₦airaland Forum

No, I am minoring in applied mathematics. Man ODE is going to kill me ooo.

Quantitative finance, also known as mathematical finance, is a branch of applied mathematics. It relies heavily on differential equations/computational probabilistic models- that is why candylips assumed i might be studying it.

Ouants build most of the models used in bulge-bracket/Boutique I-banks which would be used in derivative pricing. They are less famous than the Investment bankers, and earn far less. They are the ones with the brains though and are usually in the back office.

By the way @candylips
If you actually know me, you would know the Banking is the last thing I would want to do. I just know so much about it because of my environment.

which course are u studing

why do u want to knw?

It wasn't a math or science competition i expect . But its not really surprising, the students are the ones who are smart, they prolly did not gain much from naija academic standards

If you want to work in america, apply to an american school, and if you finally want to work in Britain go to school in the UK.

Do you mean in naija?

It would definitely be the UK graduate except you plan to apply to an American multinational like exxonmobil. They would be more familiar with the US system.

Also, it is quite easy to get into a good british school (since they are looking for money)- as opposed to a top american private school (which for one cost $60k a year and have stringent admission policies). I would say, you should take the UK choice.

@Sagamite

After looking at your posts, I have confirmed what i previously thought about you. I didn't see any arguments or brilliant use of rhetoric to drive your point. So could you please (a polite please):

Outline your arguments against homosexuality carefully. What accounts for its widespread nature? Why is it perverse?  Don't use arguments like I dont agree with it. We are not in primary school and I don't have time for emotional garbage. I want a well flowing argument to convince me why, I should condemn homosexuals. I dont want to be called a slowpoke because i don't agree with your view. I know I am a slowpoke, and idiot, and not smart and my writing lacks substance. That is your opinion . You are entitled to it. So dont include that in any of your posts, when arguing with me- include something brilliant, straight forward.

Most importantly-since this is the topic- provide evidence, that to the contrary homosexuals are not born the way they are. If you can find evidence of this then you have shifted the debate to my side of the table . The burden of proof is on you because I have asserted that scientifically, it is logically sound to assume that homosexuals are born that way. I have presented the hormone theory, and hormones are made and regulated by proteins which are themselves produced by our DNA.

I also dont want to be simply told that my arguments are poor, anyone could say that: tell me why they are poor. Also, I dont think statements like[b] "Not worthy of commenting on"[/b] constitute a logical argument.

I would welcome any literature (science, humanities or social sciences) as long as it from unbiased individual doing research for the good of man and not to drive his personal agenda.

I await you intellectual input

Try and prove based on the criteria in my link:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475

Ok, I read your posts and it is HILARIOUS. Like this isn't even meant to insult you so dont attack me ooo. But your post are really funny, and people are accusing me of naivity. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Even if it is proven (which I am sure it is not the case) them we have to determine whether it is a malfunction that we should find some medicine, therapy and psychology to cure as is being attempted for paedophiles who can easily claim to be born that way as well.

If it can not be proven to exist in the animal world, then it is most likely a malfunction that has entered the human system, as there is nothing we do or that happens to humans, that is natural, which can not be found in some other animals. Be it albinoism, deformed offsprings, pygmies etc.

Which human system are u talking about. Are you suggesting it is a mutation, like a genetic disorder. Man you are lucky this is a nigerian forum. scientist will make mincemeat of your assertions.

Haha, mate. Ok, man I have to admit you are quite a character.

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals (Pass)
2) Animals engage in homosexuality (Overdocumented fact )
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior. (follows from the two previous premises)

An describing an argument as unsubstantiated is a misnomer. You should attack the premises, before you start on the argument itself. I already know problems it (1) and (2) just by doing 5 minutes research. Do the same

Not worth commenting on. You are sinking.  Grin

Advice: You should not have even gone there (masturbation is worse than homosexuality) in the first place. Try and control the hormonal youthful exuberance that might have instigated you to try and come up with some failed Avant Garde thinking.

