₦airaland Forum

coogar: laws can change all that! self control can change all that!
self control is obeying a law or a moral code that governs you and the rest they say is history!



seriously, it's getting tedious now - the turning point in this argument was when you shifted the post in your own ink that laws cannot control one's desire. since then, this debate has not moved an inch----so go cop a nap, think about my intellectual javelin travelling n stabbing you in the abdomen, then come back with a meaty rebuttal otherwise - i don't have any reason to comment about this ish anymore!

that said, i am glad you have been body-bagged!

I will think about the variety of contexts where wishes are not desires in you-must-kill-me-today-land, how desire and behaviour means the same thing in delusionland dictionaries and how we never debated on "change your desire".

"I no go gree, you must kill me today"!

freecocoa: ^So you no go marry? Abi nobody go gree marry you?

Mba!

Bachelor for life!

Tgirl4real: Are you married ni?

GOD FORBID BAD THING!

I REJECT THAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS!

I REBUKE ALL THE EVILS MY ENEMIES ARE WISHING ON ME.

Ashokortorkortorkortor. Mo bragadagadagadagada. FIRE!

coogar: prescribe with authority = "change"

my ribs don finish
i am in [color=#000000]f[/color]ucking stitches here....somebody help me, sagamite just murdered the language!

No one can dictate to you what your desire should be.

I can not dictate you should love morbidly obese women. I can not change your desire in women. I can't prescribe to you what kind of women you should desire, your desire will still remain your desire. It will not change.

So simples.

But, hey, in the world where wishes are not desires in some context, maybe not that simple.

coogar: hahahaha - sagamite has copped his nocturnal brainfarts again.
now lemme bury you in your own puke....

dictate
v. dic·tat·ed, dic·tat·ing, dic·tates
v.tr.
1. To say or read aloud to be recorded or written by another: dictate a letter.
2.
a. To prescribe with authority; impose: dictated the rules of the game.
b. To control or command: "Foreign leaders were . . . dictated by their own circumstances, bound by the universal imperatives of politics" (Doris Kearns Goodwin).
v.intr.
1. To say or read aloud material to be recorded or written by another: dictated for an hour before leaving for the day.
2. To issue orders or commands.
n. (dktt)
1. A directive; a command.
2. A guiding principle: followed the dictates of my conscience.

sagamite, this is the 2nd time i am letting you know dictate = control!
or does dictate means "change"?
i am the rain man!!!

Explicitly stated what dictate means when I repeatedly said "change your desire" and when I REPEATEDLY used dictate for desire and control for behaviour.

I did not say "laws do not control your desire, it controls your behaviour".

There must be a reason I did not.

I said REPEATEDLY "laws do not dictate your desire, it controls your behaviour. Laws don't change your desire".

drnoel: ^^^^^^agree with u but are u going to fight ur elder brother

I will beat the fck out of his life if he resists me giving him times 2 of the slaps he gave her!

Never again will he be that senseless.

I don't ever touch my wife, you will come and touch my wife and you expect me to be civilised?

Wow! Can't see control desire there.

Where is my specsavers?

It seems it is that delusion of saying behaviour is the same thing as desire in delusionland that is causing confusion. Red is black!

But, Olopa, don't arrest coogar because I never said "change your desire". We never discussed that. We are in delusionland, where wish is not a desire.

delusional coogar: change of desire is not what we argued, we argued if the law can control one's desire!
you said no, i said yes and the theory of self control destroyed your 200,000-word thesis!

https://www.nairaland.com/1012348/parents-how-teach-daughters-self-esteem/16#11840479

https://www.nairaland.com/1012348/parents-how-teach-daughters-self-esteem/16#11840723

https://www.nairaland.com/1012348/parents-how-teach-daughters-self-esteem/16#11840949

https://www.nairaland.com/1012348/parents-how-teach-daughters-self-esteem/17#11841957

Scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"I no go gree, you must kill me today"!

ileobatojo: OMG! You two are relentless. Coogar is wrong, Sagamite is right. There really is no doubt whatsoever. Time to move on, maybe??

"Change of desire" is not what we are discussing only if the thread is not LITTERED with me harping about laws don't "change your desire".

There is a context, somewhere in delusionland, where a wish is not a desire.

