BornStunner1:
Adunmi Ade


I am honestly not understanding!!

I agree, this confuses the eyes and the brain. She looks like she bought that outfit from one of those guys sell clothes from a push cart on the streets of Lagos.

BornStunner1:
O.C Ukeje



I can’t be the only one who thinks O.C Ukeje suspiciously looks like Topcat in this get up.

The only thing wrong with the outfit is the shirt. With a different shirt - maybe plain sky blue or baby pink, that outfit would look amazing on him.

BornStunner1:
Chidinma

I have the hugest crush on Chidinma and in my eyes, she can do no wrong but her ‘lady in red’ outfit was uninspiring. It sort of just seemed to hang there

What the.....this dress is amazing! Are sure you haven't been drinking lately? Or you just have a problem with red dresses?

BornStunner1:
Denrele

Denrele is the class
captain of the worst dressed celebs and takes the cake for this absolutely horrific get-up. He looks like a frightened, gay and poorly paid butler. It is a fashion miss more shocking than Yakubu Aiyegbeni’s miss for Nigeria at the world

We get it, you have a problem with gay people. The thread however is about the outfits, not the sexual orientation. Stick to something.

Aubrey1:
Human Papiloma Virus (HPV)

You're joking, right?

KingEbukasBlog:


And when was it discovered to be an STD ?

Actually, Mycoplasma Genitalium is a bacterium that causes an infection. It's not a disease itself. Kind of like streptococcus pneumoniae is a bacterium that causes pneumococal disease or HIV is the virus that leads to/causes AIDS. The causative agents and their subsequent results are linked but different.

Pavarottii:

Haba did u say God; tell me a country that calls on God more than Nigeria in d whole world; and since we av been calling; is it not getting worse; people just like to run away from d truth mayb cos of sentiments; but I will say it anyday, anytym and anywhere. We need GEJ(God's ordained) not God himself.

GEJ, God's chosen? I laugh in Urhobo. GEJ is just as bad as Buhari, if not worse. It's weird how in the last elections, I was extremely skeptical about the candidates PDP and APC were offering. In 2019, I would rather neither of them contests again. Buhari has been a one and half year disappointment and that's putting in mildy. GEJ though.....six years......disappointment would be a crass understatement for qualifying him. At least Buhari still has two and half years to redeem himself - unlikely he would but hey, I'm no Nostradamus.

You can't tell me on the surface of this good country we call Nigeria, that PDP, APC and other parties cannot find one candidate, just one, that is competent.

And please, Do NOT say Atiku.

Time for money to manifest from unknown places.

malton:
One day, Nigeria shall import even dark skinned people.

What this country needs is a dictator with good intentions, solid policies, and the willpower to get things done. Someone who doesn't take no for an answer. Western liberalism will obviously get us nowhere.

Someone once argued that a "capable, technocratic authoritarian government on top of its game is far better for a developing, background country than a democratic one." I thought he was being naive when I read his submission. How true this is for my country.

Let's face it, Nigeria's problem isn't the system of government nor the people. Our issue stems from having successive governments that have failed to make a headway in spite of all the support they have got.

Singapore, China, S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, to list a few, have all turned their fortunes around despite being a unitary government. Canada, England, Spain, etc have done so as a constitutional monarchy. The US, Germany, Switzerland, etc. have gone on to achieve greatness as a republic.

Our problems:

1. Religiousity

2. Too many vested interests (generator importers cabal frustrating power stability, transport moguls frustrating railway, and so many more)

3. Lack of will

4. Skew sighted, warped, and bigoted "leaders"

5. The political circle comprises 90% illiterates who are incapable of any good by themselves.

We need a benevolent dictator to right many wrongs before things can take shape in this country. The masses are willing, but that's about as much power as they have got. The political parties keep churning out dundees.

I can't shout!

I can't fault your submission, but what happens when this "Strong,benevolent dictator" leaves power? Isn't there the risk that we would fall back to our old ways and ruin all the achievements this leader has left behind?

