₦airaland Forum

MRbrownJAY: first of all i metioned ONE country in south America, and here you are talking about South American COUNTRIES.......i can see that you never lost your selective reading skills, lol!

you see, you should know that in today's terms(especially coming from a black African), any caucasian populated country around the world could be considered the west. so if you were good in geography you would know that there are countries in south america that are of white/caucasian decent......(check Brasil or Argentina for example). so this is the reason why i asked you what version of THE WEST you wanted from his highness MBJ.

YOU ARE PATHETIC!

No 1, you did not mention ONE country. You said SOUTH AMERICA!

MRbrownJAY: lets see....hhhmmm... lets take North and south america and then western Europe, and there you have it.....
and since many countries in the east have these same western laws of marriage in their own countries, i am safe to say that pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world , lol!

No 2, tell me which ONE country in South America is regarded as part of the West! Show me where you came up with or saw that.

Who are you trying to BS?

You are a pathetic soul.

MRbrownJAY: so you mean to say that a person couldnt get a divorce because his/her partner was not caring enough, protective enough, or didnt do what he/she said they would (via those vows)?

The terms said "for worse", that is what the courts should respect if they take the terms seriously.

If your partner is not caring enough, protective enough or whatever, you stay FOR WORSE, TILL DEATH DO YOU PART!

The terms did not say "till I am not happy".

MRbrownJAY: first of all i metioned ONE country in south America, and here you are talking about South American COUNTRIES.......i can see that you never lost your selective reading skills, lol!

you see, you should know that in today's terms(especially coming from a black African), any caucasian populated country around the world could be considered the west. so if you were good in geography you would know that there are countries in south america that are of white/caucasian decent......(check Brasil or Argentina for example). so this is the reason why i asked you what version of THE WEST you wanted from his highness MBJ.

YOU ARE PATHETIC!

No 1, you did not mention ONE country. You said SOUTH AMERICA!

No 2, tell me which ONE country in South America is regarded as part of the West! Show me where you came up with or saw that.

Who are you trying to BS?

You are a pathetic soul.

MRbrownJAY: so you mean to say that a person couldnt get a divorce because his/her partner was not caring enough, protective enough, or didnt do what he/she said they would (via those vows)?

The terms said "for worse", that is what the courts should respect if they take the terms seriously.

If the person is not caring enough, protective enough or whatever, you stay FOR WORSE, TILL DEATH DO YOU PART!

MRbrownJAY: ^^^^ bro you do know that Japan has always been considered THE WEST, right?! is Japan anywhere near the western hemisphere?!

Where did I say the West implies the western hemisphere? Did I say that? Show me.

Who do you want to strawman?

SAGA SAGA!

My friend, explain to me since when and how South American countries are part of the West!

I wait.

MRbrownJAY: as for the couple in marriage, if you BELIEVE that couple do follow their vows then why are you saying for the last 3 days that vows are irrelevant the minute they are taken?! you should say vows are RELEVANT because people stand by them.....and that should be the end of story!

The vows are irrelevant because the courts do not hold you against it!

MRbrownJAY: so are you saying that couples dont care if the terms are followed or not? are you saying that married people just say these vows and GLADLY never stand for them? come on now!!! people stand by their vows, and the ones who suddenly dont prefer to divorce. the fact that you believe that people say their vows and then live happily ever after NOT FOLLOWING them is wrong.


the reason people get divorce is because they value these vows and therefore cannot be with someone who dont.....therefore these terms ARE relevant after marriage as they are the reason that a person becomes a divorcee. if they were not relevant after marriage, then that person would still be married, duh!

Show me where I declared couples don't care or don't follow.

I wait.

MRbrownJAY: lol..... i see you've ran out of arguments and now shifting the subject on some other issues....no worries bro!
before we begin another 20pages debate, do you want the ECONOMIC version of the west? the GEOGRAPHIC version of the west? the RELIGIOUS version of the west? the GOVERNMENTAL version of the west? the FREE WORLD version of the west?....... or simply MBJ's version of the west which would be a mix of all of the above?! lol!

Let me laugh for a minute!



Ye! Ye! Ye!

My belle o! My head o!

Okay, I am back.

Me run out of arguments?

Abeg, another 30s of laugh.

Nah, I will tackle the rubbish you put up there later. I can see you are running from giving your opinion about which is the better proposal.

I just will not allow you to bury idiotic rubbish in volumes of post that is why I stopped there. I am about to PAXMAN up this murrafcker.

It is me you want to tell red is black? Who are you? Did you go to the same school as coogar?

What is your general understanding of the term: the West? When we say Western laws, which group are we talking about? Yoruba people? Gambia and Senegal? The people on the West of your street?

When people are talking about the West, in what context are they talking about? Is the UK and Germany in the centre? If not, does that mean Nigeria is part of the West?

MBJ Logicaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Who are you trying to BS?

Explain to me since when and how South American countries are part of the West!

I wait.