"I no go gree, you must kill me today" arguments!

coogar: desire is behaviour! the scriptures even back that up to the hilt
do you need a bible verse or are you going to say the holy book is a fraud?

i remember adding the clause "in this context" when i said that but you can grapple at straws all they long. fill your boots, sagamu boy!!!

change of desire is not what we argued, we argued if the law can control one's desire!
you said no, i said yes and the theory of self control destroyed your 200,000-word thesis!

bow down to me - cos i am your maker!!!

You obviously can't accept facts.

"I no go gree, you must kill me today"!

I will not waste my time. Facts is all I have! What is the point of debating with someone that never accepts facts!

coogar: see blatant change of stance ----
sagamite, did you not say laws don't control desires? are you going to lie on a public forum that you did not type that? [color=#000000]f[/color]ucking hell!

you should have just walked away from this when you had the chance but your dickwaving attitude wouldn't let you. see, coogar is like the quicksand and you don't have enough wisdom - the man who gives coogar resistance sinks the quickest, na simple physics!

if you ace me in any debate, i would kill myself!

Admit it first, I will not waste my time with someone that cannot admit facts:

But desire is not behaviour, as I said?

And wish is a desire, contrary to what you claimed?

Self-control (controlling or restraining your desire) does not mean your desire has changed, am I right?

This would just be Apocalypse!

World War 3!!!

I will never lay my hand on my wife, dem no born anybody outside to lay hands on my wife.

If you have a problem with my wife, you tell me and let me deal with it.

Dem never born the person in my family that will dare do that if they know me.

coogar: the long winding epistle continues -
can you at least articulate your points very well so that it would be a good read for the others? there's no good reason to type 50,000 words when 10 would suffice. you need to learn the art of line compression....

back to the issue at hand----
my point stands on the fact that your desire is your behaviour and you disagree---
you opined laws don't control desires, it only controls the behaviour so i brought the theory of self control.

what do you control when you self control? desire or behaviour? my £2 says you would never answer that question. you have moved the post that self control would control desires but it won't change it. isn't this contradicting your point that laws cannot control desires? cheiiiiii - sagamite is getting his guts diced like chicken cordon bleu!

now to jennykadry example......the fact that you cannot pounce on jennykadry in her husband's presence means you have controlled your feelings/desire. but why did you control your desire? because you know it's inappropriate to pounce on another man's wife. why not? because even in your lustful mind, your subconscious obeys a moral code, a law or whatever governs you. in that instance, you have controlled your desires.....

now the nail on your coffin - your desire is the same thing as your behaviour. the scriptures actually back my stance. the good book says if you look at a woman lustfully, you have fornicated. it's not until you stick your willy in her before you fornicate cos if your mind(desire) is corrupt, the behaviour would also be corrupt!

you went from laws can't control desires to laws can't change desires ---- how do I achieve these feats without breaking sweats? it's easy - you are standing before a sigmund freud protege - i craft my art with the accuracy of a mathematician or a surgeon performing thoracic incision! i said it before and i will say it again - your desire is your behaviour. control your desire and you would control your behaviour!

Here are very short points:

But desire is not behaviour, as I said?

And wish is a desire, contrary to what you claimed?

Self-control (controlling or restraining your desire) does not mean your desire has changed, am I right?

panafrican: @ snydergp.
You are a clown, an upside down confused dude. People are dying, think about it before your coffee cake , fool.

You are a person!

Think of the innocent people that died, not the worthless, illiterate savages.

The savages plus fucktards like you that make the black man look backwards and be looked down upon by other races.

Stop supporting and encouraging savages.

[quote author=Efemena_xy]^^ Come, this thing nor dey tire una two?

Both of you need to be locked up together in the same cell, to thrash out this thing to your heart's content....

And may the best man win. [/quote]I am just trying to help him to learn to accept facts and stop this "I no go gree, you must kill me today" arguments.

He struggles with accepting FACTS when educated on it.

MRbrownJAY: of course it "also" says that, and when that particular rules is not followed (by any of the participant, not just the female), then that's the reason for the end of the contract. now, wouldnt/shouldnt you take your share of whatever wealth this union has generated, if you part ways?

bro, what you are saying makes VERY LITTLE SENSE. there are always underwritten rules in any contract, and multiple ways to opt out of any of them...... there are NO CONTRACTS on God's green earth that cannot be opted out of, unless the contract of DEATH! lol

let me educate you (since you seem to lack in the marriage dept): when the union is new or still "great", ALL the terms of that contract are followed. the partners will take each other as their lawful wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from that day forth, for better, for worse, till death do them part...... and for a while they actually stand by this contract. the fact that YOU only believe that this contract was never relevant the minute someone is unhappy is where you are failing miserably.

people enter the contract of marriage and live happily by the terms of that said contract for years. if/when they are not willing or able (any longer) to stand by these rules, then they should divorce and share whatever wealth was generated during that union, in a mature manner. failure to do so will leave no other option than to call on the court system to settle the matter in a safe sound and lawful manner.

