maintaining the there are no men who use or want to use these merchandise?

So how is it sexist since that is the case and the law did not specify a sex?

Secondly, you said earlier:

Abeg. let me laugh for a second before I continue.

AHHHHHH! Kwa kwa kwa kwa kwa

My belle o, my head o.

Okay, let me continue.

You said:

EnlightenedSoul:
1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex? Yes or No
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex? Yes or No.

Why was your question not either:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use and access of the merchandise is available for which sex: Female, Male or Both

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex?
Q2. Is the ability to use a merchandise open to a particular sex?

[size=18pt]OR[/size]

1. The most likely sex to be the primary bread winner is: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the potential to make a higher income more favourable to a particular sex?
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex?

You are the only one in the discussion "who knows exactly what she's talking about" but your logic failed and was bias there?

If women are more affected by a law, it is sexist, but if men are more affected by a law, it is not sexist?

That is your feminist's logic?



Feminist, can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

2sExy1:
Sagamite the dynamite

Let me toy with this feminist a bit more.

She has failed to realise I am so gaddam, fcking intelligent, if I choose to intellectually humiliate someone it is as easy as America defeating Samoa in a war.

BuddhaPalm:
Lol. But she's, by far, one of the smartest girls on NL. Guess we all have our blind spots.

I just showed a video of HARVARD LAW PHD women that talks shyt when it comes to equality. She only understands how to favour women.

The blind spot is being a woman. When it comes to discussing issues that favour them, logic goes out of the window for a vast majority of them. Only "me, me, me" becomes logic. That is just how they are built.

That said, to be frank, I have not really noticed her much before on NL, so can't conclude how intelligent she is.

But no matter how intelligent she is, debating with Sagamite is always reputational suicide. Arguing about logic with the God of Logic is like arguing about Christianity with Jesus Christ or Islam with Prophet Mohammed.

I was born to develop, design and deliver logic with aplomb. I drop that shyt like its hot.

BuddhaPalm:
@ EnlightenedSoul

I came in here to knock Sagamite for no reason, and without reading his posts . But unfortunately, I did. And he's made a lot of sense.

His analogy is apt too.

The same way, you think the cosmetics/accessories law is biased - because women will mostly be affected. So he thinks for divorce laws...because more men are currently on the receiving end.

Lol, comprehension was never my strong suit, so I might just be rafting as well...

Don't tell her.

I want to enjoy seeing her grasping at straws to escape the ocean she is in, while I toy with her and ridicule her.

"It applies to everyone, hence it is not sexist".

Feminist would say anything to make sure women get an advantage and men are victimised by the law.

majekdom2:
hehehe , I cant but laugh . makes me remember anoiting water in Nigeria and I asked myself over and over , where was " anoitin water " used in the bible these guys claim they use.

Our country is in trouble considering we have people still being this stewpid and like kingthreat!

EnlightenedSoul:
In the hopes comprehension will dawn, consider the models you're working with:

1. Ability to earn: Male vs Female
2. The use of female merchandise: Female vs Tranny male

Q1. Is the ability to make an income open to a particular sex? Yes or No
Q2. Does female merchandise target a particular sex? Yes or No.

Your 'comparison' would've been more apt had it refrained from targeting a gender-specific item(s).

What correlation does divorce, wherein both parties earning/money are tallied up and split, have in common with the tranny vs female populations use of female merchandise?! You had to go so far as to use trannies, which are a tiny subset within a subset of the male population?? Stop stretching to spurious extremes and comparisons

Past drowning, you've now hit the bottom of the ocean floor. A starfish is currently crammed up your ar.se

Amsorry?

Let me expose your stupidity:

Are you saying Charly Boi of Nigeria, according to your woman logic, is female?

You are saying Tranny Males are not males?

That is how dumb you are in your attempt at swimming from the middle of the ocean to the shore?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

EnlightenedSoul:
Heh. Milling about, eh? When DQ's came into mention, who was it shrieked, "Diversion!"? Yet you've the gall to insinuate I neglected their existence?

Your 'comparison' remains spurious at best.



Have at it.

You are in the ocean!

So it applies to everyone since there are men who also want to do the same?

So how is it sexist?

Can you see now how easy it is for me to make people like you look stewpid?

kingthreat:
Fuxk u, godless lunatic. U will account for ur stupidity. U think life is by chance? Freaking Cocksucka lyk u. Bastardo.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

You are so moronic it is shocking.

So your God teaches you to be a c*nt cocksucka?

See the fuuktard priding himself on being religious.

Black Monkey!

Cretins follow anything they are fed without even understanding it.

Fuuktard, have you gone to the river for your own miracle?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLUE45C6vOo

EfemenaXY:
Says who?

We are entitled to define what marriage should be or mean to us individually, according to you.

Now gimme T-fare money. I want to check out that young, athletic dude in the next village. I hear he's hawwt!

We need a simple universality for women.

carefreewannabe:
TINA = This is New Africa

I am getting ready to go and do the Christmas shopping now.

Husband one will cook.

Husband two will tidy up.

Husband three will take care of the kids.

I forgot whose turn it is to come to my bedroom later at night.

Anyway, let me spend some money first. I will get them something nice too. They deserve it. Good boys.

TINA

You better keep you men apart. I suspect they might fancy each other more than they fancy you.