Another use of personal attacks. Anyways, 'Masturbation is worse than homosexuality", hahaha (sorry this is hilarious) , then 80-90% of men are worse than homosexuals. Not using Avant garde thinking, I am actually restating well researched facts to support my argument. I wouldnt use the US as an example, since it is extremely liberal and use data from a more conservative country Uk :

Tell your government that: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=8072314&page=1   


Or this statement on wiki "Similar results have been found in a 2007 British national probability survey. It was found that, between individuals aged 16 to 44, 95% of men and 71% of women masturbated at some point in their lives. 73% of men and 37% of women reported masturbating in the four weeks before their interview, while 53% of men and 18% of women reported masturbating in the previous seven days.[25]"


It has a link to the research paper, which I could access, because i am in school right now but you would be unable to. This survey was anonymous. Meaning people had no incentive to lie.

Well so 95% of men are worse than homosexuals. Thanks sagamite you just committed. a classical example of contradiction

My point is that most livings things desire offsprings, whether they are gay or straight. Sexual desire has nothing to do with one's desire for offsprings. Talking about the barren woman, who says homosexual don't have relationships with the hope of having kids someday even though it cannot be achieved having sexual intercourse with that person; since also the barren woman or impotent man cannot produce them naturally. My point about infaniticide is that most living organisms desire and produce offsprings and I believe it has nothing to do with sexual orientation or ability to care for those offsprings, its the continuation of life.

You hit the koko. It is a natural inclination for organisms to desire offsprings. As they say in science, the continuation of life, is caused by the desire to create more DNA. It has nothing to with sexual orientation.

Another suitable example, especially for people who are interested in ethical arguments: What about someone who is transgender? What sex do they belong to, what gender roles should they be ascribed to? Is any sex they have unnatural?Because they were born that way, should they be discriminated against?

Ok, but what do transgenders, have in common with homosexuals? Well, homosexuals are (this is quite an extrapolation) in the border line of "normal individuals" and "transgender people." An overproduction of estrogen in men, can make them act feminine, and desire men while still having "male features." They feel like they are women in men's bodies. Is it their fault, no? Should they be discriminated against?

So your proof that homosexuality exists in the animal world is to provide some pix of 2 animals (sexes, in some cases, unidentified)? And in the others where it is a motion picture it did not prick you as a SOCIOBIOLOGIST, a TOP one for that matter, that most appear to be in a captive environment without any signs of the opposite sex present? Moreover, photography was not captured by reliable professionals and you put it forward?

It is as poor as a sociobiologist going to a US jail and then coming back with his "evidence" that "most men prefer sex with each other than with opposite sex".

I think you are actually having difficulty distinguishing the difference between proof and argument. You found a flaw in one of my proofs, good analogy, but that wasn't really my main evidence, that I wanted you to see. You asked for youtube video and I showed you what you asked for.

I dont deal with documentaries mate. I am too old for that. I deal with scientific papers, published in highly recognized, scientific journals. I expected you to look, at the wikipedia link on homosexuality in animals, that was my evidence. You can't argue with wikipedia, because most of the statements in wikipedia, I cited. I am sure you know how wikipedia works? Like when someone writes something on wikipedia, they must provide a source, which is listed below as a link. If not you see a question mark or something that suggest that statement is questionable. t

The link on homosexuality in animals carefully details, the research done on animal behavior in the wild, and provides a link of all the research and material that are published on this topic. B4, someone provides an argument against evidence for homosexuality in animals, they should have read most of these articles. It is an extremely well documented phenomena by notable and unbiased scientists (Not gay) No one here can argue about it except they do actually years of research.

You can now see why I didn't fail. There is actually a lot of substance, you just have to read in between the lines.

So because it is in use in Wikipedia and (as a weapon) by the pro-homos that want to defame the opponents of homosexuality that makes it valid?

Homophobia might have been coined by the gay movement, but that doesn't make it less a word. Let us not get hanged up over semantics here. Also your statement above suggest you are not interested in considering this from an intellectual point but using emotion

Poor arguments, son.

Really, really poor.

You had a BIG, BIG chance here to demonstrate the strength of your ability to back up your arguments and show you are worthy of debating issues with and you FAILED miserably. Absolute failure in that respect.