What clunking rubbish!

It does not "also" say. IT ONLY SAYS!

ONLY!

It is not a contract.


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

Go ahead, name one.

Stop chatting shyt.

MRbrownJAY: why shouldnt i when the law is a major part of this discussion, and what you have a problem to understand?

We are here to critising the law not to learn about the law. I do not need MBJ to tell me what the law says.

I am asking MBJ what his thinking is. What his BRAIN says is logically, not what the law says.

MBJ should tell us what he thinks by thinking, not hiding under "but this is what the law says".

Critique the law or justify the law with your critical assessment!

MRbrownJAY: because thats what i believe she deserves from the same vows that you mentionned above, duh!!!!!! are you now saying that whatever contract a married person enters is irrelevant?! during that said marriage, they decide to live as ONE, and therefore everything they make during that time is also ONE, so why shouldnt that be shared equally? i say 30% because a third is for the husband, a third for the wifey and the rest is for their children.....very simple mathematical and fair outcome.


the minute a person enters the contract of marriage and become ONE, then that person is entitled to their fair share of whatever that union generated or lost. if any intelligent person doesnt want to part with their future earnings, then they shouldnt get married (or have a tight prenup). it is NOT rocket science, is it?

again, i dont know specifically what made her special like that BUT she deserves 30% because he decided that she was special enough to become his WIFE, rather than keep on being a common gf.

well at least we are getting somewhere.....and me educating you on the matter is not in vain, lol!

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!

coogar: once again, sagamite has managed to create his own argument by typing 50,000 words without advancing his point one jot! who are you trying to scare with your long-winded epistle that barely scratches the surface. what has power and authority gotta do with the fact that desire is a mediator to behaviour? i am a bit busy now to attack your frail points one after the other but i am dedicating this whole afternoon to put the final nail on your coffin over this issue -

feck sake, it's not even arguable when you put desire/behaviour in the consumer behaviour context! what drives some people to shop in a particular mall and never go to some others? what determines where people shop? brace yourself - just gimme a couple of hours and you better remove the power and authority hubris you wrote up there as it has nothing to do with the points being discussed!

laws don't control desires? explain the concept behind "self-control" then...i mean what do control when you self-control? - jeeez, this is so easy - taking candy off a kid shiznit: the theory of self control has destroyed a 20,000-word argument! checkmate!!!
sagamite, i keep telling you if you ever ace me in any debate, i would do the hara-kiri!!!

To be allowed to debate with Saga, you have to first learn to accept facts. I am not going to waste my time with someone that cannot accept facts because all I have is facts and logic.

There is no point in wasting ones time with someone that will not accept facts in a debate. Someone that will call red black.

Admit it.

Desire is not the same thing as behaviour?

A wish is a desire?

That said, I really can't resist the temptation to take your candy on this silly "self-control" thing.

You could not tackle my academic fact above and you went to conjure up this rubbish to waste my time?

So if I have self-control, that is evidence my desire has changed?

ROFLMAO!!!

So if Jennykandry invites me to her house as a guest and I see that beautiful, glorious bakassi and milk-factory and I desire to hit it but control myself because her husband is there, that means I have changed my desire?

Let her husband not be there and see how I will SMMMMMMMMMMASH!

ALAMDILILAI! ALLAHU AKBAR! I will fffffinish her!

So that no one is calling me Agbaya for taking your candy, let me use dictionary AGAIN to justify it.


Self-control

- control or restraint of oneself or one's actions, feelings, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-control?s=t

I know that etc includes desire, but so you don't cry I am making that up purely yo take your candy, I decided to prove it by going to other dictionaries that are explicit.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/self-control

- control of one's emotions, desires, or actions by one's own will

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-control

- restraint exercised over one's own impulses, emotions, or desires

Here is a Therausus of self-control:

Main Entry: abstinence
Definition: restraint from desires, especially physical desires
Synonyms: abnegation, abstaining, abstemiousness, asceticism, avoidance, chastity, continence, fasting, forbearance, frugality, moderation, refraining, renunciation, self-control , self-denial, self-restraint, soberness, sobriety, teetotalism, temperance
Antonyms: drunkenness, excess, indulgence, intemperance, intoxication, revelry, self-indulgence





You are restraining or controlling your desire is not the same thing as changing your desire. You still have the desire, something is stopping you from satisfying it, e.g. a law or jennykandry's husband.