MRbrownJAY: if someone doesnt stand for these same vows, it can be used in a court of law to ask for a divorce.......so i am very sorry to say that they ARE in fact binding.

are you that "unsmart" OR are you doing it on purpose in order to try to stay relevant (when you clearly aint)?
you sign a contract and stand by its terms, THEN AFTER A FEW YEARS OF STANDING BY THESE TERMS, you decide that you dont want to stand by the terms of that said contract any longer, and subsequently ask for a divorce. the terms ARE relevant while the marriage lasted, and are STILL relevant after marriage (thats why people choose to divorce), DUH!

It is not a contract!

The terms are irrelevant in court. No one judges if you are following the terms. No one penalises you for not following the terms. Hence the terms can be useless the second after you utter them. The people are free to throw them away.

How are the terms relevant after marriage? Use your smartness to tell me how the courts consider the terms!

MRbrownJAY: if you knew anything about how it came about that some countries were called the west, then you wouldnt even ask this very unintelligent question.

Ah! I am not burying this o!

MBJ Geography! MBJ United Nations!

Explain to me since when and how South American countries are part of the West!

I wait!

chic2pimp: No mind Saga jare

AH! Chico-chicopimp, wa wo oloshi ti won pe ni Real Man. (Come and look at the fucktards called Real Man)

https://www.nairaland.com/1021440/men-always-been-petty-missing/1#11883411

MRbrownJAY: bro, you are scaring me o...... here is what you wrote TWICE:"Tell me one contract, that when it is decided on, the terms are irrelevant but so-called "unwritten rules" are what are relevant?" and you also wrote:"It can not be a contract when the ONLY TERMS in the contract that people agreed to are not even relevant"...... so you are not saying that these vows are not binding, you are CLAIMING that people dont stand by them as soon as they say i do.

They are not relevant in court so they are not legally binding as it is not a contract!

MRbrownJAY: if one of the participant (husband or wife) does not want to stand for these vows any longer, then nobody can force them to do so. but then again, if you have a better solution than divorce, holla!

again, so long as they revoke the earlier contract, no biggie!

THEN IT IS NOT A CONTRACT!

The terms are irrelevant.

MRbrownJAY: lets see....hhhmmm... lets take North and south america and then western Europe, and there you have it.....
and since many countries in the east have these same western laws of marriage in their own countries, i am safe to say that pretty much everywhere else in the civilized world , lol!

Since when did South America become part of the West!

Is that MBJ Geography?

List the Eastern countries that have Western marriage laws.

MRbrownJAY: so now his highness Saga is trying to make us believe that marriage decline is due to the marriage laws, lol.....i guess this is another of your crystal ball vision!

You said people are happily getting married, I shut you down that marriage is actually on the decline. Is it not declining?

You were telling us people were still happy getting married when that is not true! And you think part of the reason is not because men do not want to face useless laws?
`

MRbrownJAY: would you get married without a prenup (under western laws) since you feel the way you do.....and then complain about the damn law being unfair?!

Why shouldn't one complain? So something is wrong if a woman marries in Nigeria or Saudi and complains if she is shafted in divorce? You would say that is the law and it is fair, she should not get married if she does not like it? Or you would intelligently say the law needs changing?

MRbrownJAY: educate yourself on marriages instead of writing rubbish online....... if you have as little as £50K then you MUST write a prenup to protect whatever nest egg you had before marriage.....and since we all know that a house in the UK will set you back almost 5 times more than that, i would certainly understand someone who's already paid their mortgage fully to want to protect their home.

How many people in their late 20s or early 30s have such money (£50)? How many in that age range have fully paid up their mortgage? So how can most people marrying bother to sign prenup?

Who is chatting rubbish out the 2 of us?

The common process is that you do the hard work to set up your future life in your youth and then reap the rewards in your older age? Then you have MBJs that will chat rubbish that it is only fair you get milked off that reward by people that did not do the work because in their delusional reasoning "it was made in a union".

MRbrownJAY: if prenups are not legal wherever you live then i am sorry to say that your options are limited.......either stand by the marriage laws or DONT GET MARRIED, et voila!

Maybe you should use your sense and realise that is why the people getting married are not singing prenups, not that they do not have a problem with the law.

In the world of intellectual reasoning, Saga's world, laws can be changed. You do not become a mugu and have to compulsorily stand by it.

MRbrownJAY: again, this is MY opinion on the subject, and i certainly dont advocate anyone to stand by them, i am simply telling YOU how i feel about the law........ since you've been asking, duh! you cannot ask me for my opinion and then turn around and telling me to keep it to myself when you dont like my answer, bwaaaah!

i am sorry you dont like what i wrote, nevertheless, thats my opinion, take it or go drink a soda!

Well you opinion is not logical or fair.

MRbrownJAY: so now you want to put a monetary value on taking care of children?! lol....again, you are not making sense. nobody is asking for financial rewards, they are asking for their share of the FAMILY wealth, that they help build by doing THEIR DUTY.

They are asking for a share of someone's wealth that they did not work for.

MRbrownJAY: are you now saying that if a man is poor and his wife taking care of his kid would get nothing in divorce settlements, therefore the wife of a rich man should also get nothing?! are you delusional?! do you even hear what you are saying? i pity the sorry gal that will settle with you, SERIOUSLY!!!!
anyway, men like you who only focus of what money you bring to any union can never find happiness because you are too busy focussing on the wrong things in life. ITS ALL ABOUT SHARING WHATEVER WEALTH THAT FAMILY HAS BUILT....whether rich or poor!

