₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
Amadioha is said to be the God of Thunder.

"The Lord God is the God of Thunder and Lightenings too.

2 Hear attentively the noise of his voice, and the sound that goeth out of his mouth.

3 He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.

4 After it a voice roareth: he thundereth with the voice of his excellency; and he will not stay them when his voice is heard.

5 God thundereth marvellously with his voice: great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend. Job 37:2-5

So can we interchange God and Amadioha in sentences?

Can I go to church to worship Amadioha?

Dtruthspeaker:
Not Different God But Different Names to Identify God.

But from your statement, we agree that there is one who is Wholly Evil, whose name is Satan.

Amadioha and God. Same God different names?

Because they are both religions

JeffreyD1:
Only one God worshipped in different ways

You can’t worship one God in different ways.

Kobojunkie:
His logic? I understand what he is attempting at but the fact is it fails when you consider the meaning of the word in question, and the logic therein.
- Atheism != disbelief in the existence of a particular God or some god's

Yeah, I think you have a point.

Dtruthspeaker:
At least you have Established 2 things for us;

1) there is God and
2) there is hell.

Whose God? (In whispers *Ours*)

Whose hell? (In whispers* Our God's Prison*)

chai, so you didn’t get the sarcasm in that simple statement.

Kobojunkie:
I am bored, so what the heck, i willl indulge ypu for a few moments.

I believe you are wrong with even this one @OP

As long as any of the mentioned believes in at least one God, then athiesm is ruled out completely.

Go back, read his statement carefully. You will get his logic.

petitejolie:
and u think ure one of d males with a 10% bigger brain. Better don’t give urself hope. Just jump
And pass before u enter gutter

Like I said, arguing with a lady is a total waste of time.

Bye honey.

abbey621:
All about sentiments, it's whoever can generate the most sympathy and in most cases it will be the woman. All she has to do is prove that he has a history of doing this and that her own character is solid. Remember it's not about the truth but perception of the truth. In all honesty, the man is already doing the hardwork for her . Instead of keeping silent, he has let the world know that he's a drunkard and does not remember whether she gave consent or not.

Naso o. Sympathy but most judges are logical as well.
Logic will have a huge role to play alongside some game of sympathy.

andyanders:
You nailed it. He shouldn't have stated that 'they were both drunk' that will put him to jail.

No law in the world clearly address situations that involve two drunk parties who engage in sex acts. When it comes to rape cases that involve two drunk parties, it can be very difficult to determine whether both consented to the alleged sex acts. To make a ruling, the court will have to look at the specific details of the case to determine the level of consent each party was capable of while they were under the influence of alcohol.

Mention any law that gives a clear cut judgement on this, I’m waiting.

abbey621:
Out of the over 100 cases that I mentioned, 38 of them involved prior social relationships which means they were dating or very close. The concept of consent is fluid which means a lady might give a guy the go ahead one minute but as soon as she says STOP, you MUST STOP! Whether you've been knacking her for years or married does not matter, even if she posts photos of the two of you doing the knacking on social media DOES NOT MATTER! What matters is that she can prove she told you to STOP. In this particular case the guy already CRUCIFIED himself by admitting he was also drunk. So even if she was shouting and kicking saying STOP, he wouldn't understand hence the motive and ability to rape has been technically established.

Let's also not forget, the woman doesn't even need a victory in court, the mere fact that such allegations warrants a court case could have the doctor unable to practice again. He is already losing in the court of public opinion and based on his recent tweets, he is at least guilty of breaking his oath of "DO NO HARM"

ok, how will she prove this one? �

By telling the judge that I told him to stop? Then it will raise the question of how she knew when she was drunk with the guy.

The fact that they were both drunks makes the whole thing complicated. It can’t go her way easily. Even the law doesn’t know what to do here.

abbey621:
The law is one thing actual jury and judge's sentiments is another. Out of over 100 cases that were surveyed from 1990 to now by a leading research institute, 95% went in favor of the woman because in all those cases the man was shown to be the aggressor. He bought her the drinks, he put her in a vulnerable position, whether he was drunk or not becomes secondary. In all those cases, the women told vivid stories that basically made the men looked more vicious and in the USA, it's not about who is right, it is about who gets more sympathy.

Theres actually no sympathy in this case. Lol

She applied for visa specifically to meet him, flew to London, stayed in his house, got drunk in his house and then accused him of rape.

This case is a special one and it will probably be part of the 5% that will eventually go the way of the guy.

It would have been more difficult for the guy if the lady was in London on a business trip and asked to stay in his house or probably she was based in London.

The court cannot discard the intention of a lady who travelled several kilometers to specifically meet a guy she dated online, got drunk in his house alongside the guy and then cry foul about rape. It’s complicated.

petitejolie:
Lesson to all u guys. Una go meet slay queen on social media and want to play smart after seeing breast and bombom. You actually wanted to b friends with benefits with her but seeing that she is a desperate one, u had to adjust. See ehn all this playboys and play men have great phobia for desperate ladies.

