₦airaland Forum

iconize: Sagamite, make sure you present these assignments to me tomorrow!



1) Show us where in the world, a modern city is devoid of basic amenities.

2) Show us who calls a society with 720k "largely populated".

3) Also show us where population is the only determinant of a city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOUqVuNzkA8

iconize: Copying your style by calling every polluted place a city?

Dumbness!

Cretinous person!

Where did you get "moronic nation, moronic peeps"?

You are struggling to be Sagamite?

You are now trying flattery to ease the intellectual slaughter?

iconize: Is that place your modern city where there are no basic amenities?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhKzY0BKwY

iconize: Sagamite said he's pummeling me by telling me; population is the only determinant of a city.


Moronic nation, Moronic peeps!

You have been so badly pummeled, you now want to be Sagamite by copying his style.

EnlightenedSoul: The law is irrelevant, especially concerning people who aren't even hired. They only exist to hold companies accountable for blatant provable offenses. According to an anonymous survey, 40% of managers (realistically more than that) already avoid hiring younger women due to perceived maternity leave, so what law do you speak of?

It's actually advisable for fresh-faced young women to take their engagement/wedding rings off for job interviews

More stories.

Is the logic behind the law wrong?

iconize: What pummeling?

Peeps are actually witnessing how primitive and dumb you're.

Teacher If you see a populated place, what do you call it?

Pupil A city!

Teacher Who taught you that?

Pupil Ma'am, it's Sagamite!

Teacher I'm gonna call the cops for him.

This is what happened to you in front of witnesses.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw4EMCCZ7wA

Gamesmart: It seems Sagamite is right that you always run from questions.

It is a challenge for you to define a city, so it must be that you don' know what one is.

Ibadan and Kano are cities.

Now you get it!

I know a person when I see one and this guy is a superfucktard!

EnlightenedSoul: You sound hella naive.

Sure, the laws exist. But there's little point to it as there is no way to prove it's why you weren't hired. It's the same with race, sex, creed, age, personality. Companies can still avoid hiring you based on the above despite there being laws on it.

I got laid off at my old job a few months ago, and there was this worker who'd worked there 12+ years that was going on and on about ageism. He can't prove it was the reason he was let go, but we could all bet it was.

There you go again with your stories of incidences when you are trying to dodge a question!

I asked should we or should we not have those laws. Is the logic behind the law wrong?

iconize: Run to where? Your "modern city" with no basic amenities?

Mister man, answer the questions below!


1) Show us where in the world, a modern city is devoid of basic amenities.

2) Show us who calls a society with 720k "largely populated".

3) Also show us where population is the only determinant of a city.

person, you now want to be using "modern".



My belle o!



My head o!

Chinonnyedike: samething you posted hours ago

you are DONE FOR

ur life is destroyed

SAGAMITE PLEASE HAVE MERCY ON HIS POOR SOUL

I know you wont listen but I beg you

I am going to gut and kill the person.

NO MERCY!

Gamesmart: Okay, define what a city is and then what a modern city is.

You are trying to task the brain of a person too hardly?

iconize: Your assignments;

1) Show us where in the world, a modern city is devoid of basic amenities.

2) Show us who calls a society with 720k "largely populated".

3) Also show us where population is the only determinant of a city.

Your mission:

RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

EnlightenedSoul: Stop telling me what I think! I stand by my statement. If a company prefers hiring a certain demographic based on age, that is their prerogative. The same profiling affects the older working population, and it's also based on profit. It's not CRUEL, it's REALITY.

Lol@ learnt my lesson and "sexist".

So we don't need any laws that protect women from such situations?

We should leave it as company's prerogatives?

Chinonnyedike: face SAGAMITE and stop deflecting from the beating he is giving u tonite dunce

u are finished

The person runs from Sagamite.

Dem no born am well to face my questions. Na panic station be that.

Chinonnyedike: says the bas.tard that claims to live in FRANKFURT

And yet cannot decipher German number plates?? U are a waste of space

igbo man go to sleep abeg

i will let Sagamite eat you for supper

The person is dead meat!

iconize: I've not even started and you're already being restive!

By the time I'm done with you, you'll drop your primitive style of thinking into the cesspit.

person, you mean you had not started?

So you were just absorbing all the pummeling to psyche yourself up?