Where did I say that? You lack comprehension?

I said the duties a rich wife performs is exactly the duties a poor wife performs, so you cannot justify valuing the duty of a rich wife higher. You are encouraging Gold-digging! Marry a richer man and you will become rich by not doing much or anything spectacular.

MRbrownJAY: and your mentality encourages people to care only about themselves (or money) selfishly..... why would a wife care for her children/family if she knows that the bastard she is married to will say that whatever she earned is hers?! that woman will simply drop her kids and focus on herself, and i wont blame her for ONE MINUTE!
i actually can picture you with such woman in such BS family!

You love chatting rubbish because you lack logical thinking.

The wife would marry because she is guaranteed she would still earn her potential money without having to do the work and focus on her kids as she would get all lost income in a divorce settlement I propose. She just would not get what she can never earn. Unlike you suggestion where you want men to be robbed.

MRbrownJAY: you are so focus on money that you are talking NONSENSE!!!!!
i clearly wrote that you CANNOT PUT A PRICE ON THAT, and yet you now write that she must be paid for it?! are you ok, did you get that soda?!
i said to you that a wife will provide safety, and that this is PRICELESS....and therefore thats why the safety she provides is as important as the money that the husband may earn...... stop trying to claim stuff that i didnt write, i am smarter than that!

Of course I will focus on the money, that is where the problem in divorce is.

You don't put a price on it. It is free! It is free to take care of your kids. It is parental responsibility from both parents. Neither should be paid for doing it. Definitely, one should not be paid while the other does his for free.

MRbrownJAY: and yet men like you will be the first to cry FOUL when women would put a price on caring for their own family....but here you are now saying that this is exactly how it should be....what a bunch of hypocrites you lot!
as i said earlier, you either stand for something or you dont, but dont bring this argument only when it fits your selfish agenda.
the work that any mother does is priceless to me, and therefore you can never put a price on it, NEVER....and therefore i believe that they should get their fair share of whatever was generated during marriage.....i stand by that, and will always do.........deal with it!

Why aree you trying to strawman me?

Show me where I said such?

Or was that stewpid conjecture?

MRbrownJAY: and how should a wife take back the care and safety she brought to the family....pls make some damn sense or be quiet as you are making no sense whatsoever right now........but then again, since your life revolves around making money, i can surely understand why you think so poorly about life. good luck on being the richest man in the cemetery when you finally kick the bucket.

Does the man take back the care and safety he gives in marriage? Does he get paid for it? Why does he have to pay another person after he has given care and safety himself? Where is the sense in your argument?

MRbrownJAY: again, you CANNOT put a price on whatever a wife brings to a man's life. you may think that Zuckerberg would have made the money regardless of marriage or not, but the important point is that HE DIDNT! he chose to marry and share whatever he now earns with this lady..... the question is why you are busting a vein when the person in question doesnt? HE believes that she deserves 270Milla, and thats why he married the lady, yet you and your thousands of $$$$ in the bank believe that she doesnt. so my suggestion is that you deal with your life (and obviously never get married), and let people who believe in the law stand for theirs....END OF STORY!!!!!

What stewpid rubbish are you chatting!

HE HAS ALREADY DONE THE WORK THAT WILL GENERATE IT! He has spent his youth working hard, he just needs to reap the future rewards.

Use your brain, I am debating on generic laws, not laws that applies to only Zuckerberg! Zuckerberg is only an example to show how senseless the logic of your proposal is.

Let me tell you more about moronic fucktards and their contribution to society.

Bukola Saraki and his cronies in the State Assembly, without any consultation and obviously without any sense, passed a law just before Saraki's governorship term expired to build and furnish a how for every exiting Governor.

This are already thieving and overpaid people, who have looted the treasury that are getting a free furnished house based on public funds.

There are several cases like this in Nigeria of selfish and wicked baastards milking the people.

When there is trouble in Nigeria that leads to riot, guess where the fucktards that are rioting would go.

They would go and attack the people working hard and trying to make a living and destroy their means of livelihood, not the people that have ruined and are ruining their lives oppressive assets.



By the way our Nigerian First Lady was recently made a permanent secretary in her state. How that is possible is beyond me?

This is the same woman that addressed an audience by starting with the statement: "Fellow Widowers, ......."

No 1, she is not a man, so cannot be a widower.

No 2, her husband is not dead.

Those are the type of fucktards ruling us in Nigeria! Hence we churn out more fucktards due to their failures.

Lets compare divorce settlement proposals.

A - Typical Current Western Laws

- Couples should individually keep whatever they make before marriage.

- Couples should compound all earnings made in marriage and share it 50-50.



B - MBJ Logica

- Couples should individually keep whatever they make before marriage.

- Couples should compound all earnings made in marriage and share it 30% each between husband, wife and children respectively. _{That does not add up to 100% though but that is MBJ Mathematica}



C - Sagacity, Saga Saga, Saga hit-it

- Couples should individually keep whatever they make before marriage.

