₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
See how you are embarrassing yourself. The thread already shows that i stated the fallacy you committed and named it but here you are, as you are used to denials, lying about it and desperately trying to reargue the matter since you lost. Nothing for you.

You lost. You can't refute the examples. You can't admit the retreat. So you keep writing paragraphs, hoping volume will replace logic.

The thread is stamped. Everyone can see it. You lost. Move on

Sirchiboy:
Why do people with good heart suffer in relationships🥺💔🥲?

Because they don't set boundaries and principles

That one concern them abeg
This days I no dey stress myself over women matter again

Dtruthspeaker:
All these is just you trying to create a reargument since you lost, The very second you resorted to fallacious arguments, you lost.

fallacy
fal·la·cy
A fallacy is a common error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid, unsound, or weak.

And in all these you forget that the essence of an argument is to distill what is is good for us to use to further for our good living. But since that was not your mind is why you are crying and trying to make a reargument.

You just defined 'fallacy' as if that proves I committed one. You didn't name the fallacy. You didn't quote where I committed it. You just said the word and hoped it would stick.That's not an argument. That's a magic spell. Say the word 'fallacy' and hope the other person disappears.

You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless she's ugly, rejected, or damaged.'
I gave you five examples: Queen Elizabeth II, Jacinda Ardern, Serena Williams, Nicki Minaj, Meryl Streep.You dismissed them as foreign.I gave you Nigerian examples,Stella Damasus, Toke Makinwa, Tiwa Savage.You dismissed them as 'burnt products.'You changed the terms of your own argument every time it was challenged.

That's not me committing a fallacy. That's you moving the goalpost. And when I called it out, you started calling me 'delusional' and saying 'Temi Otedola is your wife' a strawman I never said, never implied, and never believed.

You lost the argument. You just can't admit it. So you keep writing paragraphs about me, hoping volume will replace logic.The thread is stamped. Everyone can see it. You lost. Move on.

Dtruthspeaker:
The thread shows that i did not keep scores nor said anything about loss or wins until you said it. And so, you forced me to point out that you had since lost.

As i said if you want to jump into fire, go ahead. it is not me who burns and if you enjoy living in the delu that Teni Otedola is your wife, carry on.

You keep saying 'the thread shows.' But the thread doesn't show what you think it shows.
You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless she's ugly, rejected, or damaged.'I gave you examples. You dismissed them as foreign, then 'burnt products.'You changed the terms. I called it out.Now you're saying I lost because I forced you to say it.That's not logic. That's a retreat dressed as victory.


And the 'Temi Otedola is your wife' line? You keep repeating it because it's the only strawman you have. I never said that. I never implied that. You invented it to avoid the real point.

You made an absolute claim. I disproved it. You couldn't refute the examples, so you dismissed them. That's not a win. That's a forfeit.

You're not debating anymore. You're performing. And the thread speaks for itself.

Jmichael1:
Na to go cause gbas gbos for the bank 1st tin 2morrow morning..

Read bro
Read!!!!!!!


Xxxxxxxxxxc

Dtruthspeaker:
The thread shows that my argument never changed but that since you couldn't counter my arguments, you resorted to cherry picked trying to make raise arguments on trivial and negligible matters of my statement.

Thus, the thread shows you moving and moving and changing arguments as you desperately clutched to whatever words i used as an opportunity to reargue what you could not argue before.

And you did not know that everytime you moved and did not address the point of the argument, i was strangling you in the trap of you committing the Fallacy of Logic-Chopping or Trivial Objections Fallacy (aka cherry-picking).

So, even before you could not counter my truth is black and white as proven above you had since lost when you started committing the Fallacy of Trivial Objections and Logic Chopping (cherry picking) crying and unreasonably fighting about stereotypes and pretending not to know inductive and deductive reasoning up to the point of answering a rhetorical question. Who does that?

So, you had lost siiiiince!

So, all these was because you wanted to beat me because I whopped you the other day last month?

Ah! Child, if you jump into fire it is not me who burns. Stop living in delus,

Nonetheless, if you enjoy living in the delu that Teni Otedola is your wife, carry on. I no know say e serious like that to you.