EnlightenedSoul: Please illustrate the cruelty in this law.

As for your example, I don't know if you're pulling things from your own life, but how one breaks up is a personal thing. Anyone, man or woman, can choose to be direct or indirect. I've always been direct myself.

I don't think the law you mentioned is cruel. If someone is not coming to work, or has frequent tardies, the employer has every right to fire them.

I'm more concerned with your logic tbh...

This moronic law is cruel and sexist because:

1) It is not really and feasibly applicable to both sexes
2) It transfers responsibility for one sex on the other despite the other sex being an adult
3) It leaves a loophole for malicious claims for one sex (not the other) or passes power to one sex to use as a weapon on another

To summarise, a law that has more damage on one party out of both sexes is cruel.

Simple fcking logic!

iconize: Nah! I didn't mean that statement.

Take a chill!

You were panicking under the pummeling?

EnlightenedSoul: I agree it disadvantages women, but I don't think it's cruel.

Ohhhh!

EnlightenedSoul, you finally decided to stop dodging and now see the logic of how a law is inherently bias despite it being equally applicable to both sexes?

Cut the crap about it not being cruel. You know it is cruel but you are just trying to save face from your illogicality.

When women are put in a position where they suffer for their biological settings and have to end up being dependent on others when they are capable of self-dependence in the right environment, that is CRUEL!

So cut the crap!

I will not dwell on this because I am eager to rubbish your logic with more in the arsenal. I am confident you have learnt the first lesson that destroys your selfish and sexist logic.

This was just a starter, we still have the Entree coming.

Now to the moronic law and why it is wrong.

iconize: Nah!

That if you see any populated place call it a city, like sagamite!

Talk about peeps being primitive and backward, I feel sorry for Y'all.

Oya, tell us your village that has 930K people!

iconize: Is blindness also one of your many problems?
Read again!

Where is modern?

What is a city?

Chinonnyedike: dont waste your time on this animal.

he is retarded

He is a pure person!

EnlightenedSoul: I've answered you twice! Why must I repeat myself?

Where is you answer?

"Is the action right, fair and not cruel to women" considering the employers would apply the same assessment to both sexes?

Yes?

Or No?

Or I am going to dodge this because I will never back anything that can disadvantage women but I will always argue that the one that disadvantages men is good?

iconize: You brought them in to save you but they've successfully "taught" me something "I never knew".

That a place with 720K people is a city?

iconize: Yes!

They're correcting me by reminding me that population is no the only determinant of a city like you "taught" me.

They mentioned something like "services".

Now mention those services a modern city should give/render to its inhabitants, let's know how many of them your Nigerian "cities" provide.

person, where is the "modern" you were claiming now?

EnlightenedSoul: Like I said, it is what it is. If a company avoids hiring younger women based on the assumption they'll soon be on maternity leave, that is their prerogative. But it makes little sense considering maternity leave is usually undergone using a combination of short-term disability (STD), sick leave, vacation, personal days, and unpaid family leave, and these are benefits every employee receives.

I told you not to tell me what a company does.

I asked for your judgement based on your logic of fairness.

Stop dodging!

"Is the action right, fair and not cruel to women" considering the employers would apply the same assessment to both sexes?

iconize: Ally?

When I'm seriously whipping you and your primitive fellows, back, front and center.

Yeah, you are "winning" in the view of your failed education provisions.

iconize: Is he ever making sense?

In desperation, he now needs an ally!

EnlightenedSoul, can you help him out?

iconize: Mister man, shut up!

I've been adding "modern"! So shut it and stop running back and forth.

First you tried to deny saying population is not the only determinant of a city.

Besides, why would I be discussing ancient cities with you, are you an ancient man?

Cretinous person, you are now changing track after the pummeling?

When did you start adding modern because all we can see is an argument on what makes a city.

See as people don dey correct your dumb arsse!

EnlightenedSoul: You're not making any sense.

Make sense for me by answer "Is the action it right, fair and not cruel to women" considering the employers would apply the same assessment to both sexes?

EnlightenedSoul: I think it is what it is.

Oh, you are now pleading the 5th?

Can you see why I say majority of you women lack logic and it is all "me, me, me"?

It is only fair if the harm is not done to you or you get an advantage but it is outrageous if the harm is to you?