- Couples should be entitled to their contribution in the marriage excluding child support. For the party that sacrifices a career due to the marriage (normally the woman):

She should get (1) What she contributed + (2) what she got from the marriage (e.g. assets and gifts) + (3) compensation for any opportunity cost based on a realistic* assessment of her earning potential + (4) any extras the husband wants to voluntarily give her

* What she realistically could have earned but sacrificed during the relationship
- by going on maternity leave to take care of their kids and/or
- by giving up a job to be a housewife or move closer to him and/or
- to follow him when he is transferred and she has to relocate and restart her career somewhere else and/or
- the potential rise in career that her aforementioned sacrifices lost her.

This realistic, not fairy-tale figures can be calculated by looking at the trajectory of her career and abilities she had built up before marriage and compare it with a normal distribution curve (in statistics, bell curve) of what her peers (the male ones) are earning without similar sacrifices, then something between the Mean (average) of the range and maximum of probably 3 standard deviations from the mean can be awarded. Maximum can be awarded in wealthier marriages where the women has demonstrated top of her peer group prior to marriage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Oya, MBJ, answer with a succinct and direct explanation for your answers. No useless question-dodging verbosity:

1) Which one is more logical?

2) Which one is likely to result in fairness in majority of cases?

3) Which one would not lead to gold-diggers benefiting from exploiting the institution of marriage?

4) Which one would strenghten the institution of marriage and make it more stable?

This is what you get when you have a society full of poorly educated fucktardinhos:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19315210

MRbrownJAY: the above in bold conclusively show us all where your emotional issues about divorce settlement lay...... i am sorry to let you know that many people gladly (or ignorantly as you stated) stand by the terms of that contract/marriage. the fact that many sad and sorry people dont, shouldnt be a reason for you to believe that all people getting married dont stand for the vows they've taken.

Where did I say many, few, lots, majority, minority, select or whatever people do not respect vows? Why are you trying to strawman me na?

I just stated the fact that vows/terms are not binding unlike contractual terms! They are meaningless sweet words!

MRbrownJAY: so now you are making marriage terms/vows as you get along?! where in the marriage vows does it actually says that you are NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE?! wake up from your dreams, bro! just because people decide to stand by some marriage vows, DOES NOT mean you cannot opt out of them.

Did I make up "for better, for worse. Till death do us part"? Is that not a common part of the vows? How does that allow you to leave?

IT SAYS STAY FOR WORSE UNTIL DEATH TEARS YOU APART! You can read na!

That is the contractual term people signed to. If it is a contract then they will have to stick to it. IT IS NOT A CONTRACT!

MRbrownJAY: if people are gladly getting married in the west, under western marriage laws (without a prenup), then obviously these people have no problem with marriage laws....... you dont have to go to further than secondary school to understand that, so pls show us that what you have between your ears is fully functioning.
if they all had the same screwed up beliefs about marriage/divorce laws (as you do), then i doubt any of these people would get married (under western marriage laws) without a prenup. it is as simple as a 1-2-3 to understand.

No 1, where did you get the rubbish "billions" of people support western marriage laws? Are there even billion people in the West?

No 2, how can you say people are gladly getting married when marriage rates in the West is declining? MBJ Logicaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

No 3, are you saying even those marrying are not complaining about the unfair divorce laws?

No 4, do you realise you have to be really wealthy before marriage before a prenup can be valuable under the useless laws, that is why most do not sign prenup when they marry (in the late 20s)?

No 5, do you realise that prenups are not even valid in a lot of countries, so why would a lot of them be signing prenups?

So what do you have between your ears if you do not realise all these? MBJ Logica!

MRbrownJAY: answering this question would be an insult to anyone who has been reading through this long [b]a[/b]ss thread. go back and read my earlier post to have a clear and precise reply to the above question that you have been asking 20times.
but let me just say this: the minute you answer the only question i have asked you and your GFs, is the minute i will post AGAIN, my reply to the above question.....ultimately you can always press the back button to read it by yourself.

i have never valued ANYTHING, i have only told you that the minute you decide to marry someone, then you should share EVERYTHING with them, not just your bed!

you are so focus on money and thats the only thing you are talking about, while never mentioning anything else. it is sad, very sad indeed. i hope that you focus on other things in life, because if you dont, thats a very sad life you are living. i guess you are hoping to be the richest men in the cemetery when your time comes up, lol!

If you are advocating for hard-working and intellectually-blessed men to be reaped off, then you should be able to justify your opinion by giving us the reasons and valuations.

Otherwise keep your opinion to yourself.

It is not really bright to give opinions you cannot defend in public, it woudl be scrutinised.

MRbrownJAY: what the hell are you on about?! who said anyone should be paid for raising their own kids? i am saying that everyone has their duties in marriage and should stand by them. so if a wife's duty is to stay home and care for the children then that duty is AS IMPORTANT as bringing the cheddar......and people like you shouldnt automatically say that because husband earned the cheddar, thats HIS money, simply because the wifey cannot equally say that because she raised the child, the children are therefore hers. but keep trying to put words in my mouth that i didnt say, lol!

Yes, people should do their duty but such duty should not be grounds to claim financial rewards you are not worthy off. You should get what you earn plus what you lost earning!