You keep saying I lost. But you're the one writing paragraphs about me. You're the one keeping score. You're the one who can't let go.

The thread is stamped. Everyone can read it. They saw you say 'no rich woman would ever marry down.' They saw me give examples. They saw you dismiss them as foreign, then 'burnt products.' They saw you change the terms. That's not cherry picking. That's your argument collapsing.

2. You keep saying I couldn't counter your arguments. I did. You just didn't like the counters. You called them trivial. You called them logic chopping. You called them fallacies. You used every label except 'I was wrong.'

'You lost siiiiince.' Then why are you still here? Why are you still writing? Why are you still trying to convince me? If I lost, you'd walk away. You can't. Because you know the thread doesn't say what you want it to say.

4. 'Teni Otedola is your wife.' I never said that. You keep repeating it because it's the only strawman you have left. It's not an argument. It's a fantasy you built to avoid the real point.

You didn't win. You didn't strangle me. You didn't trap me. You lost the argument, and now you're trying to win the rematch in your own head.

The thread is stamped. Everyone can see it. You lost. Respect yourself and move on

You are mixing valid concerns with conspiracy thinking and contempt for ordinary investors.

If you bought the IPO, know what you own: a minority stake in a profitable refinery. A long-term bet on Nigeria. Not a lottery ticket. Not a scam.

If you didn't buy, don't mock those who did. They're not olodos. They're investors

Dtruthspeaker:
I have no delusions as proven by the fact that you could not reasonably counter my argument as proven by this last argument.

And the thread shows how you just kept moving away and away from my argument, as you cherry picked trying to make raise arguments on trivial and negligible matters of my statement.

You said the truth is black and white. But your argument changed every time it was challenged. That's not truth. That's a moving target.

The thread is stamped. Everyone can see it. You lost.
Respect yourself.Leave this thread, you loser

Dtruthspeaker:
The truth is black and white in real eyeity unless you are living in the real eyeity of delus eg

Is Teni otedola your wife?
No!

But in your real eyeity of delu mind real eyeithy, you can always make her and imagine her as your wife.

However, it is your right to deceive yourself and the bottom line is that it is you who shall carry the consequences of your delus

You're not exposing my delusion. You're protecting your own. And you're doing it by dismissing every piece of evidence that contradicts you.

The thread speaks for itself

Respect. That's a smart move.
You took a pay cut for a skill upgrade. That's not quitting for purpose,that's quitting for leverage. Teaching had a ceiling. Coding doesn't.You traded shortterm salary for long term skill.You built a new identity: from teacher to programmer.You gained knowledge that compounds every year you code, you get better and more valuable.
The question is: what did you do with the coding knowledge? Freelance? Build products? Remote work?
Or are you still at the state university, underpaid but over-skilled?

Quitting for purpose works when you're building something. Not just when you're leaving something. What did you build after you left?

GuestInfinity:
It's nice to see a very logical person like you who thinks critically here on nairaland.

Dtruthspeaker has a very black and white view of women so he may not understand the nuances you're presenting

Respect. I appreciate that.
Dtruthspeaker has a rulebook. I have reality. He has assumptions. I have examples. He has 'never' and 'always.' I have 'sometimes' and 'it depends.'

The truth is rarely black and white. Especially when it comes to people. Any man who says 'no woman would ever' or 'all women are' has already lost the plot. Life doesn't work that way.

Thanks for the kind words.

Iceberg3:

which kind wickedness be this one 😂😂😂

HeatSeeker:
Why is Mariangeles now a moderator for this section?

Why Seun? Why?!

I think Mariangeles is doing well with the romance section.Its not by how long it's by how good

Good evening, Nairalanders.

Let's talk about something many men think about but few actually do.

Quitting your job to chase purpose.Not a side hustle. Not a weekend dream. Not "I'll do it when I have enough saved." I'm talking about the moment you looked at your salary, your cubicle, your boss, and said: "I can't do this anymore."

You walked away. No safety net. No guaranteed income. Just faith, hunger, and a vision.

