₦airaland Forum

Obamaofusa:
I think you are Muslims?Or are you cow worshippers?
Is it good to inhibit the growth of others with your culture even killing their livelihood and taking their lives when they complain?

Your people kill easily as if those lives they take gruesomely belong to mosquitoes.

That culture is barbaric.Ranching is the modern way of rearing cows and you will live with your neighbours joyously ever after.
Nobody hates a Fulani.Just stop these incessant killings.
We Yorubas are even on you now.
If you don't desist,this is surely your final end.
We are very resolute on this.
Sunday Igboho is just to make you know that you are totally gone if you don't desist.
All Yorubas are united on this.Trust us.

I'm not a Fulani or an Hausa man sir.
So, you support that war be declared if necessary? Is that your point exactly?

Hedonini:
So which part of your sociological analysis explains the foray of these Fulani bastards into banditry and kidnapping which is the crux of the matter?

Let them continue roaming around with their useless cattle and encroaching on people's farms. We can grudgingly tolerate that (after all, this has been happening for decades already). But why are they misusing their illegal forest occupancy as hostage centres to perpetrate this free for all, industrial scale kidnapping enterprise? Who would accept that? Someone can't travel in peace, even in public transport, from one state to another without fearing that these Fulani animals would emerge from the Bush to shoot and kill and kidnap random persons on different expressways.... What does your complicit, beef-faced Fulani father-in-law have to say about that?

This is obviously the failure of your state governments. This is basically a security issue, as simple as that. It is the duty of the government to protect the interests of ALL well meaning Nigerians, farmers and herders alike. Your state governors are obviously terribly failing in their duties as it is now.

eastOFwest:
I wholeheartedly and strongly disagree with you. If the culture or way of life of Igbos, Yorubas or any other tribe down south was resulting in miscreants and criminal elements within these groups to constitute a constant danger to life, welfare and property of other tribes, I put it to you that they would have been roundly and conclusively dealt with. No case would have been made for the fact that it is only a deviant few causing mayhem. They will be no Political scientists, Economic analysts and sociologists drafted in to come up with fanciful ideas. The entire group would have been branded criminals and subhuman. Host communities, especially those up North would have slaughtered them, including pregnant women, children and babies. Armed forces would have launched "operation jumping kangaroo" or some other ridiculous title ages ago and it would have been a foregone conclusion. Appeasing an aggressor has never worked in history, because it only emboldens them. Look at what happened at the start of WWII when countries like UK tried to appease Hitler? A period in history of shame when remembered. Why should the entire country country tread "sensitively" with their hearts in their hands, effectively being held to ransome by a small group who continue to operate with brazen impudence? History will not judge our leaders well if they do not grow some balls and deal with this issue, and similar issues facing us, decisively.

I at least see that you understand from what perspective I argue and I particularly appreciate this.
Personally, I would only support whatever solution that does not escalated violence as it is at the moment and threaten the stability of the country. There are other ways to curtail the menace of the violent herders without instigating an already agitated people to rise up and fight for themselves. This is lawlessness. Was it not for these reasons that Amotekun was created? It should be a question of how the capabilities of Amotekun should be improved to face the challenge at hand. Before an agreeable solution can be put to effect, ONLY FOR THE MEANTIME, the state governments can also do more by registering the herdsmen, uniquely tagging and documenting all the cows in the respective states, anything except these should be confiscated as state property. Also, farmers should be mobilized, an emergency toll free number can be created too for them. In the longterm, state governments can reach agreements to either sell or lease out land for ranching, loans can also be made available by the federal government for this purpose.
Lastly, I'll just add that the unity of Nigeria cannot always be reduced to merely the reluctant compromise of tribes to temporary agree on testing the extended sustainability of the 1914 amalgamation that could be challenged at anytime, say whenever an issue arises where interests are divided between tribes.

