₦airaland Forum

Kimoni:
No, the state cannot force people to marry anyone but in an event where there is a dispute between couples and the state cannot readily establish the utility both partners derived from each other during the course of the union or the worth of the alternatives they both had to forgo, how best does the state share their combined assets other than a ratio that nearly equates to 50:50?

Why can't the state establish the utility both partners "bring" (not derived) to the union?

What is so hard about that?

You used "derived". You are mistaken. The courts are not there to compensate on they utility derived from the union. They are there to separate the financial utility contributed to the union.

And why do the states have to share such 50:50 when they can establish each's contribution?

ronald4lif:
Women sha. I'm flummoxed as to what gives them or anyone else for that matter a sense of entitlement to another's acquisition. So because we got married automatically qualifies and grants you the leverage to have a share in a man's self-acquired assets.

The reaction from them lots here further buttresses that they're either not ready for egalitarianism or their campaign is to secure certain privileges at the detriment of the male folk. Else, I see no reason why anyone would subscribe to this selfish legislation that would see a man forfeit his wealth to a leech. When women are ready for equality, we'd talk. For now, it's all a ruse.

You need to separate women like baby124 from women like bukatyne and Mindfulness.

Even Stillfire has had a epiphany.

Stillfire:
You people should leave my Jesus alone o. I love him.

Jesus is cool, had good intentions and has been a benefit to the world, but he was a fraud and not the son of God.

If he is, then Guru Marahji is his brother.

Kimoni:
Pls how is marriage by Dangote to a high school drop-out a logical decision from Dangote's POV? knowing fully well the potential liability he could incurr from signing the darn paper? And with full knowledge of the other options available to him with which he could derive the same benefits that marriage offers without the attached risks? I honestly don't see this logic.

Fall in love? Where did I say that Saga? Is falling in love and marriage synonymous? Did you marry every girl you fell in love with?

No, the state cannot force people to marry anyone but in an event where there is a dispute between couples and the state cannot readily establish the utility both partners derived from each other during the course of the union or the worth of the alternatives they both had to forgo, how best does the state share their combined assets other than a ratio that nearly equates to 50:50?

If marriage is not a legal partnership to you Saga, then define what marriage is exactly? This is actually where i would have loved to start this discussion.

The question is why should he face that potential liability or risk?

Mindfulness:
And the best line for today is where you said that Jesus is throwing tantrums in heaven.
The image of it made me almost choke on my tea. The Holy Trinity is not able to control the mess we are creating here.

Most of these stories were made up to control people. Pure politics. Fear is a very efficient way to keep people in check.
Teefy's favorite method. It may work in the romance section, who knows?

I don't care. I was born alone and I will die alone and in between I will socialize with people who are nice company. I will, just like you, rather be ten times happily married than one time trying to. My God loves to see me happy.

The stories are the reflection of the time of the illiterate authors.

Where the king/ruler expects to be worshipped otherwise could do any wicked to the person that refuses.

They cascaded that upwards to how a "God" should be.

Absolute nonsense tales!

Mixty:
Nah.. I ain't angry with that ediot called Sagamite

I am just calling him what he is - an unrefined fool.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

You know Nigerian education systme have destroyed your life?

motide:
Anybody with relevant information should help out. How much does grand cereals pay their newly employed accountants at entry level? you can post on this thread or send me a text on 07083178456. Thanks

Grand Cereals is part of UACN.

I will suggest you start thinking it would be in the N60K to N80K per month range for entry level considering their pay structure.

The kind of things unemployed, hungry people like Mixty would do for a daily bread.

Stillfire:
You know for other men I'll be fair or not even take anything, but for you Sagamite I will take 100% of your earnings- fixed assets, direct or indirect costs. Try me!

When I stand up in that court and come and shake your hand with my charmed hand to congratulate you on your win, you will not be able to leave that court with your 2 legs or ever communicate with you senses anymore. They will carry you out as a vegetable (specifically, Okazi version).

I will use jazz to finish you right there, you will never enjoy that money.

baby124:
Look I have a life to attend to. Not prolonging childish rants and insults. This shows you have no point to make. I think I am done giving you an ounce of my time here. I think I have done enough enlightening you. Since you are hell bent on ignorance. Wallow in it. As you can't do anything to change the law except cry on NL.

I am the one wallowing in ignorance?

You are enlightened?

Stillfire:
Who is Baroness Deech? I like her way of thinking.
The human tendency to bastardize institutions that are made to protect us is our bane. And it's this same excessive attitude (i.e. the inability to curb its excesses) that is killing patriarchy and caused a revolt from the women folk.
We should endeavor not to go down that same debilitating route patriarchy went.
Tales like these are not a win for women but an embarrassment as well as an excess that certainly needs to be curbed. We should always always aim to be fair.