Now, my questions are:

1. What did you quit? Banking? Oil and gas? Civil service? Teaching? Tech?
2. What did you quit for? Business? Music? Writing? Ministry? Farming? Content creation?
3. How did it go? Did it pay off? Are you richer? Poorer? Happier? More miserable?
4. How long did it take? Months? Years? Are you still struggling?
5. What did you lose? Friends? Family support? Respect? Peace of mind?
6. What did you gain? Freedom? Purpose? Money? Regret?
7. Would you do it again?

And for the men still in their jobs, thinking about it:

· What's stopping you?
· What would it take for you to finally leap?
· Are you staying for security or just for fear?

This is a safe space. No insults. Just truth.

Let's hear it.

Dricker:
u dy advise simp...save your advise...people like this guy go lock up if I'm guy need funds..smh

Na true you talk

Na to support Brighton from today henceforth

Dtruthspeaker:
You have already advertised your love for self deceit and denials as even you yourself tried to use inferences to make your argument but because you are were wrong is why you are now denying that which you even used.

As I said before, enjoy your denials before they expire.

You keep saying 'denial' like it's a magic word. It's not an argument. It's a label you slap on anything you can't refute.

1. I never denied using inference. I said inference is not the same as knowledge. You inferred. You guessed. You filled gaps. I called it what it is: speculation. You can't refute that, so you're calling me names instead.

2. 'Enjoy your denials before they expire.' That's not a point. That's a parting shot from someone who ran out of arguments.

3. You've said nothing new in your last three replies. You just repeat 'denial' and 'self-deceit' because you have no counter. That's not debate. That's a broken record.

You lost the argument. You're just too proud to admit it. The thread speaks for itself. Everyone can see it.

I'm done with you. Say something new or say nothing

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you want to pretend that you did not know that it was a rhetorical question.

And if I was to address it, i would have told you, so, you are the only one who can give peace and all? Is it not even because she gave you peace, which you have already taken, is why you were even able to get close to her to talk to her in the first place?

As i said before, you love denials.

A rhetorical question? You asked me what a poor man can give a rich woman. I answered. Now you're saying it was rhetorical.
Pick one. Either you wanted an answer, or you didn't. Don't ask a question, get an answer, then pretend you weren't asking.

And to your point, Yes she may have given me peace first. That's called mutual exchange.She gives peace. I give peace. That's a relationship. Not a gold digger situation.A gold digger takes without giving. I'm talking about a man who gives and takes in equal measure.

You keep saying I'm in denial. But you're the one who can't accept that a poor man can offer a rich woman something valuable. You assume money is the only currency. That's your limitation. Not mine.

You asked. I answered. You didn't like it. That's not my problem. That's yours

Dtruthspeaker:
Is that what I said?

Now, i understand, you have to bend things to see them. You have better problem oo

You asked: 'And those are things that you have not already first taken from her?'

That's a question. I answered it.You don't like the answer, so now you're saying you didn't say it. Classic.

You're not debating. You're deflecting. Every time you get cornered, you pretend you said something else or that I misunderstood. That's not an argument. That's a retreat.

The thread speaks for itself. And it says you lost.

Dtruthspeaker:
Since, you now know the bold, I'm ok..
And it is obvious you are again in your denial, pretending that you don't know that filling the gap is the application of the words, called making inferences, inductive and deductive reasonings.

As I have said before you love to deceive yourself and you love to live denials

You're not exposing my denial. You're exposing your own confusion between inference and fact. You're guessing. You're assuming. You're filling gaps. And you're calling it truth.

It's not truth. It's speculation. And speculation without evidence is just noise

JimD:
Guy, allow ChatGPT to rest na

As how?

Dtruthspeaker:
And those are things that you have not already first taken from her?

Please

You're asking if peace, loyalty, protection, children, and presence are things I 'take from her first.'
No. Those are things I give. Not take.

Peace — I create it. I don't take it.
Loyalty — I give it. I don't demand it first.
Protection — I provide it. I don't extract it.
Children — We build together. It's mutual.
Presence — I show up. I don't disappear.