I spoke to my father-in-law,a Fulani man himself, a while ago (due to my personal relationship with him, this was the first time I have ever considered the farmers-herders clashes from the perspective of a Fulani man), he explained certain delicate and complex intricacies that makes the proposed ranching system, that used to me a very straightforward one, now seem quite problematic IN THIS PRESENT MOMENT.
The laws in our constitution are not the laws of nature. These laws, as stated in our constitution, are created considering human peculiarities, such that 'general' beliefs even though inclined towards sentiments, as long as they are adopted by a represented reasonable minority and such that IT IS POSSIBLE THERE COULD BE A WAY AROUND THEM with the conditios that it does not threaten the ORDER in the country and the fundamental rights of others (the majority) is not infringed upon.
Having stated the above, it is easy to see that the problem with the proposed Ranching System is that while it is a very logically straightforward solution, it is not the most considerate, therefore not the most appropriate (at least in the short term) and using a method analogous the Occam's Razor for solutions in politics and human relations is unreasonable in my opinion. Open cattle rearing is a culture and proposing a change in this culture must be approached as sensitively as other important cultures of the other tribes. One does not expect that a culture be abandoned overnight, nor that laws guiding a country be entirely insensitive to the peculiarities of the people bound under it.
As in developed worlds, these are the kinds of problems that are confronted by Political scientists, Economic analysts and sociologists, putting forward a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of THE PROBLEM OF HERDERS in the country.

Let them test it in Africa If we cannot invent let us be the sacrifice for inventors.

For the love of humanity

This thread should definitely be in the jokes section.

LordReed:
What assertion? An atheist says I don't believe in any gods, what assertion is he making?

That's why I talked about the ''conscious'' and ''unconscious'' atheist? The conscious atheist reaches logical conclusions...

LordReed:
In these kinds of discussions there is always an attempt to redefine what religion is. Religion is broadly defined as a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. Atheism has nothing that can be construed as religion so no, none of the criticisms against religion would apply.

Why again are you saying an atheist believes? I thought we were past that misconception?

Are the assertions of an atheist based on irrefutable facts? Can you say it is the truth or just an opinion? If you agree it is the latter ( which is more compelling ) then are opinions not beliefs?

LordReed:
Your modification doesn't change the answer. The agnostic is not expressing disbelief or belief , the agnostic is expressing lack of knowledge. There are agnostic theists for example, which means they believe but do not have a claim to knowledge.

I would like to add that my position in no way leads to "your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God". I do not assert that the existence of God is unprovable. I said the concept that a god (or more clearly, there is a god) exists cannot be disproved. These are 2 different positions.

I appreciate your clarification, but there's even more of the things I misunderstood. The topic for instance, I wrongly assumed arguing that atheism is not a religion is interpreted as dissociation of atheism from belief entirely. Such was the direction of all my arguments, hence, the confusion. However, belief doesn't necessarily imply Religion but Faith would.

Would the relevance of the argument remain valid to assert that atheism has to do with belief (in an opinion) to an extent? If it is so then even atheism is not exempt from some of such criticism as applies to Religion. Infact, it is the case in such instance, as there have been reports of crimes committed with intentions that stem from extreme atheistic views. One could even say that atheism is fundamentally similar to religion for the ''unconscious'' atheist except it has a different ideology. Otherwise, what is the difference between say, a pantheistic and an atheist except that their beliefs are different? They both believe in different opinions.

LordReed:
No because there's no belief being expressed in either case.

Sorry, I modified my last post.

LordReed:
Indeed the concept of the existence of a god cannot at this time be disproved. As you have pointed out there are many unknowns however some formulations of god can be. Gods such as Zeus, Ra, Thor and the Abrahamic god can be conclusively shown to not exist. This is why apologists especially for the Abrahamic god strive to move their god into the unknown realms.

I think I agree with you.

I read once that there are two broad classifications of the atheist, those who assert that God does not exist from logical conclusions, which I'll call conscious atheists and those that simply do not give much logical considerations to their assertions. I'll call the latter unconscious atheists. Given that your argument succumbs to the asseveration of the agnostic on the unprovable existence of a God, can I infer that both the conscious as well as the unconscious atheists express believe to some extent? The unconscious atheist as in this case a blind believer?

Modified:

To make the argument fair and the inferred unambiguous, should the lack of believe simply not be acceptance of a provable truth? For instance, I accept and can show that 1 + 1 = 2. I need not to express any form of belief in the mathematical statement as it can be proven, it is not subject to opinions and deliberation.

Is not the following proposition the reason why the agnostic is free of belief?
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1921.

LordReed, I can't remember many of those other monikers around here. I would appreciate a discussion on this, if it interests you.

HardMirror, what do you think?