Take for instance: In Lagos, opposite the National Stadium, the area was a hotbed of disorganisation. Multiple bike stands, danfos parking anywhere and turning anyhow, roadside sellers and hawkers selling their goods wherever they deemed fit....... As a result, traffic in the area was a nightmare and it was generally unsafe. Then Fashola became governor and cleared all of them out and cleaned up the place. Traffic flowed easily, the area was clean and organized and everything ran pretty good. Then Fashola left office and it seemed for the first few months of Ambode's tenure, he wasn't interested in the area or continuing what Fashola did there. Gradually, the indiscriminate parking and hawking and driving returned to the area. Fortunately, Ambode fixed the issue before it became a real problem and it's more or less back to the way Fashola left it, possibly better.

Question is, what if Ambode wasn't interested in continuing Fashola's legacy in that area? It is obvious it would return to the disorganised, polluted, traffic nightmare it was.

So what's the solution, if not "strong, benevolent leaders"?

Strong systems! They would ensure that regardless of who is in power, things would run the way they should. The problem with Nigeria right now is that we run a weak system that doesn't punish nonperformance and idleness or disorganisation and corruption - which is why these things have become part of the system - and are strong in it. Don't assume that al the leaders we have had and currently have all came in with bad intentions. It's just that they alone couldn't change the system and even when they did, the system reverts back to the way it was before they took office.

Government is like balancing a stick on a knife edge: it can easily fail if not done right. Having good people means that the stick would be balanced well as long as those people are there to balance it. Having strong systems means that regardless of who is balancing it, it would still remain balanced and, if the person isn't good enough, the person would be replaced with someone that can balance it properly. And that's where Nigeria is not getting it right. Our system is essentially flawed. It's more important to have a legislature that makes the right kind of laws and an executive that would execute said laws and mandates properly and a judicial system that interprets those laws and, of course, a system in which all three keep each other in check than to have good people in offices because it is inevitable that someone with the wrong mindset or intention would take office. But if there is a strong, proper system in place, the country would still run fine regardless.

Series Name: Man Up!

Genre: Comedy

Average Run Time Per Episode: 23 Minutes

Cast: Christopher Moynihan, Dan Fogler, Mather Zickel, Henry Simmons

IMDB Rating: 6.6/10

So I’m a huge fan of comedy series and one of my best channels on DSTV (not saying too much, considering I have like only five channels I actually like and consider a bulk of the rest animal feed) is Comedy Central. However, after a while, it begins to feel like you’ve watched all of the sitcoms and comedy series. I mean, How I Met Your Mother was great for the first few seasons but the story began to run a bit too long and it began to feel like they were beginning to run out of material. Same thing for The Big Bang Theory. So I set out out to find something new (at least, something I had never seen before) and fate brought Man Up! my way.

Now Man Up! follows the lives of three middle-aged men who are still hanging on to the vestiges of what would be considered childhood or the teen years at best (like video games. Especially video games) while trying to function as full grown adults. There’s Will Keen, the only one of the three that’s actually married with kids, Kenny Hayden, a divorcee and Craig Griffith who’s never married before (and ends up ruining his ex-girlfriend’s wedding at the start of the series). Okay, that’s as much information as I’m going to give you as I don’t want to spoil it for you so if you’re interested in a new (well, technically not new, it premiered in 2011) comedy series, Man Up! might just be what you’re looking for.



My Personally Personal Opinion:

I loved Man Up! Like crazy! The most recent series I liked this much was Angie Tribeca. Seriously, while it’s not exactly completely new material, I feel like the delivery and acting really did it for me. There are few comedy series I have watched repeatedly in recent times and Man Up has joined that respectable group. So imagine my horror when I went Wikipediaing and realised that Man Up received terrible ratings in its first (and only) season! I mean what the deuce! I can think of way worse formulaic comedy series out there that got several seasons. Apparently, the ratings were so bad that the series was cancelled after the eighth episode aired although the complete season one is available online. I don’t understand, like really! If I had Wikipediad Man Up! before actually watching it, I would probably not have bothered at all but having watched it, I’m shocked it didn’t get at least two or three more seasons. It’s just such a letdown, honestly. I know some of you out there only watch series if they have at least three seasons but trust me, this one season is completely worth it.

My rating:

8/10. Straight up.

https://completelytier./2016/10/22/discoveraseries-man-up/

Seriously what phone was used to snap that picture? Nokia 6600?

OlajumokeBread:
Modern bus terminal with no seats ??