Hypocritical thief!

Is it not 90% you would take?

bukatyne:
Why do you think a woman is entitled to a settlement from her ex-divorce if they do not have a joint investment or if she was not an housewife?

Let me warn you in advance:

If you tell her a woman should leave a marriage after divorce with what she brought in and what she made in it, she would say you are saying "women should leave with nothing".

Those mean the same thing to her.

bukatyne:
This is the most ridiculous thing ever.

If you want to maintain your lifestyle, stay married by all means like my Nigerian sisters.

You CANNOT eat your cake and have it.

Or ...........work hard to provide it for yourself.

bukatyne:
@Bold:

The ex-wife will do his laundry weekly and ensure he and his new chic has fresh soup in the freezer weekly.

She will also ensure the house is always neat and tidy.

Abi o!

Mindfulness:
I totally, completely and absolutely subscribe to the statements in bold.

You didn't have to include Hinduism though, Christians also believe that they have to suffer and make sacrifices because life is a test. It is meant to be endured and not enjoyed. God sacrificed his only son, so why do you think you deserve to be happy? The Almighty created human beings in such a way that they first need to pass a test to prove to him that they are worthy creations because he isn't sure they are.

Human beings naturally enjoy lust, gluttony and laziness but anything that is pleasurable is a sin. We are supposed to live in misery to enter heaven.

Everything will be used against you on the judgement day. God hates the way he created you. You are inherently evil. You didn't choose to be but it is your fault if you are.

Yep.

That psychotic, petty and vengeful God that was created my medieval illiterates.

[size=18pt]YOU DIDN'T WORSHIP ME?

HEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLL FIIIIIIIRE!!!!! [/size]

The one that killed his own son to cancel sins he could just had merely mentally cancelled.

The kind of crap fantasy stories medieval illiterates conjure up.

baby124:
Go and read partnership law. These are societies were things work. This is not your average or roadside mechanic business partnership that you assume business decisions like sharing of profits. Funny that you say I am a poor debater when you spew non facts. Partnership law is everywhere for you to learn. A strong debater which you believe yourself to be should have read up on such a topic before showing your ignorance. Or don't you think?

You know JACKARSE NOTHING about partnership law.

You are as CLUELESS as GEJ!

njokusboy:
Lol, honestly, you are a poor debater... I dint want to respond initially but ermmmmm... seeeee...
In a business, we share profits according to our stake in the business, now, in marriage, our profit might be, the children we bear together not what I make in my business... the only thing you have an equal right to is our children, not my fvcking money..
So when u talk about interest increasing in value, it is what we earn in the context of dat marriage, joint assets or children... not what I am worth outside of the marriage...

Very very poor!

Extremely poor!

She does not even have a clue how poor.

bukatyne:
Expect a wife is an housewife or the couple built an empire together, I cannot wrap my head around the need for divorce settlements.

Does the husband still get to enjoy the wife's food and care?

Or What exactly is the purpose of the settlement?

Exactly!

The law is structured to ensure she continues getting a lifestyle she is accustomed to.

What about the lifestyle he was accustomed to?

Nonsense!

baby124:
Oh really. They take nothing Abi. So their years in the marriage is worthless. Now you see why the courts protect the less wealthy spouse because of spouses like you. Who will try to manipulate their way into not settling the other person and running away with everything. In a marriage the priority is not to leave the less fortunate spouse at an economic disadvantage. Will I have any problem if tomorrow I am richer and asked to settle my husband? No. Because even if I hate him so much during the divorce, he was once worth a lot to me. And I will not want him to suffer as I am not the type to carry grudges and punish anyone. I like to leave people better than I met them. What is the use of me rolling in wealth when someone I once loved is dying in poverty. No sane person will be happy about that. And for me to reach such heights, he definitely had value and added richly to my life. Otherwise I would have run away if he was a detriment to my success much earlier when we both had nothing. So yes, she is entitled to half.

See the nonsense argument you gave to his valid question?

So it is cheating to give someone what they deserve and contributed?

Fck me!

So I go into business with someone and I put more money down and the courts should say "the less fortunate partner at an economic disadvantage", the profits must be shared 50/50?

WTF kind of arguments are you giving?

netotse:
@Sagamite
seen this? ...lol

I remember you pasting a YouTube vid that had something like this.

WTF!

Why does this girl have to bring our private escapade out on Twitter?

Mixty:
I will not respond to your senseless and meaningless posts till you give me proof. You falsely pride yourself as being an intellect. Prove it.
So if I decide to spend my time in a thread, does that imply anything? What does that prove.

For once, stop being silly. I can offer you free lessons on how to be refined.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

A product of a failed education system.