Man I have told you I agreed on how smart you are, and how ignorant I am  . No need for the personal attacks. Anyways, (1) Who asked me to show him a youtube link? : Well here is another link from a national geographic -2nd one- (A more credible source than Discovery/BBC) :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d68_vlLD60Y


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos&feature=related (A must watch because it shows you how scientist think. We don't do personal attacks

Thanks though i don't know if you are being sarcastic. But incase you are, I am laying down my argument in using logic theory from philosophy:

Basically my argument is predicated on these premises:
1) Humans are animals
2) Animals engage in homosexuality
Conclusion: Therefore in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

If you can prove to me that (1) or (2) are wrong , then my argument is negated. Oops, I actually figured out a loophole, but that is for you to find out.

yes I know, i initially wanted to leave nairaland because it was beginnning to affect my studies a lot (I failed my Ordinary differential exams because i could not stop looking at nairaland)  and  I waste time on it when i have papers to write for school. I also have a thesis to write which i need to graduate. but i found out i am addicted 

Also, i have an incessant fear of the internet, I feel what i post here will one day come to haunt me, I dont know if thats true. So, I try to modify controversial posts. And in addition, I dont want people knowing too much about me, which i have indicated on my posts.

But I think i would stop the modification, and instead post as little as i can

As someone who argues on a philosophical level, and not on religious sentiments/ emotions. I am assuming someone might bring this up as a weakness to my argument.

Wiki quote:

Gay animals also counters the 'peccatum contra naturam' ('sin against nature') - after Thomas Aquinas - established since the Medieval Christianities.[8] Whether this has logical or ethical implications is also a source of debate, with some arguing that it is illogical to use animal behavior to justify what is or is not moral (see appeal to nature).

However, using animal  behavior is logically sound. Humans are animals. We live like them, we die like them. Our only difference is our ability to reason. But we are still servants to our animal instincts. When you are hungry, why dont you reason and say "I wouldnt eat."Well if you dont eat hunger will knack you. So people who desire others of different sex are responding to animal instincts.

I would like to connect to other nigerians, but i dont think meeting the people u talk to online would be a great idea

Yeah there is the privacy issue,

don't get that?  Huh  It's not the same thing at all.A child molester has sex with a child, a non-adult who doesn't have the power of consent. That's why child molesters go to prison for their crime and gays do not

Right on point, comparing homosexuality (sex between consenting adults) to pedophilia (unconsenting sex) is analogous to comparing "natural" sex to "rape" shebi they are the same.

^ if you want to advertise a site- do so openly mate

Can u pls refer me to the book that says Jesus was gay in his lifetime?

Jesus, my dear, is a figment of white ppls imagination. Assuming the validity of the new testament, I believe, Jesus made no mention of homosexuals. And if you mention leviticus- then we should also start stoning women who commit adultery/fornication- he who has not commited sin should raise the first stone

Masturbation can be seen unnatural, and in the same class as homosexuality. Let me draw analogies from other sexual habits which are considered the norm. For example, who doesn't like blowjobs  , well it is abnormal sexual behavior when considering the fact that it isn't the perfect ides of "natural sex" . Interestingly, No animal does blow jobs, only humans do so. FSo then what is the actual meaning of abnormal sexual behavior? What do you call masochist and sadist? Aren't they heterosexuals like you? But is there sexual activity natural or unnatural.

My argument is based on the meaning of natural and unnatural sexual activity. When someone can clearly defines that then I would assume gays are unnatural. Because its basic science, from wiki :

However, many modern scientists have shown that homosexuality is not a choice. The causes of homosexuality are not all understood, but genetics and the effects of prenatal hormones (when a baby is growing in its mother) and environment are sometimes thought to be causes. Scientists also show that homosexuality happens not only in humans. Most animals (like penguins, chimpanzees, and dolphins) often show homosexuality, some even for life-long periods as is the case with humans [1].

Many scientists and doctors also agree that no one can change their sexual orientation. Doctors used to treat gay people as if they had mental illnesses. However, homosexuality is no longer called a disease by doctors in many countries. There are some religious groups who still try to 'cure' homosexuality. This is called 'reparative therapy.' In therapies like this one, homosexual individuals have tried to change themselves to heterosexual and have even claimed they were changed, but most people do not believe it is possible.

This is your argument?  Undecided

That is what I call Ignorance and Poor.

We await your proof.

I do agree it was poor, not ignorant though. Let me present several arguments showing homosexuality is Ok . My argument could be biological for example. Then using the molecular biologist argument that some animals are born gay as a result of hormones, or genetics- perfectly makes sense, try and present an argument against this. The onus of proof depends on you. Several hormones determine male sexuality. An overproduction of female hormones. Is This natural? Well whatbegs the question what is the meaning of natural ?, the norm you would say. Assume a hypothetical world where homosexuals were the norm and viewed heterosexuals as abnormal because their hormones were in balance. then heterosexuality in itself becomes unnatural.