What does a gold digger give? Nothing. He takes her money, her lifestyle, her resources and offers excuses.

What does a strategist give? Himself. His time. His loyalty. His protection. His presence. And in return, he receives security, stability, and a better life.

That's not taking. That's trading.

You keep asking what a poor man can give a rich woman. The answer is everything she can't buy. Peace. Loyalty. A real partner. A good father. A safe home.

If you think those things are worthless, that says more about you than it does about me

Dtruthspeaker:
Filling the gaps is not the same as "ADDING AND TESTIFYING AS IF YOU ARE THE CHEF/COOK WHO SHARED THE FOOD MR EAZI SHOWED!

And you yourself even confessed that they would not talk yet, you say the thread is for them.

Anyway, it has entered front page and you can see everyone is telling you that you are wrong

You're still not answering the actual question.

1.'Filling gaps is not the same as adding and testifying.'
You're right. It's not the same. Filling gaps is worse. Testifying is saying "I know." Filling gaps is saying "I don't know, but I'll pretend I do." That's what you're doing. You don't know Mr Eazi's marriage. You don't know Temi's private life. You're guessing. And you're presenting your guesses as facts.

2. 'You confessed they would not talk yet you say the thread is for them.'
Yes. I said men who married for money and regret it won't talk. That's why the thread is quiet. But that doesn't mean the thread is wrong. It means the truth is buried. Some men might still speak. Some might DM. Some might read and feel seen. The thread exists for the ones who will eventually speak not just the ones who speak today.

3. 'It has entered front page and everyone is telling you that you are wrong.'
Front page doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means the thread is controversial. It means people are engaging. It means the topic hit a nerve. If everyone agreed with me, it wouldn't be on the front page. Controversy doesn't equal defeat. It equals relevance.

You keep saying I'm wrong, but you haven't proven it. You're filling gaps. You're guessing. You're quoting front page as if it's a verdict.
Front page is not a judge. It's a spotlight. And the spotlight is on you not me.

Dtruthspeaker:
It is clear you love self deceits.

What can a poor guy ever give a rich girl that she does not already over have that you now think that if you add an intention to give her back then therefore, you are not a gold digger?

You are just deceiving yourself

You're asking what a poor man can give a rich woman. Let me answer.

1. Peace. A rich woman deals with pressure, fake friends, family expectations, and men who want her for her money. A man who gives her peace,no drama, no stress, no games,gives her something money can't buy.

2. Loyalty. Rich women are surrounded by people who want something. A man who stays loyal, who doesn't cheat, who doesn't embarrass her publicly,that's rare. That's valuable.

3. Protection. Not physical only. Emotional. Social. A man who shields her from nonsense, who handles things, who makes her feel safe ,that's not nothing.

4. Children and legacy. If she wants a family, he gives her that. He gives her a name, a home, a future. Money can't buy a good father.

5. Presence. Time. Attention. Effort. A rich woman can buy anything except genuine connection. A man who gives her that is not a gold digger. He's a partner.

A gold digger gives nothing. He takes her money, her resources, her lifestyle and offers nothing in return. He's a parasite.

A man who marries for money but gives back is not a gold digger. He's a strategist. He's trading what he has,loyalty, protection, peace, presence for what she has. That's a transaction. Both sides benefit. That's not deception. That's a deal.

You think it's deception because you assume rich women are stupid. They're not. They know what they're getting. They know why he's there. And if he delivers, they stay.

You're not exposing self-deception. You're exposing your own narrow view of what men can offer. Money isn't the only currency. Peace, loyalty, and presence are worth more than naira to a woman who already has everything else

Dtruthspeaker:
You are the one moving post now that you real eyes your error of trying to raise the foreign marriages of foreigners to defend your case which did not work and so now you are calling examples which fall into the conditions i said, Stella, Toke, Tiwa all are burnt products and of course they do not fall into the definition of richer daughters for all of them were grown up b****ies who are marriageable only by their fellow counterpart bad boys as was done.

So, you still got nothing.

And everything you and I said and responded to is already clearly stamped on the thread, so ...