Basically, you are COMPLYING with some written/unwritten rule. Not committed or resisting it.

Now admit the following facts if you want to debate with Saga:

Desire is not the same thing as behaviour?

A wish is a desire?

Self-control does not mean your desire has changed.

MRbrownJAY: yes it is........ and you even have to sign it to confirm that you agree with its "terms".

It is not a contract.

If it is a contract, the terms say: "For better, for worse", "till death do us part".

Which means, if it is a contract, you stay in it NO MATTER WHAT happens. It does not cater for "Oh, I am not happy", "Oh, (s)he cheated on me". There will be no divorce. Divorce is not allowed. Even when everything is going bad to worse, you stick with it as the "contract" says. The only way out is if you DIEEEEEEEEEEEEE! You parfukar! You kick the bucket! You Kpai!

Is that not what they said "I do" to?

It is not a contract.

It can not be a contract when the ONLY TERMS in the contract that people agreed to are not even relevant. It is a mere symbolic ceremony/ritual.

MRbrownJAY: bro, each and every "contract" in life are different, its all down to whatever terms any individual wants to agree. but its a well known fact that if you marry in the US of A or to a citizen of that said country, then the contract is one with terms of 50%. as we all know, only a fool would sign a contract and not read carefully and AGREE with its terms.

I thought I begged you not to regale the law to me.

Tell me what logic and thinking you used to arrive at "at least 30%". Why not 2%, why not 98%?

MRbrownJAY: bro, as i am not with them to know exactly whatever it was that she does/did that made her any different than all the other women that were throwing themselves at the guy, i cannot conclusively answer that question.....but one fact is clear (to any intelligent man out there who knows the importance of marriage): she was "special" enough to marry, and that in itself should tell you something about this lady. again, even if she only fukcs her man twice a day (morning and night) she fully deserves what the "contract" they entered says she does.

why would a responsible savyy and intelligent man marry someone, if that man wasnt 110% convinced that marrying her would make his life better.....just for that simple fact, i (MBJ) believe that the lady in question deserves 30% of all what would be generated during this man's "better" life.

by the way, one thing to you and all your brigade fail to mention is all the wives who also got DEBTS in divorce settlements, thanks to whatever their husband "lost" during marriage.....or didnt you know that as much as wealth generated during marriage should be separated equally in the US, any generated debts fall in the same category?! why dont you whine about that too?

So your logic and reasoning is that she deserves 30% from his work purely because she married him and fcks him?

Not because she contributed anything worth the value of $270m?

MBJ Logicaaaa!

Are you trying to strawman me. You want to strawman Saga? You have a better chance squeezing blood out of stone. Who told you I support partners taking up debt of their spouse?

MRbrownJAY: wait no more: IMHO, Mrs Zuckerberg deserves at least 30% of all his earning simply because thats the contract they decided to enter when they were joined in holy matrimony, and therefore she deserves just as much thanks to whatever he saw in her that made him believe that she was worthy enough to marry, rather than to keep as a gf. so the question is not for me to answer but all for Zuckerberg to do, as he is the only who knows what separated her from any of the fantastic women who throwing themselves at him and that he could have married.

No 1, marriage is not a contract.

No 2, tell me what part of the "contract" states she must get at least 30%. Where did the contract decide that and not 95%?

No 3, you have not told me what she did to deserve it apart from being married.

MBJ Logicaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

chaircover: Saga its sunday . . . oya go to church

This thread is now officially closed

Sunday is a very religious day to me o.

That is when I do my biggest ashaworism. That is my own religion.

https://www.nairaland.com/316937/what-nairaland-female-members-pictures#4450907

[quote author=Afro_Blue]too black too strong!


Julius Malema calls for Jacob Zuma to resign over "massacre" of 34 striking miners
South Africa's firebrand youth leader, Julius Malema, has called for President Jacob Zuma to resign over the of "massacre" of 34 striking workers near a British-owned platinum mine last week[/quote]Champion illiterate, belligerent and violent person has gone to address his fellow illiterate, belligerent and violent fucktards!