You should get the value of what you contributed! What you contributed is not more than the contribution of a wife of a poor man, why do you think yours is special for millions?

You should get the value of your TIME! Your mentality is what encourages gold-diggers.

Logic!

MRbrownJAY: the fact that you are saying its free means that you have absolutely no idea what you are one about......its PRICELESS, and thats where the difference lay between you and I.

again, it is priceless!!!!! and this is where your emotional issues are....pls do seek professional help as you really have an emotional problem to solve.

they BOTH provide safety, duh!

It is free!

Safety my arse!

You came up with rubbish reasoning.

MRbrownJAY: why do you even think FOR ONE MINUTE that happy couples should be paid to care for their family, in a safe environment?!
i can clearly see that you dont have children, when you do you will understand that the safety of your little ones is PRICELESS, and knowing that they are in a safe environment will make your life MUCH EASIER.

Amsorry!

You are the one that said it the wife must be paid for providing safety and care, and I asked you if the husband should be paid too.

Are you getting confused with your own arguments now?

MRbrownJAY: people are free to share their wealth as they pls, when they cant then an independent body should take over. the day you find another solution for that, holla!

And that independent body needs to have a logical default basis that is FAIR to all parties. What we are debating now is how the current system is rubbish and unfair. It cheats one party repeatedly and encourages gold-diggers. What is a better approach?

Then you come out with rubbish!

MRbrownJAY: again, how the money was made is irrelevant to the FAMILY. the money is just ONE part of what a FAMILY IS ALL ABOUT, the day you finally realize that, is the day you will make any progress in life.

It is relevant. It is part of fairness.

Money is made true hardwork, long-term sacrifice for a long lenght of time. You don't wake up and make laws to milk people of their personal investment and hardwork and call it FAIR!

Only fair in MBJ Logica world!

MRbrownJAY: exactly, so only a single person should claim that their wealth is theirs, the minute that person is MARRIED then that wealth is THE FAMILY's, not HIS solely....unless that person is married to his own self, duh!

Rubbish!

you share it with your family and when you stop being married, you take what you WORKED for and share it with whomever you choose to.

What is sensible about stating someone gets £270m they never worked for?

MRbrownJAY: again, writing nonsense that i have never said....but funny enough that you think that women have their duties to perform in marriage, while husband have theirs(as a unit).....but when it is time to divorce, then everyone should take what they brought in (but thereafter biatch like a sissy when these same women say that they should be paid for taking care of their children)

you either stand for something or you dont.....make up your mind. in my world, women shouldnt be paid to take care of their children, because this is their duties, just like it was their husband's duty to bring the cheddar. so everything that was done FOR that union goes into a "bag" and EVERYTHING is separated fairly, as we all know that we cant give back the care that these women had for their children....as if we should!

Get some sense, what I have always said is "every one takes what they contributed plus what they missed out on due to their duties".

How can it be fair for someone to take £270m that was seeded before they were married and which they can never make themselves?

All because MBJ Logica suggested some stewpid "it was made in a union".

Come on, MBJ!

Tgirl4real: Liar!!!

Some of your other comments makes it obvious u can actually be romantic. Could be in a hard way sha.

Don't confuse sweet and reliable with romantic!

sunnshyn: Oh yea?

Very, very yea!

Really on point!

graluxxy054: Let's be frank here, Nigerians aint romantic at all. Yes! Those that claim to be imitate what they watch on tv. Na lie
Ok here this. If five guys approach me in a day. Four would repeat almost the same thing. I don't know if you guyz cram your lines.
Love can't be learnt. Its being expressed and comes from the heart.

Well, to answer your question, I don't like pet names

A guy is wasting his time being romantic with a Naija girl.

The average Naija girl is a rude, classless ediot. And if a guy makes the mistake of trying to be romantic and putting his self at a risk of humiliation, he might just get it when she takes joy in publicly humiliating him.

Secondly, such women do not deserve romanticism.

sunnshyn: For me basically,
I think being shy has really caused me more harm than good,
E.g:
I dig a dude, he digs me, he calls we talk nicely,
Ok na wahala wld start as soon as he asks us to hang out!!!
And even when I manage to go, I'll be so uptight and all...it even embarrasses me sef!

But truth be told: I'm a ROMANTIC to d C!!!

You sound EXACTLY like someone I know on NL.

slimyem: you must be such a bore!!!

I did not come to this world to entertain you or any other woman, I am not a Real Man, so I am not disappointed or feel inadequate if you find me a bore.

Even though I am not.

Everything.

The most unromantic man you can ever come across.

Tgirl4real: U berra no give yaself high blood pressure!

So, dem gals waiting on u for 15years all in d name of long courtship don enter one chance? Lol.

I won't be surprised if you are married to 3 wives already.

Not wives. Babymamas!

all4naija: What happen in SA as regard the shooting can happen any where in the word. I am not saying it cannot happen any. I am even against the typical Africans view regard doing things right.

I wasn't even thinking you were talking about the shootings. I was think you were talking about the xenophobic riots where innocent people were burnt.