You just called Stella Damasus, Toke Makinwa, and Tiwa Savage 'burnt products' and 'grown up promiscuous' That's not an argument. That's misogyny. And it reveals everything about you.You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless she's ugly, rejected, or damaged.'I gave you five foreign examples. You dismissed them as foreign.I gave you three Nigerian examples. You dismissed them as 'burnt products.'

Every woman who proves you wrong is either foreign or damaged. That's not a standard. That's a loophole. You'll dismiss any example that contradicts you.

2. Your original claim wasn't about virgins. It wasn't about 'unburnt products.' It was about rich women marrying down. You didn't say 'no rich virgin would marry down.' You said 'no rich woman.'
Stella, Toke, and Tiwa are rich women who married down. They prove you wrong. You dismissed them because they have pasts. That's not refutation. That's cope.

3. 'Everything is stamped on the thread.'
Yes. It is. Everyone can see you started with a rule, got proven wrong, and changed the rule. That's not a debate win. That's a retreat.

You don't have a case. You have a moving target. Every woman who proves you wrong gets dismissed as foreign, ugly, rejected, damaged, or 'burnt.' That's not logic. That's a comfort blanket.

The thread speaks for itself. And it says you lost.

Dtruthspeaker:
Cite where I said anything about scandal, public meltdown etc.

Of which did you not hear that Frederick and Ovie had a public scandal and have divorced?

And, of course i am filling in the gaps NOT ADDING AND TESTIFYING AS IF YOU ARE THE CHEF WHO SHARED THE FOOD MR EAZI SHOWED.

You're right. You didn't use the words 'scandal' or 'public meltdown.' My mistake. Let me correct that.
What you did was list marriages and imply they failed or are failing. You said 'same thing is playing out.' You said 'we can fill in the gap.' That's speculation. Different words. Same meaning.

Now to your points.
1. 'Frederick and Ovie had a public scandal and divorced.'If that's true, then that's one marriage. One. Out of the five you listed. But here's the thing I don't know if that's true. And neither do you, unless you have inside information. You're reading headlines.You're filling gaps. That's my point.

2. 'I am filling in the gaps.'You admitted it. You're guessing. You're assuming. You're not testifying. You're speculating. That's exactly what I said.

3. 'Not adding and testifying as if you are the chef.'I never claimed to be the chef. I never said I know Mr Eazi's private life. I said nobody knows ,including you. That's the difference. I'm saying we don't know. You're saying you do.

You admitted you're filling gaps. That means you don't know. And if you don't know, you can't say 'none worked.' You can't say 'they all failed.' You can only say 'I'm guessing.'

This thread is for men who actually lived it. Not for spectators who fill gaps with assumptions.

Jayboiii:
When it's tike to knack u go hear am...u go deyvsee timetable

So instead of answering the question, you're making jokes about sex.
That tells me everything I need to know. You have no story. No experience. No insight. Just jokes to avoid the topic.

If you married for money and you're suffering, say it. If you married for money and it worked, say that too. But don't come here cracking jokes to cover your emptiness.

This thread is for men who've lived it. Not for spectators who can't contribute

Dtruthspeaker:
I didn't say "women can't drive because they drive short distances." I said "Women can't drive was a fact in the 80's and they have lower accidents because they still are not driving and are driving like learners and driving only short distances

Then, you are asking me to prove something that was you who pointed it out.

Then, you are now citing foreign people wey we no know all the way for America and Europe that already have different and weird cultures from us here as a point. This is the definition of kicking the ball into throwing. A clear proof you have no case

You just moved the goalpost three times.

1. You said women can't drive. I said that's a stereotype. You said it was 'a fact in the 80s.' Then you said they drive short distances. Then you said their lower accident rates prove it. That's circular. You still haven't proven your point.

2. You asked me to name a rich woman who married down without being ugly, rejected, or damaged. I named five. You didn't refute them. You dismissed them because they're foreign.

3. Now you're saying foreign examples don't count because their culture is different. But your original claim wasn't about culture. It was about women. You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless...' You didn't say 'no Nigerian rich woman.' You said 'rich women.'