Fucktards will be ecstatic!

panafrican: You foolish criminals, sons of the guns, go suck with homosexuals and develop more Hivs. You know what, you have no clue whatsoever about the difference between a police state and State police. If your mother or your father were among the ones shot dead by your freeking criminal police you won't be here spreading rethoric. Not long ago I wrote on this forum that the only thing that has really changed in this fake democratic KKKountry ( KKK like Ku Klax Klan ) is the skin color of the men in charge ,other than that, it is a big Zeeeeeeero ! keep in your tiny brain that the rogue regime of South Africa is not democratic, it is rather plutocratic. Not to say a bunch of thieves using so call populist slogans to make the people dream while the regime henchmen are conniving with big businesses to rip off the land.

How dare you talk about an inquiry now with no shame, when your bold head Zuma could have been pro-active by lunching a government law suit against the company for exploiting the people before this crime against humanity happens? your "democratic" Kkkountry is shooting unarmed civilians like pigeons, and you are here drolling. Shame on two of you. if you do not stop the killings ,panafrican forces may invade you and throw you asses into the south pacific, you and your sex addicted fake leader Zuma.
God bless th miners.
Not only south africans should protest the killings, all africans should protest this backward practices coming again from the south after your shameful homosexual constitution. Get the fu-ck out of the A.U.

You are a person!

I will celebrate the demise of moronic savages.

panafrican:
These brain washed slaves policemen shot blindly because the protesters were Black.
I cannot imagine a single moment they would do the same thing if they had a crowd of white protesters in front of them. It sucks. To hell with a goverment that kills hungry exploited families.

person, go and get white people that murder others and then challenge authorities with weapons and see whether they will not be slaughtered.

Go and read on WACO!

panafrican: Zuma can be proud, his government is drinking the tears of widows grieving for the loss of their husbands.
Click on the video http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19305698

Next time, they should marry human beings.

If you had a brain, your sympathy would be with the innocent people their husbands helped kill.

Those innocent people's wives, children, brother, sisters and parents are mourning about their senseless death.

africaunite: So sagamite you think you're too good for the world and others are too bad,and you think that seperatesm or even elimination of the "weak" is a right thing to do. Well I say that have been tried many times in this world and it has never worked,hilter used the same propaganda and it eventually became his down fall. But if we were to separate the world in to two as you say, trust me in the world of the geniuses there will be nobody living there but you only. You're superhuman and I wish you your world of the genius.

Separate the savages and their dumb supporters and see how better the world will be.

Thank you for recognising I am a God on Earth.

africaunite: Okay then all4naija they deserve to be killed, ngiyaxolisa kakhulu kumanigerians.

Hell yeah!

tope33: Protests more violent than this have taken place in Europe and other places, did they kill their citizens this way? Look again....a lot is wrong.

You are a person!

Give examples.

[quote author=Ileke-IdI]Girls top, that outfit look so ratchet.

Too much unnecessary accessories.[/quote]This is where men and women are soooo different.

I did not notice any accessories before you mentioned it.

All I saw was milky way, hips, flat tummy, lovely waist and super curves and wondered how I will smash it if I was giving the freedom. Wetin concern me with accessories.

As I always tell girls, Gucci, LV, Chanel etc would never make them more attractive to me or cover their faults. I am very focused and can focus on the things I aim for. I don't even see the Gucci, LV, Chanel etc.

pro01: LOL is all I can do. I'm too irritated by the deceitful females and the FOOLISH 'real men' that try to rationalise this divorce settlement nonsense. I have no patience to engage them in any useless back and forth argument.

You see, YOU, what your problem is is that you are not romantic!

Be more romantic and don't sign pre-nup. Be a romantic guy and let them milk you when they are bitter pass lemon.

MRbrownJAY: the fact that you believe that a man is "spoiling his wife", when taking care of his family during marriage, is your FAIL #1
the fact that you believe that a wife divorce settlement is a luxury towards her is your FAIL #2
the fact that you believe that a divorce settlement means a husband is taking care of a wife AFTER marriage is your OBVIOUS FAIL #3

a divorce settlement is the SHARING OF THE FAMILY WEALTH before each party go on their merry way......pls do focus on the important words her: SHARING/FAMILY WEALTH.



FAIL #4, again, you are talking out of thin air.....its THEIR empire since they are married and "one"....even your bible tells you that. funny how all you hypocrites ONLY like to follow your bible teaching whenever it fits your selfish needs/agenda, lol!



FAIL #5, child support is JUST THAT.....support for the children. why would you want that to be mixed with anything else? in divorces, everything needs to be sorted (and separated) PROPERLY and FAIRLY.