The Deist's God is free of accusations, He is also free of criticism. Or not.

Benevolence might not be an attribute of a God in deism. The deist could argue that emotions are just logical flaws in animals.
The strong points of this argument are: Why does God have to intervene in the affairs of man?
God, a creator should not necessarily assume the title of a 'caring father'
Is God good or evil? As argued by Friedrich Nietzsche, concepts as good or evil do not exist but to a man whose argument appeals to emotions, there is only right and wrong. Right and wrong is subject to man's perception. It is mostly inclined towards ' conscience ', which is said to be an emotional evolutionary trait.

I wonder if the satirical approach to dismissing the relevance or existence of God applies in this case, can the God in deism be mocked?

LordReed:
Please example of a theistic religion that is not faith based.

Doesn't the position of an agnostic sustain the relevance of the theist's argument, that God cannot be disproved?

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know that we don't know. -DONALD RUMSFELD

There are of course purely scientific problems that are not yet understood. For instance, what was there before the Big Bang? How can something exist out of nothing? Attempts and proposed solutions to these problems are not totally logically sufficient as touted by many 'radical' atheists. A scientific attempt maybe too far reaching and likely unattainable with the present knowledge man has.

Theories in physics for a similar reason cannot be disproved but can be classified as either more likely or less likely ( Well, until the No-go theorem that is). If God is a proposed theory to a problem in science, physics especially, can it then be entirely dismissed?

Even the mere word 'existence' seems to be elusive to our present logic or logical interpretation. Here lies the pertinence of the philosopher in modern science, perhaps the only reason why his opinion is still considered at all. Could it not be deduced following this trail of thought that only the Open-minded thinker is free of belief? Otherwise acceptance of any theory concerning the 'inception of existence' i.e before the Big Bang is belief to an extent since there is either no experimental validation, mathematical justification or proper evident logical construct to make any assertion. Is this open–mindedness not a crucial characteristic of the agnostic?

Freeminda:
Your mentality is that of an illiterate

You have right to oppose others opinion not to condemn them for their opinion

Grow up kid

What do you say about the opinions of a racist? Or radical religious fanatics? How about the opinions of a mass murderer?

More elaborately,

Every opinion is subject to criticism, more so, when such opinions are put forward to a public, with considerable popularity and acceptance by a number of people, hence, it is thereby predisposed to logical criticism and objections. Inasmuch as there are no clear boundaries to indicate what opinions, especially personal believes or ideologies should be accepted or rejected, with liberal democracy increasing the complexity of an already convoluted matter, there should be a basis upon which opinions could be criticized and entirely dismissed.

Analogous with the Occam's razor, it becomes much more easier to simplify such matters by neglecting dogma, matters that cannot be resolved by prima facie evidence, or self evident matters are considered with logical methods, to give them credulity. Proofs to ascertain claims, sound arguments and sometimes citing generally accepted authorities by cognoscenti in related fields i.e The constitution can be referred to to clarify the legality of publicly declaring an opinion.

Ideally, more rigorous scientific methods should be applied. Such has been the case since the age of enlightenment, however, this would further increase the complexity of matters, relegating it to a status of irresoluteness and an endless cycle of debate through the ages. It can be argued that subjects related to human behaviour are indeed too complicated and vast to be reduced by relatively more concise or comparatively austere methods of science.

For the first time since the democracy era, the Nigerian military own the streets. Having regained the authority to oppress Nigerians and this time backed by a democratic government, would they once again want to have a feel of the ultimate power?

How would you have drove of vans filled with military personnels, battalions responding to a reported crime? Military presence in the scale of a local government area just for a crime the police is supposed to handle? The worst part of it is when the supposed democratic government is encouraging them.

Democracy is obviously becoming a disaster.

spywavenoah:
This is just immoral and inhuman - and will be denounced by people all around the world."

And the Chinese government that dismissed and suppressed the initial observations and report of a said medical practitioner when the spread of the virus was only at its early stages? what then would people around the world say about them?

KingAzubuike:
So what's special? Virtually every country out there has a lot of animal that can only be found in their soil.

Regardless, it doesn't hurt to know about these ones here.


Interesting post @profuk7

Throwback:
We all need to make personal sacrifices for our own survival.

Those that are too learned to accept that the federal government can effect such lockdown, should sue the government after they have survived this pandemic and the courts are reopened to entertain such learned survivors.