If your claim was about Nigerian women, say that. But don't move the goalpost when you're proven wrong and for the record, Nigerian examples exist too.

Stella Damasus married Daniel Ademinokan when she was more famous and established.
Toke Makinwa was more successful than her ex-husband when they married.
Tiwa Savage was already a star when she married TeeBillz, who was her manager, not a billionaire.
You said 'no rich woman.' I gave you examples. You dismissed them. That's not debate. That's denial.

You don't have a case. You have a rulebook you made up, and you're angry that reality doesn't follow it. Your stereotypes aren't facts. They're comfort blankets. And they're falling apart.

femi4:
Its rare..cos ladies married up while men married down

You're right. It's rare. But 'rare' doesn't mean 'never.'
Most men marry down because they're the providers. They choose women who are younger, less established, and more dependent. That's the traditional script.But some men marry up. Not many. Not often. But they exist. And when they do, they're called gold diggers, gigolos, or losers unless they're smart about it.The thread isn't saying it's common. The thread is asking, for the men who did it, how did it go? Did it work? Did love grow? Or did they regret it?
Rare stories are still worth telling. That's the point.

Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The men who did it are out there. They're just quiet. This thread is for them

Dtruthspeaker:
Funny, i did not really see this before. How does a person marry for money and yet he's not a gold digger?

Good question. Let me break it down.
A gold digger is someone who pursues a relationship purely for money, with no intention of giving anything back. They take, take, take, and leave when the money stops.A man who marries for money might do it for security, stability, or strategy not just greed. He might come from poverty and want a better life for himself and his future children.Have a business idea but no capital, and sees marriage as a partnership.Be tired of struggling and wants peace of mind.Love her and her money.It's not always either/or.

Gold digger: "I'm here for your money. Nothing else."
Man who marries for money: "I'm here for the security. But I'll be loyal, faithful, and present. I'll give you a peaceful home. I'll protect you. I'll build with you."
It's still transactional. But it's not onesided.

Not every man who marries for money is a gold digger. Some are strategists. Some are survivors. Some are just honest about what they value. The gold digger takes. The strategist trades.

Dtruthspeaker:
Women can't drive was a fact in the 80's and they have lower accidents because they still are not driving and are driving like learners and driving only short distances, so of course they must have lower accident rates.

And in proof of stereotypes being a fact, you still have not pointed out one case of a rich girl who is without any of the conditions i laid down, who willingly and readily happily married downwards even to the point that she fought her family to get it done.

That is where your case falls.

You just said women can't drive because they drive short distances. Then you said their lower accident rates prove it. That's circular logic. Pick one.But let me give you what you asked for,a rich woman who married down, fought her family, and chose her man:
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
She was the Queen of England. He was a broke Greek prince with no kingdom and no money.Her family didn't want him. They thought he wasn't good enough.She married him anyway. He gave up his career, his name, and his title to serve her.They were married for 73 years. She called him her "strength and stay."

Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford.
She was the Prime Minister of New Zealand. He was a TV presenter not rich, not powerful, not royal.She earned more than him. She was more famous. She was more powerful.They married anyway. She had his child. He stayed home while she ran the country.

3.Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian.
She's a billionaire athlete. He's a tech entrepreneur wealthy, but nowhere near her level.
She out earns him. She out fames him. She out everythings him.They married anyway. She chose him. She had his child. She fights for him publicly.

4 Nicki Minaj and Kenneth Petty.
She's a global music icon worth millions. He's a registered sex offender with no money and no status.Her fans hated him. Her family questioned it. She married him anyway.

Meryl Streep and Don Gummer.
She's the most decorated actress in Oscar history. He's a sculptor not famous, not rich, not powerful.They married in 1978. Still together.She out earns him.She out fames him. She chose him.

These women didn't meet your conditions. They weren't ugly, rejected, or damaged. They were rich, powerful, and wanted. And they still married down.
You said 'no rich woman would ever marry down unless she's ugly, rejected, or damaged.' I just gave you five who did it without any of those conditions.

Your case didn't fall. It collapsed.