This is a combination of a philosophical and biological arguments. The problem of what it means to be natural and unnatural.

Looking at it from a sociobiolgist perspective, homosexual behavior can also be encouraged by advocating societal acceptance. May be, I would assume that is what homophobes fear? But there has always been homosexuality, and since it is caused by hormones, it is not going to overthrow heterosexuality because there is no evolutionary need for it. We need to have different genders mating to reproduce and continue our species, so homosexuals would continue to be a minority (in the biological sense).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
Apparently the word I used has a whole wikipedia page. Homosexuality, has been around for a long time, during the Roman empire, Egypt, Great Britain especially Oscar Wilde, who was the defining character for the use of the word "gay," in the west. Infact, the trial of Oscar Wilde, is argued to have brought about the use of the word gay to mean homosexual. Homosexuality was accepted in various cultures, though claimed to be none existent in others.

I do agree it seems foreign to our culture- I haven't met any gay person in nigeria- but it could also be a "dont ask, don't tell policy." I brought up Oscar Wilde for this reason. Because of his flamboyant nature, people were very aware of his homosexuality. But this was not the case for other political figures in Britain at that time.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_animals

Since you are into this 

Gay animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE0e0hCb7ME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTXabN1pnZY&feature=fvw

Wow, I am shocked by the homophobia in Nigeria 

For one I decided not to join this, and I rily have lost much intellectual interest in Nairaland, but I have had many friends who are gay and the nicest people in the world and not injecting myself in this debate would do them injustice.

Homosexuality is perfectly natural. people are born gay. People can post from morning to Night. People can enact gay banning laws till kingdom comes. No matter what some people will always be attracted to the same sex. I think I saw someone mention that homosexuality is not seen in animals, it is very very common  in animals . It is a biological behavior, some people are calling it a mental disease- out right ignorance. You cannot understand what it means to be gay except if you are one yourself. Then you can understand the inclination. Why is heterosexuality right? For example, How many here masturbate? prolly a lot of the males.  If you do then you are doing something unnatural too, because masturbation is another form of sexual actity (sex with urself) so which one is worse, sex with yourself or mating with another indvidual  of the same gender? As someone well versed in biology, I understand homosexuality perfectly. I might have some problems with it being liberalized socially- not because i have problem with gays but for biological reasons.

By the way humans are no different from animals, only the ability to reason. So sad some of us can't see that.

yeah, i know Princeton doesn't have a business school mate, you are not talking to mamagee  . I didn't mean their masters of finance program in the bendheim school of finance. That is a cash cow program too, though they still get great jobs on wall street. When I say a cash-cow program, I mean a program that is designed to chop your money but people are willing to pay since its a prestigious university. Just like what people are arguing about here except an MBA is not an actual cash cow.

For cash cow programs it is hard to get into but not really at par in admissions with other Princeton programs. I actually meant Operations research/Financial engineering department which is ridiculously hard to get into. Far more than columbia's IEOR program (industrial engineering/operations research) which is also very very hard to get into. Both programs, are as you said strictly for math/engineering/ computer science people but they are the equivalents of the playboy house mansion for people interested in quantitative finance.

Nknight, I would be contacting you later, around next week when I am less busy

yeah, i know that, that is why I said that at the end of my statement. However, he is one of few, from my experience anyways. My main reason was the lack of research experience in nigerian universities, and the fact that most undergraduates at these schools dont have the opportunity to take graduate classes. For example I have taken a couple of PhD level classes when i was just 18 . Also schools have to standardize the Nigerian GPA to figure out who is one of the best. Not trying to disparage nigerian schools, my dad went to one, and he is using it to pay my fees  , I just want people to be aware of the difficulties.
Also, I am looking for an interpretation for why with so many smart ppl,I see on this board, why not many are at top schools. For example, i have met quite a lot of people who applied for there Masters in finance/financial engineering/industrial engineering/Operations research at princeton/columbia/berkeley/northwestern and they rarely have scores above 1400 in their GREs.

man what is wrong with naija, but maybe it has other implications, some other drink could penetrate the naija market.

mod

mod

mod