FAIL #6, what she does after divorce with HER share of the family wealth is HER business, and certainly not ours. who are you to decide what she should do with HER own money? if that is wasteful spending TO YOU then so be it, but pls dont make it like we are all like you, and should therefore leave the same life as you do. if she wants to spend all her wealth on buying cow shiit, then that HER decision, not ours, duh!



FAIL #7, so a family wealth is only for the care of the children?! well if that is the case then ALL THE FAMILY WEALTH should go towards the children then.



repeat of FAIL #3, divorce settlement has nothing to do with caring for your wife AFTER marriage.....but ALL to do with sharing whatever wealth the family generated during marriage.



repeat of FAIL #7



FAIL #8 i still wonder why you are talking about the 50/50 law of the US when A) this is the UK and B)[/b]what she asked is LESS than 2% of the family wealth. you obviously wasnt the best student when it came to MATHEMATICS......ok let me help you a little: [b]50% of £1Billion would be £500million, pls do dwell on that for a minute!

brotha Saga, i can see that you missed me, no worries daddy is back, lol:



1) [size=14pt]the money generated during marriage IS what she earned, get your facts right, pls! [/size]
2) [size=14pt]nobody is "dashing" anyone anything that they are NOT entitled to.[/size]
3) why shouldnt anyone keep the lifestyle they are accustomed to? why shouldnt she keep the lifestyle that they built together? is the husband going back to live how he did before marriage? if he isnt then why shoud SHE? abeg pls do make some sense.
4) the family wealth is JUST THAT, whatever the F A M I L Y generated during marriage, and NOT "his" money.

since you are clueless about the issues of marriage, let me try to make you understand this institution one more time..... or better yet, compare it with another contract in life that we are all familiar with: business.

let say you were broke (like Zuckerberg back in his student days) and you made a "50/50 contract" with person A to start a company together from scratch, and after 20yrs this company is worth £1Billion (even though that said person A did very little for the business, than just sitting at his desk). do you really believe that person A would/should NOT be entitled to 50% of whatever that company is worth today?!

marriage in the US is exactly that (unless stated otherwise prior to marriage via a prenup).......... you enter into a contract of sharing everything that is generated during that union 50/50, and therefore when that partnership/contract is over, you should give whatever the contract say you should. very simple and logical (to me).

as for John Cleese, lets get the facts RIGHT:
- it isnt the UK court who awarded his ex wife that amount, it is the US court where the law states that you should split the asset generated during marriage 50/50.

- do you hear John Cleese complain about the £2,5Milla he paid in 1990 to his former wife? NOPE! do you hear him complain about the settlement he had with his first wife? NOPE! yet you dont talk about that, why is that?! wasnt that unfair too?
you only have to compare his poor filmography from 1981-1990 to his humongous one of 1992-2008 to understand that wifey #2 probably got half too, lol!
so if JC was fine with paying wifey #2 such amount, then whatever wifey #3 got after 16yrs of marriage is just about right and the same.

- why would you guys call the WIFEY greedy when the US divorce law states that she deserves 50% of the wealth generated during marriage? if you dont like the law, then fair enough, but calling anyone (that "stands" by that said law) greedy is a joke!

- the fact that she lived in a council flat OR a Beverly hills mansion (before marriage) is irrelevant to the US LAW, because she would have still left with half of the wealth generated by the family during their union.

- many marriages are settled out of court and each of the participants are ok with whatever the settlement may have been....this is how it should be done. if/when there is no ground for amicable settlement then i see NO OTHER possible way to solve this issue than with the court system (aka THE LAW)............ but if any of you "divorce settlement objector" have any better idea on how to solve the issue, then pls do let the world know about it or simply SHUT IT!

- and finally, the fact that JC married a fourth time (AGAIN with an American woman) clearly means that he has faith in the US divorce laws, so therefore all you broke [b]a[/b]ss people without a penny to their name should too, lol!

Ah! MBJ Logica, I missed you gan o!

Oya, tell us why you stated Zuckerberg's wife deserves 30% of his earnings from FB.

Tell us how she earned it. Tell us why she is entitled to it. Give us the faaacts!

{Chants} MBJ! MBJ! MBJ! MBJ! MBJ!

Remember: Don't tell me what the law is, tell my why YOU choose "at least 30%". What was your thinking and logic behind it.

I wait. Welcome back!

So just for the record, so no one will say Saga is just having mouth, I will go through Laws, Power and Authority.