Looks like a 1867 bus terminal to me

Seats would be a terrible idea. Next thing na one tout would turn it to three bedroom flat. Lagosians aren't due for those kinds of bus terminals.

ourkobo:
From www.afrilaugh.com

​​​A boy watched their hen being mounted by 4 different cocks in one day, at the end of day when the hen was served for supper, the boy pushed away his plate and said, "i rather sleep hungry than eat this prostitute...​​​

Okay, this cracked me up!

All in a bid to get a few miserable clicks. SMH

KingAdegoke:
yes it is skewed. for anyone who finds it awkward at first. I was once in same situation. I went through hell to liberate myself. I believe you can be liberated and live a life without fear.

oh what a pitiful world we live in. humans caged by mere knowledge of psychological bully.

if you wish I can talk to you privately and share idea. am sure you'll be saved.

Didn't you say fear is a kind of pain and that pain is life's one, unchangeable constant ? How come you're also saying someone can live a life without fear? If one can live a life without fear and fear is a kind of pain, then there must be a remedy to all the other types of pain that are not fear, don't you think?

I don't see a confirmation here... Or is it just me?

sonofthunder:

if a person is a thief, liar, murderer it is a personal matter not your concern fa?

Actually, if a person is a thief and a murderer, it is the concern of the state which has laws laid down to deal with such social vices. If a person is a liar, well it's actually a personal matter, so long as the person's lies don't affect me negatively/are not with intent to commit a crim/felony, in which case it is also the concern of the state, not mine.

PastorAIO:


Hello sir, I see that you've attracted interest from the loony fringe. Pele!!

On your topic, when you talk about spirituality are you perhaps conflating it with piety.

I always thought spirituality was just an aspect of human anatomy, just like we have a physicality too. Whether or not humans recognise it we are all spiritual beings.
Religiousity or piety on the other hand is a cultural artefact that varies from one culture to another. Some religious cults (most religious cults) do very little to help the spirituality of their adherents. However the cult can still have an effect on the morality of the subject by influencing how he makes his decisions.

First off, that cracked me up!

On topic, well, I guess you have a point. When using the word spirituality, I was more focusing on religion and religiousity and that's what does affect certain human behaviors. However, religion is usually attributed to the spiritual which is why I went with spirituality.

You are bent on being confrontational. Have fun with yourself.

To the poster above me (no need quoting your long reply to make a long thread even unnecessarily longer), I'm sure there are better methods to stating your views and pointing out what you think is wrong with my personal thoughts that I put down here. I know rationality and calm are not exactly common elements on this board but I created a thread for discourse not trading of insults, calling of names or attacks on personality. Look through your reply and judge for yourself if you have been calm and rational. You probably think I'm attacking spirituality, considering you have no replies on the other three. Well, I'm not, just stating what I believe are the abstract entities that direct human behavior. Should you decide to reply again, I would implore you to be civil. We can't see each other physically so no need to act like we've had an old rift we're here to settle.

These are my thoughts in these issues. Thoughts?

The Wild Card: Instinct
Like legality, instinct is largely downplayed in the question of the rightness of human behavior, usually being subset under morality. However, the question of instinct is extremely important because of the three, it is probably the most unpredictable and one that's difficult to judge. Instinct is reflexive. You act or feel at a moment without conscious consideration. That is instinct. And it is extremely unpredictable, regardless of what we consciously think we would do or think in a specific situation. Consciously, we might feel no pity for a murderer who is convicted and sentenced to jail for life without possibility of parole. But as at the moment the judgement is delivered, a lot of people, even some of those affected negatively by the condemned's actions feel this momentary sadness or pity for someone who would never be free again. That is instinct. Even when people do things in self defense and eventually feel remorseful about it, as at the moment the action is carried out, there is no pity. Just action. It's conscious consideration that brings remorse later. Why I had to include instinct is because, for one, almost all the times, we act or think instinctively then consciously consider our actions later (even if it's a second after), then attach moral values to them. And as I said, it's difficult to judge instinct by Morality, Spirituality or even legality. Take for instance, a man who sees a well endowed woman and feels aroused. In some spiritual circles, he has committed lust because his mind (and nanoseconds later, body) reacted to what he saw. Some would also consider it morally wrong. But instinct is almost wholly subconscious. There are occasions people feel arousal by sights that are not normally sexual because while their conscious mind is not seing something sexual, the subconscious (which can't be controlled) is and may either relay it straight to the brain to get the body to react immediately and instinctively or filters it to the conscious to ponder then react. In the second, there is consciousness and, as such a value can be attached by the spiritual or moral connotation as may apply. In the first however, there is no real conscious commitment. Of the four, instinct is the only one noone can control.