Most of us Africans cannot sit down and be pointing fingers. We do that like an annual festival in Nigeria for example. Jos, Kaduna, Kano etc.

We periodically kill each other because of different backgrounds.

Why?

Because Africa is full of FUCKTARDS!

When people are uneducated and poor, they cannot develop themselves and their brains and turn to fucktards.

Brains need nutrients. You get nutrients from balanced diets! When you eat eba or mealie meal as breakfast, lunch and dinner without meat, and you cannot read and right to educate your mind nor do you have easy access to quality, educative programmes, you are susceptible to being convinced to be a savage. And when you are unlucky not to get these at the right age, usually it becomes too late (the brain is almost completely sealed) and you become a wandering danger in society that might be triggered.

South Africa has loads of people like that because of Apartheid.

Nigeria and other countries have loads of people like that because of mismanagement.

Those are normally the kind of people that kill each other. Normally led by cretins like Malema.

all4naija: Not actually, but being our brothers keeper is a good thing. Those Zimbabweans(to be precise) need South Africans help during the Mugabe oppression. The co-operation of understanding the need to accept our own first and treat them equally.It is called refugee community, it happen in many country receiving migrant refugee - like in Jordan, Spain, United Kingdom, Greece, just to mention a few. Doing it right is what South Africa lack not opening the door is the problem.

I can guarantee you SA is doing a lot (bar diplomatically) to help Zimbabwean economic migrants.

all4naija: You got people's comments twisted. There is nobody hating on South Africa on this forum. The truth is that with the level of development and claims of civilization in the country it is annoying to see people still carry weapon during protest channeling them to harm the police and expected not to be shot at.

The truth is that I have never see any Nigerian on his right mind hating any South African. Looking back to what the people of your country have done to Africans migrants against the Europeans it becomes obvious there is some animosity to view black South Africans as xenophobic. They have proved that during the massacre of Africans( most of the images were gruesome and still fresh in many migrants minds).

Just that you don't want to see African migrant(well palpable from the tone of your comment) in South Africa yet there are large communities of Indians, Chinese and the so called color not to mention the whites who held that country for many years in agony.

Simply, on your opinion you lack the brain power to decipher that there is need for Africans to migrate to South Africa. Whites know the significance of migrants that was the very reason they gave free pass for European to visit and live in Australia during the Aborigine suppression regimes.

It is time you learn to appreciate you African people and try to settle issue with them rather coming here to claim superiority and how South Africa is different from other African country forgetting that it is in the backdrop of the white man's culture and legacy.

You want to tell me what happened to those Africans in SA cannot happen to them in the own country, amongst their own people?

How are the rest of Africa different from SA then?

Secondly, you think SA (with unemployment rates of 1 in 4) should open their doors to the whole of hungry and mismanage Africa to come there?

To achieve what?

They should open their doors to people that, because of apatheid, might be more skilled or educated than the average black South African majority?

What do you think would be the outcome of such policies?

MRbrownJAY: ....and when these contractual terms are not respected/followed, that is the reason why many do opt for a divorce, duh!
you can call it whatever YOU like, but for most people it is a contract. as i said earlier, if you have to sign on it to confirm that you will stand by it, then it can only be a contract.

Most people are ignorant and ignorantly call it a contract.

It is this ignorance you picked up and used without evaluating it and vomitted that word.

IT IS NOT A CONTRACT! They treat it as a social system that has a legal standing and subjectable to specific laws!

It is those laws that make it worthy of court hearing.

IT IS NOT A CONTRACT! A pre-nup is a contract, marriage is not.

Calling it a contract is the kind of moronic words used by silly Pastors to preach to their sheep. The kind of jargons people go and listen to every sunday and they consume without questioning. Then YOU hear it and consumed it too without thinking.

Contracts have contractual terms that are enforceable. The terms of marriage are just ceremonial. Once you make it, people are free to throw it in the bin, no one will question them on whether they followed it or not.

MRbrownJAY: bwaaah, mister Saga and his selective reading again................. when the contract is signed all the terms are relevant and each participant stand by them. then, a few yrs down the line, if/when a participant decides that they wish not to stand by these terms any longer, the underwritten rule CAN help them to get out of this contract. as i said earlier, all contract can be revoked or terminated, ALL!!!!

But the terms clearly states you are not allowed to leave it! You should stay for better for worse!

That is what the person willingly, voluntarily signed. What kind of contract will the terms not be enforced by a court?

Tell me one contract, that when it is decided on, the terms are irrelevant but so-called "unwritten rules" are what are relevant?

MRbrownJAY: again, just because YOU (and your brigade) think that my point is not logic, is your problem to deal with, not mine. i've already given you my logic (and that of millions of people who share their family wealth in a mature manner), whether you like it or not is irrelevant to me.

the billions that gladly get married without a prenup, AND gladly divorce their partner, while settling the matter with that said person amicably (without the need for the court system), lol!

Are billions of people subject to the same or similar laws as they have in the West?

So which billions of people support the Western divorce laws we are critiquing here?

Can you please stop chatting shyt! It is best to keep quiet if you have no point.