When I say I will destroy someone's argument, it is not mouth, it is a fact. Saga can back up whatever he says ANYDAY. I never just have mouth.


Fact 1: Laws are made to influence people's behaviour.

Fact 2: Laws are made by those with power and authority in the society.


Never argue against logic. You will lose.

This is the realm of psychology and Saga is well edjucated. Not educated o, Saga is edjucated.

Psychologists have done research into how people respond to Power and Authority. People have only 3 approaches of responding to the influence of those with power and authority e.g. when laws are made.

The 3 approaches of responding to the application of power and authority (e.g. laws) are:

One is fcking Commitment: This is when the person agrees with the decision/law enthusiastically and makes a great effort to carry out a request or follow the law. They agree with the rational/philosophy/mentality of the leader/authorities, and advocate it themselves, as they would have acted as prescribed themselves even without the request/law from the leader or authorities. Basically, the law/desire is the same as their desire anyway.

Second is fcking Compliance: This is when the person is willing to respect the decision/law but is apathetic to the rationale, not enthusiastic. The person will make a minimal effort to carry out a request or follow the law just because they believe the leader/authorities has/have the power to tell them to do it and it is not detrimental to acquiesce.

Third is fcking Resistance: This is when the person is unwilling to respect the decision/law and will try to avoid carrying out a request or follow the law. This might be active resistance or passive resistance depending on a mixture of the type of power the leader has, the ability & willingness to enforce the law and the personality of the follower. The person will refuse to carry out the request at all (active) or carry it out well (passive) because they believe the leader/authorities do not have enough the power to tell them to do it or they think it will be more detrimental to them if they actually follow the law or execute the request than if they did not.

Go and ask any Psychology professor in the WORLD! Be it Oxford, be it Cambridge, be it Harvard, be it Yale.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JJ_HuV1KlyQC&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=resistance+compliance+commitment+power+response+follower&source=bl&ots=Uq8x6kJcIv&sig=zuKDeYu9NJ36r6kP9oe_sw04fVg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0asuUIPFJuHT0QWMi4DgDA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=resistance%20compliance%20commitment%20power%20response%20follower&f=false

http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/NC/B0/B58/046MB58.html (See 'Resistance to Change' section)

When I go to Saudi Arabia and feel like kissing my wife but I do not, it is not because I am committed to Islamic laws (God forbid, Saga and religion are like oil and water). I have no desire to live my life based on Islamic laws or any laws made by medieval people.

And despite all my mouth and bravado about being Alpha Male on NL, dem no born me well to resist dem request. I no get that kain liver. Dem go use my balls for kebab.

So what do I do? I comply with their laws because it is not detrimental to acquiesce. It is what I need to do, not my desire. When I am in my hotel room and no one is able to see me, I will resist all their laws with typical Saga superiority confidence. That is compliance, I am doing the minimum to follow their laws because I do not have the desire for it but don't want to get into sharia hot water I can not get out off. I don't agree with the decision but I comply.

When a 21 year old guy is heading to the club in his modified car, playing and hearing that drum 'n' base music loudly from his newly installed super sub-woofer, with his original spliff between his fingers that he is puff-puff-passing and he really wants to make this adapted feul-injected car fly at 150 mph in his party-mode euphoria but drives at 40 mph because of the fear of police or speed cameras, he is merely complying with the law, his desire is completely different.

You see, my people, laws do not dictate desires, it only controls behaviour. And sometimes if the power is not sufficient, people will not behave like the law requested (e.g. Nigeria) because they believe the leaders/authority do not have the means or competence to enforce the law. They resist the law and do as they wish. Lets not forget, wish is another word for desire.

Saga = badd arsè!

vivacious vivi: So do I. Let's not kid ourselves anymore. We need to cut off from d North jare. Way too much senseless killings. I only hope there won't be a re-enactment of d civil war. #sigh#

Can't you respect they are humans and be a united Nigeria? No compassion flows in your blood?

If OP knew anything about Nigeria, then he would realise:

- There is no way Southern Kaduna will go willingly with any Arewa Republic.

- There is no way Cross River will go willingly with any Biafra Republic.

fstranger8: @Ponmola: Why did they kick you out of OAU?

person, I thought I told you to work harder to piss me off?

How come the length of your attempt is getting shorter and monotonous?

You are getting bored and lacking creativity?

Come on, WORK, cretin!

chaircover: @saga & @cooger, how do we teach our daughters and sons self esteem?

By sending them for a Masterclass session in confidence and intelligence with Saga.