Legality
Legality is the one that shows up least when these matters are argued, probably because both sides feel Legality is a product of Morality, Spirituality or some kind of combination of the two. Of course, there is no real argument for the basis of Legality ; everyone knows it's we humans that made and passed the law that we find in our national constitutions. It's a bit funny though that it is so ignored because it is the only one of the three that is totally binding on everyone, regardless of religious affiliation or a lack of thereof. Basically, Legality is about a protection of rights. While Spirituality and morality can be argued personally and changed at whim, Legality can't as it takes procedures to establish, modify and expunge laws. Legality, like the others is not fixed throughout time but changes with the advent of time and change. However, Legality is the only one of the three that doesn't change from person to person based on their personal convictions at any point in time. Even if all the citizens and the entirety of the executive, legislature and judiciary completely believe stealing should be right, so long as a law has not been passed legalizing it, it is illegal. The only points where Legality fails is on matters that laws have not provided for, like say killing someone with charms. As far as I know, the Nigerian penal code does not have any code saying you can kill someone with charms. Neither does it say you cannot kill someone with charms. So yes, Legality, like the others has it's grey areas and is definitely heavily influenced by the previous two, seeing that it is still humans that make the law. Why I felt it necessary to bring it up is because, especially on this board, enough has not been highlighted on how much legality affects human behavior. Think of something like dealing drugs. A lot of people don't deal drugs, not because they think it's essentially wrong morally (since they don't have any first hand idea of how certain drugs could affect people) or spiritually (I'm not sure there's any holy book that says "thou shalt not smuggle drugs" and the argument of what negative impacts drugs have falls flat if you are not directly selling the drugs to addicts and users. Afterall, the end buyer might be using it to conduct chemistry experiments or for art (there's an actual art exhibition of art works made from drugs). They don't smuggle drugs because they don't want to go to jail. And legality also covers a lot of things that are grey areas between Spirituality/religion and Morality. like is it right to discriminate against people of a race/homosexuals/single parents/abortion as religion condemns some of them but Morality directs fairness? The law straight up tells you what to do in these cases: have whatever personal feelings you want about them but you can't harm them or, in certain places, show any form of bias against them. In a way, the law lifts the burden of pondering the rightness of an (not all actions as, granted, you can't hurt or show bias against them but it says nothing about hating them so you're still left with the decision of wether hating them is right or not). The law tries to balance the inequalities the questions of Spirituality and Morality raise on a level field that applies to all. This is why legality is an important factor in determining human behavior especially within civilized society.