What do you mean by too learned? Are you a lawyer? If not then let the lawyers do their job

The best thing to do may not always be the right thing. In fact, the best thing to do may just be the wrong thing to do as the case may be. Empathy is a quality an individual may possess but it is however meaningless to the law in its purity. Is it enough that an action is well intended? While it may be appealing to the layman as a matter of convenience, the intellectual must not accept this kind of reasoning as he must probe the vast consequence and the depth of implications of such matters. How do they fit to structures that are already in place? Structure is a basic element of order and can not be separated from it without destroying its meaning altogether. Can structure in itself be defined without reference to pattern? It is an obligation to the intellectual that order be preserved in its intended pattern. How else can this be effectively achieved if the consequences of even the slightest form of disorder is not overemphasized? Order is the system, structure is what comprises it and pattern is the constitution, our laws.

Is the constitution not what distinguishes our society from those of the other social animals and even insects?

The constitution is supreme. This was exactly the point professor Wole Soyinka was trying to buttress upon. While it is important to secure lives, whatever actions taken by the government must be done constitutionally and more importantly without misinterpretation of the constitution. Compromising the supremacy of the constitution at any instance regardless of the peculiarities of any circumstance whatsoever gives an excuse to subject the law for any other reason. Otherwise, If not the constitution, who or what decides what is right in such a case? Or within what premise should these circumstances be defined?

It must be noted that justifying any action that undermines the supremacy of the constitution at all times is simply dismissing the relevance of the constitution in any case. As an antecedent, this case alone gives a valid instance of when the law was dismissed as dealing with matters of the states and therefore can be cited as a reference in the future hence would justify any argument that follows. The law even without its adaptation by the state secures its respect in purely intellectual terms in that it contains within itself the context or situations to which it is applicable and the extent to which it remains valid. In other words, it sets its own limit on stated generalizations. But the dynamics and complexity of the interpretation of these situations is wherein the job of our lawyers lie. That these interpretation be within context as stated by the constitution is what they must ensure.

Lastly, I must add that the structure of order is very delicate as any slight change in pattern that is accepted or undisputed becomes embedded within the rigid structure, maybe permanently. In other words, the constitution must be interpreted for what it implies and not just what can be made out of it. Any form of misinterpretation of the law today becomes an accepted norm tomorrow if it is not cross-checked and addressed appropriately.

Simplyleo:
[s][/s]
What a jaundiced piece of shyte thrown into my mention with reckless abandon. Such a piece of useless garbage is suitable for ipob miscreants, not me pls.

So, now run along and drop the nonsense at the doorstep of any ipob fool.

You chose the latter option I see. Well, atleast it's a plus for you to realize that you have not so much dignity worth defending.

So sad. May the dead live on in good memories in the living and may those that grieve the dead find comfort in these memories and what is left of life.
I'm yet to read an official statement on the accident. These lives lost must be accounted for.

Sunofgod:
But a president with any waec is ok?......

" The depth of analysis of a typical Nigerian graduate is manifested in unsubstantiated information presented in arguments, twisting facts until they become irrelevant to context or totally false, totally disregarding truth they are more inclined to bigotry and illogical preference for what they choose to believe. A graduate whose core ideology are rooted to tribalism, tribal politics and religion. The scope of his knowledge is basically that which would pacify these elements, at the very least his/her ego. Such a country should not expect to survive talk less of progressing".

The above would of course only apply to you if you have a WAEC certificate at minimum. I guess the same goes for that Simplyleo guy I quoted just above you.

Simplyleo:
Watch how ipob miscreants with their usual foolishness tell everyone they are being targeted with this policy.

I haven't seen creatures as dumb as ipob miscreants.

Sincerely, you're the worst kind of human there can be (if only positive qualities are considered). Most of your ramblings are irrelevant, incoherent and senseless. It tells a lot about your intelligence. I would have left you alone to keep running around and barking like a demented wild dog but at this rate it's just better you be put on leash.
It's a good thing you learnt the use of the English language, the basics at least but it's a disaster, in my opinion that there's nothing reasonable that you can express with it. You don't have to keep doing these to whatever there is left of your reputation. This is an advice, you can either take it or show me you're not worth it.