MRbrownJAY: i gave you MY VIEWS extensively, yet you are still beating your head on concrete asking me what are my views. go back and read the thread to know what my views are and stop asking the same question on and on in a childish manner. if you dont like my answer, FAIR ENOUGH, but stop acting like a child.
my answer to your question is well documented on this thread, and my answer has a lot to do with the law (since i am a law abiding citizen), take it or leave it but both are connected!

what you are asking is as stoopid as saying that its ok to walk into a bank and just take whatever money you felt like (that was not yours), then walk into any airport, get into a Boeing 787 dreamliner cockpit, personally fly that plane to wherever you like to spend that money ......regardless of law or common sense, simply because that's what you felt was right. NONSENSE! i use my brain, process the right and wrong, make sure it is within the local laws, and then make a decision upon it....... thats how it works in MBJ's brain!

there are laws in this world, and whether people understand them or (in your case) not, you MUST stand by them at all time. i fully understand the European laws of Marriage, .... the fact that you believe that the chicken change you make during your married life is the MOST important thing in marriage, is the reason why you will never understand the concept at hand, and always believe that what you earn is "yours".

you now have my views, so stop asking the same question, thinking that the answer will change. remember what they say: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result".

and my question to you and your brigade WAS: what other solution do you have for divorcing couples, apart from the impartial court system? i asked that question about 2 weeks ago, but none of you ladies gave me an answer.....yet, here you are talking about the law being unfair or what you believe is right. the day you have a smart mature solution, then holla at the world, until then, stick to the damn law (or dont get married without a prenup)

i suggest you go back and read the thread then, or quickly go get medication for amnesia.
it is all there in black and white.

No you have not given you views, all you do is tell us what the law is.

Now give us your view. Give us your reasoning. Give us your best logic.

Make it simple, no verbosity and no dodging it.

Give us you view with the ratiocination behind it. DON'T DODGE IT! DON'T START WRITING EPISTLES THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO YOUR VIEWS WHEN IT IS EASIER TO PUT FORTH YOUR VIEW!

MRbrownJAY: the fact that you believe that any partner's contribution can only be valued in monetary terms, is the reason why you will always fail in this discussion.
here is some few clues for you:

You teach us how YOU will value it. How did you value it to £270m?

MRbrownJAY: - you can never put a price on having a partner give up their career and stay at home caring for your family in a safe environment, rather than having your children with strangers.

You can!

Do a calculation of their realistic earning potential if they had never given up their career.

Can we not even ask her to pay for her life that was funded by the husband while she gave up her career? Abi he did not use his money to keep her alive and safe? He did not pay for the caring, feeding, housing, health and joy of the kids?

What price does MBJ put on that? Free?

I thought you said parents should not be paid for raising their kids? Are you slightly confused?

MRbrownJAY: - you can never put a price on having someone to share your life with, your good days, bad days, your pain, your joy, your ups and your down (in matrimony)

You can!

It is free! Just like parenthood and friendship!

When you parents were raising you, they did not share your life with, your good days, bad days, your pain, your joy, your ups and your down?

Do you think that should be free or your parents should be able to ask for money? Do you pay you close friends?

This is Saga, stop bringing moronic arguments.

People don't get paid for affection or love except they are prostitutes. Those are free things in life. Got it?

MRbrownJAY: - you can never put a price on having a safe home with someone that you go back to ("home" as in a place of safety, not the building per se)

Who is providing safety? The husband or the wife?

So who pays the husband for the safety he provides? That should be free in the world of MBJ Logica?

We need to pay for safety? I thought that is what we pay our taxes for?

MRbrownJAY: in my mind this is worth about 30% of whatever that family has generated during their union, but hey, thats just MBJ's views, DEAL WITH IT!

There is no logic to it. You should be free to give 30% to your wife but because your approach lacks any sense, it should not be generic laws. It is funny you said you cannot put a value on something but you still put it at 30%.

You can put a value if you use your brain and not vomit rubbish that has been prescribed. Only use SOLID logic.

Zuckerberg cannot be paying 30% to someone that contributed zilt to the way he made his money. He did the work and just needs to sit down and let the money flow in BASED on the work he has done. If he never married, the money would still flow in.

How can a man with a brain then say it is "fair" he must pay someone £270m for not contributing a jot to how the money was made?

Laws should be fair and based on solid reasoning. When you work, you should get rewarded with the value of your work, not the value of other people's work be it you are a wife, parent, friend, boss, neighbour, girlfriend, carpenter, cleaner, whatever.

That is what sensible laws should try and achieve, am I right or wrong?

MRbrownJAY: what you just wrote is as immature as all the women who think children are THEIRS because they carry them for 9months. are you therefore saying that because i am not "capable" of carrying a child for 9months, before giving birth to it, i am not a child's father? are you saying that because a man is not "capable" of running a company, he can never be the owner of one? as i have been saying all along, you are making LESS and LESS sense, as days go by.
people have their duty in marriage, they may not be comparable TO YOU (in monetary terms), but they are AS IMPORTANT for the wellbeing of that said family nevertheless.

so like i said ealier, the lady of which this thread was started does not deserve 50% of the family generated wealth (IMHO,) but she sure does deserve MUCH more than the 0.25% she is being offered by her ex husband.