The Ultimate One.

The Greatest!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssqOJ0s71S0

Beautiful letter to John Cleese.

I have highlighted my favourites in Red.

[size=18pt]Dear John: As British actor John Cleese decries the a pre-nup, one cynical man pens the hopeless romantic an open letter[/size]

Dear John,

The truth hurts, but no more than the eye-watering divorce you suffered in 2009.

I'm sure you've tried to forget it, but - for the sake of men everywhere - let me recap: after a 16-year marriage with no children, your third wife, Faye Eichelberger, ended up with a settlement that made her (quite literally) richer than you.

Not only will you have to pay her £600,000 a year until 2016 (even though you're now technically a pensioner and she's a successful therapist), you also had to give her £8 million in cash, plus assets which included: an apartment in New York, a £2 million home in London and half a beach house in California.

Why? Because you're a man.

I wouldn't mind, but when you met her in 1990 she was living in a third-floor council flat with two sons from a previous marriage.

At the time, it hurt. You were quoted as saying: “What I find so unfair is that if we both died today, her children would get much more than mine.”

Yet, earlier this week, I watched in horror as details of your fourth marriage emerged online. Immediately, I thought of that old joke: 'men shouldn't bother getting married - they should simply find a woman they hate and buy her a house'.

As one of our country's best comedians, I'm sure you can appreciate this. But, for most guys, divorce is no laughing matter. In fact, because the courts view them as cash cows for scorned women, it can be devastating for their careers, financial security, mental health, independence and even retirement.

Given that we're more likely to commit suicide and die early anyway because of the societal pressures placed upon us, that's the last thing we need.

You see, the world has changed. This approach to dividing assets may have worked decades ago when women with children were dependant on a man's wage (in this case, fair enough), but things have evolved - therefore, so should divorce.

Yet, despite all this, you were unwilling to sign a pre-nuptial agreement with your latest wife until lawyers stepped in, in case it punctured the romantic mood.

Hang on. Is that tinnitus ringing in my ears? No, it's alarm bells. Loud ones. And any fellow men's rights activist can hear them.

Not least because divorce is sexist.

And whether it's politically correct or not to say so, there is a culture of women making careers out of marriage. In fact there's a name for it: hypergamy. Google it.

I have many intelligent female friends who are dedicated career women, yet often they'll admit that they're simply killing time until they find a rich man who will "look after" them - as if men are just gravy trains to jump on the back of. (Saga does too. )

But if a man said the same, even though many women can earn just as much as them, they'd be chauvinist pigs. (And Real Men will join them, agree and cheer.)

You should be telling the world that it's no different.

Not least because the media doesn't bother. I once saw a page in Grazia magazine which discussed the case of Alan Miller, whose wife was awarded £5 million of his wealth; despite their childless marriage lasting just two years and nine months. The headline? 'Ker-Ching'. They even calculated how much she pocketed per-day of the marriage, as if he were a walking cash-point. (Example of how Western women don't respect men but Real Men would lecture us to respect and worship them while Saga says fck them)

How offensive.

WAG culture is no different: young women are encouraged to hunt in packs until they snag a rich footballer, who'll work, work, work to pay, pay, pay.

Yet, as maddening as this may be, it proves my point: although women may be objectified as sex objects, many of them objectify men as success objects, which is unfair given that they often have more life choices. While a woman can be a high-flying executive or work in PR until she gets married, men's only option is to succeed. Constantly.

Yet when they do, it's assumed that the only reason they attract money is because they're male - not because they work hard. Divorce courts shouldn't manipulate that.

That said, not all other halves marry for money - humane, respectful love does exist. And I'm hoping you've finally found it.

Not least because, If you have, your new wife can teach women like Nancy Dell'ollio - who's currently refusing to vacate a London apartment owned by Sven Goran Eriksson simply because she wants it - that she should go to work and buy her own place.

After all, it's the same message that feminists have been saying for years. And they're right, but not just for the reasons they think.

Until this happens, you should be reminding men and boys that's it's safe marriage - not just safe sex - which should be on their radar. It's a stance that's political as well as financial.

And, in this day and age, the only one worth saying 'I do' to. (Standing ovation by Saga, I have been saying this safe marriage thing for years)

Sincerely,
Peter Lloyd

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2188708/Dear-John-As-British-actor-John-Cleese-decries-pre-nup-cynical-man-pens-hopeless-romantic-open-letter.html#ixzz23sx2hu9f