CreekCommando:
Theorist! So, if you apply such the same criminals and soldiers won't disconnect the circuit? You guys want technology in every other sector but you won't like that in elections? But of a truth, that your Lagos is so unkempt and bushy.

In reference to your first question alone : Not when it is a more complicated system with sensors that will trigger an alarm system in real time.

Raysleek:
Pipeline vandalism is a steady source of income criminals in that area, even the police and soldiers are involved. Technology needs to be incorporated in pipeline monitoring. We can invent things like conductor strips that will run along the pipe na, any tampering will easily be noticeable and the exact location will be known also.

The tricky part is indicating the exact location in real time. The technology needed is not as simple as a conductor strip I'm afraid. A kind of strip sensor would be better, such that the sensors map every length of the pipelines with specific configuration and relayed to a special display screen in their monitoring offices.

As intelligent as your write-up may seem I must add that it is not devoid of sentiment. As much as some must stay to build, many must leave. Countries like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia e.t.c are where they are today because a few left but instead of returning to enjoy, they returned to work even more. We must go to them or tell them to come to us but this time it must be in terms of a bargain, our own terms.

It is not so much about having enough money to implement major projects or providing social amenities. These things are of course necessary but only for survival, not for sustenance or development. The key is to radically harness and develop human resources.
Education is just another scam for some Nigerians, for another few it is the only way to aid financial security and social influence of an individual. Both views are obviously terribly faulty and might just be the major underlying problem. Graduates in Nigeria cannot be compared to their contemporaries outside the continent by any positive standard. The only thing education seems to be relevant for in Nigeria, infact Africa is in getting a white-collar job. The depth of analysis of a typical Nigerian graduate is manifested in unsubstantiated information presented in arguments, twisting facts until they become irrelevant to context or totally false, totally disregarding truth they are more inclined to bigotry and illogical preference for what they choose to believe. A graduate whose core ideology are rooted to tribalism, tribal politics and religion. The scope of his knowledge is basically that which would pacify these elements, at the very least his/her ego. Such a country should not expect to survive talk less of progressing.

The state of education in this country is truly pitiable, a total disaster. True sound education is what we truly need, not just in knowledge but in thinking. This is the kind of education that frees the mind, the kind of education that brings independence and self reliance, the kind of education that brings about development and modernisation.

Developing human resources is the way forward, any other effort made without tackling this is only futile and a wasted effort even in the short run.

Nairaland members acting like they are sympathetic when what they do all day here is peddle hate speeches and get intoxicated from online tribal wars with unreasonable claims to superiority. Disgusting pretence.

pacespot:
I hope they launch one of those missiles to your house so that you can know how poor they are. Jew worshipping scumbag

C*ck sucking piece of shit.

You're entirely hopeless, I stated my opinion with inclination to evidence and not distorted by any preferences or sentiment but you get triggered because it doesn't reflect your delusions.
Arab d*ck sucker
P.S Iran does not have the missile capability to strike my current location.

Eteka1:
read this you idiot and tell me it was only drones that was used against the Saudis.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/how-a-quantum-change-in-missiles-has-made-iran-a-far-more-dangerous-foe/2020/01/07/63020a0c-30c7-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Thanks dummy but I won't read it. I know enough about ignorant people to realise that they barely comprehend sentences but reinterprete into what they prefer to have in their heads.

Eteka1:
You guys just like talking nonsense. Go and do some research and you will find out that the Houthis in Yemen used the same Fateh ballistic missiles in attacks on Saudi Arabian oil installations. 19 missiles were fired and all but two hit their targets with precision. The Saudis have the very expensive US made Patriot Air Defence System in place and it failed to intercept the missiles.

If you research further you will also find out that the Iranians had an option of deploying their advanced cruise missiles in the attack on the US airbases. Cruise missiles cannot be detected by ground based radars and cannot be intercepted by air defence systems. This is due to their low flying trajectory and high speed.

Are you an idiot to realize that a defense system has the space it covers and its scope is limited? It has it's limitation like any other technology. They just need to purchase enough to cover every space. Wondered why 'mainland' Israel is referred to as the theatre of missiles?
Iran used drones not cruise missiles, hypersonic cruise missile is a very very long shot for them even in decades to follow.
Stop displaying ignorance fueled by your sentiments and personal truth on the internet, it is shameful.