Obviously, if you are capable of having a child on your own, then you can claim the child is solely yours.

If you can pour Heinz ketchup or Hellman's mayonnaise between your legs and produce a child in 9 months, then obviously the child is solely yours.

And I am 100% positive the law would say so too!

Even the law allows women to not declare the father of a child if they choose not to.

You are more likely to be the one to make such an argument based on your philosophy of stating women should be paid for carrying out their responsibilities while men should do theirs for free.

You are trying to strawman me again?

MBJ, you no dey learn?

MRbrownJAY: @SAGA
- the fact that you believe that the vows ONLY states "till death do us part" while forgetting that it also says "I, Sagamite, take you, TPIA, to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health", is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #1

- the fact that you believe that nobody ever stood for their vows/contract, simply because they ultimately decide to divorce after a few yrs, is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #2
simply because someone decides to divorce DOES NOT means they never stood for their vows, duh!

How is a "contract" that clearly states you have to remain in it for worse terminateable?

IT IS NOT A CONTRACT!

It is ceremonial or ritualist rubbish where you whisper feel-good BS in each others ears. BS that are not enforceable!

CONTRACTUAL TERMS ARE ENFORCEABLE!

MBJ Logica! You have no logical brain!

Tell me one contract, that when it is decided on, the terms are irrelevant but so-called "unwritten rules" are what are relevant?

MRbrownJAY: - the fact that you believe that we are here to criticize the law, while i am simply here to make you "UNDERSTAND" it, is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #3
YOU are the one who have a problem with the law, billions of people around the world DONT. so YOU deal with your issues bro!

You sound so pathetic!

So basically, I just made you realise you have no logical thinking of your own.

Who told you majority of us don't understand the law? We need you to regale the law we can read online to us?

Which billions of people don't have a problem with Western laws?

What a pathetic statement.

MRbrownJAY: - the fact that you believe that only an individual's brain/views is relevant in the world we live today, is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #4
there are many things i would like to do but sadly, because the law says it is ILLEGAL, i cant and i wont.

Grasping at straws?

Where did I say only an individual's views is relevant? You want to strawman Saga? You think you are capable of strawmanning Saga Saga, Omo iya eleba?

How is the fact I merely asked you to express your view, which you are scared shyt of doing, so we can evaluate it, imply I think only individual views are relevant?

Is it not by collating views and evaluating them that the optimal solution is innovated?

Maybe at your level, it is the responsibilities of others to dictate views and you follow blindly. At my level, I evaluate views, critique it with superior intellect and come up with improvements where relevant. I can't help it, I have the brains.

MRbrownJAY: - i have justified the law many time by telling you why i (MBJ) believe a woman deserves to get at least 30% of the family generated wealth. the fact that you stubbornly dont want to accept it as MY VIEWS, is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #5
the fact that you dont believe in what i believe is ok, but stop pretending that you dont see my point. asking on and on is pointless as i have stated my point countless of times. get it over with.

No, you have not. You have only told me the law says it, that is my view.

Tell me the brainwork YOU did, not someone else's, to arrive at why she deserves 30%.

I can easily assume your brainwork was "she married him and fcks him" but I am trying to be respectful and not insult you publicly by attributing such stewpidity to you.

MBJ, tell us why you think Zuckerberg's wife should be entitled to 30%? What does she contribute to worth the value of $270m?

MRbrownJAY: - the fact that you STILL question why Zuckerberg's wife (or any other around the world) is entitled to a % of what "they" would make during their union, is your FAIL OF THE WEEK #6
again, i have already stated countless of times why I (MBJ) believe she is entitled to her fair share of the family generated wealth, if you dont like my answer then FAIR ENOUGH, but stop asking me the same damn question over and over simply because you dont "like" my answer. this answer makes plenty of sense to ME, so get it over with.

Zuckerberg himself fully well knows what he will have to pay his wife (if they ever divorce), AND STILL got married to her....so if he, or any other married men in the US, dont have any problem with it, WHY SHOULD YOU?! live YOUR life, dont get married (or have a tight prenup) and be done with the misery bro.....and if you have any issues with the law that YOU think is unfair, then i suggest you pick some cardboard and some wood, create some picket signs, and go march in front of the supreme court to have the law change.

How is it fair share to take money you did not work for, you did not contribute to and you are not capable of making.

Don't come back and tell me "the law says so".

Go outside, take some fresh air and THINK.

USE YOUR BRAIN!

Then come back with what you ratiocinated.

How is she fairly entitled to it when Zuckerberg would still have made the money irrespectively of his marriage based on the work he has done pre-marriage and, secondly, also the marriage has no contribution to making it.

How is that fair share in the world of MBJ Logica!

panafrican: Besides that what is wrong about being in power for 28 years?

This is why I am happy when we get rid of fucktards.

When I tell you all that fucktards are a problem to society, you don't believe.

Cretins like these die and fight for the kinds of leaders we have in Africa, that have made Africa what it is today relative to the rest of the world.

In an ideal world, fucktards should be eliminated when a chance occurs and should not have a right to an opinion, talkless of a vote.

In the mind of fucktards like this and cap28, they are pro-Africa.

Mental patients!