Wait till you catch something that would kill you. Hopeless fooooool!

You are spending time on the thread asking for contact details for nothing? Cretin!

Mindfulness:
I don't think that the law is based on such beliefs in the first place. I rather think that the law is a leftover from the past and that it has not been accurately re-defined and re-formultated to fit the present day socio-cultural context where women no longer depend on their husbands as the only bread-winner. A woman's traditional role used to be that of a housewife. Her adult life began and ended with marriage. If a husband decided to leave his wife, she was left with nothing so laws were passed to protect them as there was an imbalance in power due to the traditional roles and norms people were made to live by.

I also heard that if a husband could prove that the divorce was the woman's fault (e.g. adultery), he wouldn't have to provide for her after the divorce.

However, a woman doesn't need 3 million $ to survive.
And I don't get why anyone would think that by marrying rich you are entitled to your ex-husband's fortune.

I would love to know how many ladies would argue in favor of such laws if it was their money they would have to part with.

Yes, but the argument put into law and normally quoted for awarding a spouse (usually a woman) ridiculous amount of money is that she is used to a certain level of lifestyle that the divorce should not reduce.

Then she goes and calculate, how much holidays, nannies, pedicure etc she needs and how much they cost before the courts orders the man to pay for these.

The bolded is now the ridiculous assumption by most women and they can't even understand why it should not be the case.

They are like that is the way it is and it should be because that is how it is now.

Mixty:
Stop your usuall nonsensical talks and draw out posts. I have given you a challenge. Show me. You just seem yo lack basic sense. Or is it that you lack comprehensive ability or you are just plain daft I don't get.

You are a cretinous fuuktard!

On which thread do you spend most of your time on NL?

What are you doing asking for Ashawo's details, cretin?

baby124:
Please note the NEW RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS part. You have upgraded her in status, rights and obligations if you have any. I am glad to have educated you. Please don't argue again. Case closed.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/marriage

Slow your roll, girl.

Don't get too excited.

Close which case?

You think because something is labelled a contract that means it is the same thing as the business contract we know?

Have you ever heard of "Social contract"?

Have you ever heard of "Religious Contract"? Aka "Covenant"?

Have you even heard of "JSA contract"?

Are those the same thing as a Business contract?

If two armed robbers come together to form partnership to rob people, because it is called a partnership, does that mean it is the same thing as an LLP?

Re-open that case, sharp sharp.

Why do you think I was asking you "And explain if you see it as the same thing as a business contract."?

Any "agreement" can be called a contract.

The agreement is marriage (i.e. "your contract" ) is only an agreement to be married and regarded as such by law until you get a divorce.

Oya, try again!

Mixty:
Stop your usuall nonsensical talks and draw out posts. I have given you a challenge. Show me. You just seem yo lack basic sense. Or is it that you lack comprehensive ability or you are just plain daft I don't get.

You are a dumb cretinous fuuktard!

On which thread do you spend majority of your time on NL nd which you have been hooked to, you cretin?

baby124:
Signed and sworn to in a court of law in front of a competent court official. You are even asked if you are impaired or unable to make such commitments to make sure you are going in with all your senses in tact lmao.:

What are the terms of the contract?

And explain if you see it as the same thing as a business contract.

Mixty:
Lol
Fool
I don't visit the brothel. I have never been to a brothel. Show me any posts of yours that DIRECTLY indicates that I have visited a brothel or patronized a prostitute. I will quit Nairaland.
I have just 500+ posts on Nairaland so you can easily do a quick scan. I have a life unlike you, of course
Be civil. Your lack of manners is appalling. It's not a sign of education.

You are a daft cretinous fuuktard!

You don't visit brothels but you spend your life on NL on an "ashawo-usage thread" begging people to share the contact details of their ashawo with you?

Who are you foooling, moronic fuutkard?

baby124:
Biko educate yourself and stop arguing blindly like a bush villager:

Now, this is what they call a bush villager rant and blind arguments.

baby124:
It is a partnership again. She is worth it. Your value to her, will not be the same as what she thinks her worth to you was in the marriage. Some of you claim traditional men, yet still want all the benefits of a housegirl in your wife and foot mat. Be ready to cough out the money when you either refuse to work on your marriage or don't care to respect the union anymore. If you marry a bad wife targeting your money, then that says a lot about who you are and your priorities. And you should not complain of such outcomes because it was inevitable. Now go and marry, and stop scaring yourself to a frenzy because of your little coins, that you won't let anyone rest. People like Bill Gates are good men to their wives. Their marriages are still in tact and they have nothing to fear or lose. So who are you, a regular employee like this mumu in the article shouting about money that Bill Gates can spend in one minute and not sweat?