Morality
Morality is especially interesting because it is one both adherents of religions, theist or otherwise and atheists both feel strongly about. Theists and religious conformists believe Morality is a products of divine direction. A lot of atheists believe Morality is a product of personal perception and is thus subjective. Outside these two broad standpoints are other views that are either combinations of or modifications of the two but the main standing argument is that either Morality is a spiritual or a human construct for the religious and atheists respectively. Like Spirituality, Morality varies, based on personal beliefs or convictions. Take for instance ; polygamy. The average Christian views it as adultery seeing as Christianity believes each person is entitled to just one partner in the eyes of God. Thus, it is immoral. To the Muslim, there is nothing wrong with it, as Allah allows marriage to a number of wives. Now the problem with seeing Morality as a spiritual construct is that with the various conflicting positions religious tenets take, Morality would also change. Even within certain sects of the same religion, there is disagreement over what is moral and immoral. Which brings us to subjective Morality; the view point of a lot of atheists and agnostics. A simple summary of subjective Morality is that nothing is innately right or wrong but anything takes on the value we attach to it. To the average mind, this is a bit of an alarming viewpoint as one would imagine, say, a serial killer could justify his actions to be right based on his personal convictions. But I do realize that subjective Morality holds water, seeing as religion isn't universal and the moral value attached to each thing or event is a product of their personal views on that thing wether they feel it is due to divine instructions or just personal taste. One value that comes up regularly in these discussions of subjective morality especially from atheists is empathy: the propensity to feel what others feel. Empathy is also kind of subjective. Think of a soldier at a firing squad. Now the soldier may feel justified that his state sanctioned killing is right due to the gravity of the accused-to-be-executed's crime. One may feel the soldier should feel bad for the person to some extent but if the soldier's personal conviction is that if it were to be him that committed the crime then he would deserve whatever punishment is meted out to him. In that case, I can't say the soldier lacks morals for failing to feel the pain of the person about to lose his life because he has placed himself mentally in those shoes and has still determined himself worthy of the same punishment. But personally, I don't entirely subscribe to total empathy in the sense that we cannot truly feel someone's feelings unless we are them and whatever we feel for other people at any time is only a product of our personal opinion and feeling of the situation at hand. Using the same analogy, imagine if the soldier feels bad that he's about to kill someone for a crime they committed BUT imagine if the person also feels he/she deserves the punishment for the crime and feels no pain or loss for himself. What bearing then would that soldier's empathy have on his Morality if the affected person doesn't feel bad for himself?
I feel as far as Morality goes, we humans are largely the deciders based on whatever is the stronger general feeling at the time. At a time in our history, it was totally normal to pick up arms and go plunder a neighboring village because we felt it serves our purposes best and the interest of God/gods. Today it's basically termed terrorism and is considered immoral by most, wether religious or otherwise. Growing up in this country, it used to be that women wearing trousers was quite immoral. Today, it is standard practice, very few churches preach against such. In-fact women wear trousers to church now. As our mentality towards certain actions and situations change, so do our moral connotations and the fact that Morality is not fixed and changes regularly is a pointer to me that it is a largely human construct.

I've been a constant reader on this board, and, while I haven't opened lots of threads here or even replied threads, I regularly visit to read through people's opinions and world-views. One question that seems to regularly come up is: who or what decides what is good and what is bad and why do we do good or bad? As an open-minded Christian (some people don't believe there is such a thing, but to each his own), I pondered this question. And so far, I've come up with three varied, separate and yet interwoven compasses that generally direct human conscious behavior. They are Spirituality, Morality and Legality.

I'll take them one after the other. I don't want my post to be unnecessarily long, so I'll try to summarize my thoughts (not opinions but thoughts; there's a difference).

Spirituality
This is the one religious adherents hold on to as the ultimate human compass, going as far as positing it as the basis of the other two. Now, personally, I don't think Spirituality is, to any great extent, the basis for Morality or Legality. Why? Because Spirituality is not universal. Different people adhere to different religions which dictate different things. We religious adherents believe our tenets are handed to us by supreme beings. However, the truth of the matter is that, as far as I know, none of us has seen this supreme being. Different people seem to get conflicting messages from apparently the same supreme source. Is this supreme being deliberately confusing us or are we arrogating supernatural endorsements to our subconscious personal convictions? Think of it, all true religious adherents believe their religion is correct and their supreme being is the only supreme being and they hold these beliefs with equal levels of conviction. Are they all wrong? Are they possibly all right in equal measure (almost impossible, as each claims non-adherents would suffer some sort of punishment for not believing or conforming)? We really don't know. None of these supernatural beings has come out in public to be seen and scrutinized by all, believers, unbelievers and non-believers alike to settle this age old question once and for all. So we have to settle on faith. Faith that the words we read in holy books are actual instructions from the greater being that created us and not the personal convictions of a few who first imagined it/they exist or constructed the whole thing as a means to control or influence people seeking answers to the eternal question of human purpose, direction and destiny. Faith that the voice we hear in our thoughts and private moments is the higher being speaking to us and not our subconscious telling us what we want to hear at a point even if consciously we tell ourselves we want to hear something different. It's interesting how people within immediate environments are more likely to believe in a particular spiritual force propounded by the people around them. One pretty strong argument certain atheists put forward is that: how come abrahamic faiths had to be carried across oceans to other lands when the Supreme being could much easily have revealed the same thing he revealed to the originators of these faiths to everyone across the world, thereby making religion universal and United? I have no answer to this as I would be the last person to use "God works in mysterious ways as a valid answer". Even for me, a still practicing Christian, I personally believe God is methodical but that question does do some damage to that method. Perhaps I will eventually find an answer to that. One day.

monlawal:
Where have you been all this while brother?

Lol, right here, alive and well. Thanks for asking!