I was fcking shocked at the depth of junk it was.

baby124:
Definition

The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage

Now, since you have brought your argument. Explain to me what are the terms of the so-called "contract".

baby124:
Nonsense to you is sense in a sane world. You obviously do not understand what marriage means. If it is not a contract, why do you have to go to court to dissolve it. Go and learn very well what a marriage is and come back and open another thread. Open your mind and really learn. This is my last comment on this issue. I hope you have learned a thing or two. Lol

No sane world says "it is a partnership so it should be shared equally irrespective of contribution".

PwC, Clifford Chance, KMPG, Linklaters are all sane worlds where partnerships are in existent. They distribute things among partners.

Another nonsense you came up with is the court comment. Many things go to court to a be resolved that are not contracts. So something going to court to be dissolved is not "evidence" it is a contract. Nonsense!

You don't know what a partnership or contract is, nor do you know their mechanism.

You just come up with some lame arsse junk you have heard somewhere.

I wouldn't want to learn any rubbish you have learnt.

TV01:
I do not agree. What of classical Greek education and philosophy - on which the who of Western education rests. You do them a huge disservice. Whatever we are, we are not structured or educated enough to disdain them. At best we've built on what they left us.

The classical Greek education and philosophy that is recognised is the one that is structured and formal, as I said.

TV01:
Even if we view Jesus as a mere man, it is documented that He could read, that He taught, and was held in esteem by learned men of His day. You are mistaken in judging Him by His profession, which was almost certainly to accomodate His ministry.

There are many illiterates that are intelligent and respectable especially to so-called learned men of the medieval era if they claim to speak to God and compose themselves well.

Jesus never wrote jackshit. My illiterate gateman in Naija can read a bit too and comprehend simple text.

TV01:
He had well learned disciples, such as the well known Paul, who was a Lawyer and a Pharisee, thereby being secular and theologically educated. Don't disdain that time or the people that lived then. I would wager that few NL'ers could even drag basics with them .[/quoted]

Educated where?

University of ..........................?

[quote author=TV01 post=40879749]I'm comforted by the knowledge that we do not brutalise or kill each other in this day and age? We have merely gotten more sophisticated - and even liberal - about how we go about it. It's not sophistication, or even intelligence, it's hman natue. And it's fallen.

The more educated a society is, the less violence you get.

TV01:
First, you fall afoul of your own demand - let every couple define happiness as they choose; this I did in my definition at an individual level, At a generic level, it does not matter. We consider the utility of marriage as a society and accord it benefits.

Having qualified for and entered marriage, we do not intrude into peoples privacy and demand they live their unions in a certain way, to ensure a degree of happiness as determined by someone else. If a couple marry, live together and raise children, that in the eyes of society is a success. Nothing does it better !

Mate, you can't define hapiness. It is a mood.

You are either happy or you are not happy. When you start claiming to define it is evidence you are faking it.

TV01:
It is for those who subscribe to it - it's choice for everyone, that much we have agreed. That it is antiquated and not fit for purpose, as you have claimed, has not been demonstrated. Neither have you presented anything superior.


There is yet time, but the day of salvation is always today.

Godspeed


TV

What is superior is what makes the person happy and works for them.

If someone wants to marry 8 wives and there are 8 women who want to be part of it. Then that is the superior marriage model for them.

baby124:
Keep throwing all your toys away. Soon you won't have any point to use to argue. You think everyone must see things your way? We all don't always get our way in life. Deal with it. For now and into the very far future, a marriage is a partnership. Even a live in partner has the right to settlement not to talk of a wife you signed a CONTRACT with. Signing the dotted lines is a CONTRACT in case you are ignorant of that fact. It also has a lot of implications.

I don't want you to see things my way, I want you to see things with sense.

What you said was nonsense. And I am giving you a chance to overhaul it.

How is marriage a contract?

Do you know what a contract is?

baby124:
It is a partnership again. She is worth it. Your value to her, will not be the same as what she thinks her worth to you was in the marriage. Some of you claim traditional men, yet still want all the benefits of a housegirl in your wife and foot mat. Be ready to cough out the money when you either refuse to work on your marriage or don't care to respect the union anymore. If you marry a bad wife targeting your money, then that says a lot about who you are and your priorities. And you should not complain of such outcomes because it was inevitable. Now go and marry, and stop scaring yourself to a frenzy because of your little coins, that you won't let anyone rest. People like Bill Gates are good men to their wives. Their marriages are still in tact and they have nothing to fear or lose. So who are you, a regular employee like this mumu in the article shouting about money that Bill Gates can spend in one minute and not sweat?

Nonsense!

Now this is what is called a poor argument.

She is worth it?

Is she L'Oreal?

ALL these doesn't sound like an educated or coherent argument.

I think you should try again.