Bleep, ladies are so bleeped up in the way they reason. No wonder it has been scientifically proven that an average male brain is 10% bigger than that of a female. It’s really a total waste of time exchange words with ladies.

How can you be so one sided?

Rozz:
I will answer you but it will be on a topic on Consent

You are running from the topic. Calm down babe.

There’s no law that supports the woman when both parties are drunk. Go and study all the laws in U.K and states in U.S. no law gives a direct judgement on this matter, it has to be at the discretion of the court.

The issue of consent in his matter cannot be evaluated, consent is flawed already if they were both drunk. Read the laws of U.K carefully.

sassysure:
They are not romantically linked. That's the clause.

According to the law( no be me write am) it says that if both are drunk, the man being drunk is not taken into consideration. It's the woman that counts. I even read somewhere that a drunk woman is treated as a child when it involves court case.


The lady is not going to court. I read her posts. What I and some people are saying is that the guy should have shut up than implicating himself by that admission. Even if they were drunk, he shouldn't have said that. Guess he didn't know the law before opening his mouth. If tomorrow that lady want to sue, he is a goner.
He isn't smart. Whatever is the problem between them, they( especially him) should swallow his pride and apologise to that lady and move on.

What law are you even talking about sef? Did you concoct this in your head?

Most states in U.S and UK laws states that if an individual knows of the other person’s incapacitation and still conducts the sexual act, it is considered rape. However, the statute remains vague about if both parties are drunk. The details in each case varies, making it difficult to ascertain consent. States does not have any legislation dictating affirmative consent, either. In this case the court must review the details carefully and make their decision.

joyandfaith:
thank you. many youths do not understand meaning of rape. in 20 years to this time, most men will fall to rape cases. In us rape cases that occurred in 60 or 70s are being investigated. women are speaking out. just a little evidence will nail the alleged rapists.

i think you also do not understand the meaning of rape because you are tilting the argument with the assumption that men cannot be raped as well.

joyandfaith:
rule 1. You do not have sex with a drunk woman because she cannot give consent.

Not when they are both Drunk.

Men can also be raped by ladies. This logic is flawed already because no one knows who actually raped who.

ThinkFreely:
So if rape can happen and rape can also be falsely alleged, as woman how do you suggest the issue of consent be addressed into order to avoid rape and also serve as evidence for false allegations?

I want you to come up with a valid agreed “consent” that can be used as a standard against a rapist and a false rape allegation because I noticed the “consent” thing is very unclear and ladies want to reserve the right to determine what should be a “consent” and what should not.

Rozz answer this

Rozz:
I'm not downplaying the possibilities but most of you guys don't really understand what rape is

So if rape can happen and rape can also be falsely alleged, as woman how do you suggest the issue of consent be addressed into order to avoid rape and also serve as evidence for false allegations?

I want you to come up with a valid agreed “consent” that can be used as a standard against a rapist and a false rape allegation because I noticed the “consent” thing is very unclear and ladies want to reserve the right to determine what should be a “consent” and what should not.

PrimadonnaO:
Better abort this kind of thinking from your head before you end up raping people!

How should we know when a lady gives consent?

To avoid possible future rape allegations, should we capture the consent on video?

Rozz:
what is insensitive and biased about the statement,its just the bitter truth.Go up and read what J11113 typed above and make sure you adhere

Are you downplaying the possibilities of false rape accusations?

J111333:
It's not about who is being blamed here after all, I'm not blaming him.
A wicked attorney can make the case to be drunk man raped a drunk lady and the keyword rape ain't going nowhere. Pray that no woman has scores to settle with you.

The problem now is the definition of consent? It should be clearly defined and the process of getting it should be established because a woman can give consent verbally and later claim she didn’t. It will be difficult to disprove her on that premise.

Should we record a video of her giving the consent before fuccking or what?

Because you are sounding like all these attorneys are senseless and cannot logically unravel rape cases.

Shukusheka:
They would have believe women are babies who are not old enough to be accountable for their actions. Same people will come again to castigate men for wanting to control women and not treating women as adults.

my brother. This matter tire me

sanpipita:
Nobody has said he is guilty, but its a tricky case especially within the society it happened, like I said hopefully he comes out unscathed

This is not tricky at all.

It’s a no brainer. You hopped on a plane after two attempts to get a visa, came to U.K after you have chatted probably sexually with him, got drunk with him and you fuckedd. After sometime you starting accusing him of rape. Where you there on a business trip?

What was your motive while getting drunk with him?

If I’m the guy, I will tell the court that I didn’t even know we had sex since I was so drunk, I discovered we had sex when we woke up in because she told me and I’m not even sure she’s saying the truth, even if she is I’m not sure she didn’t start the process becasue I couldn’t remember anything. The guy sef Dey Bleep up.

She could have probably come to U.K to meet me with a sinister motive

sanpipita:
Yea but shes making the accusation he abused her, thats the point them man will defend himself not just say both were drunk, the intoxication level of alcohol they took can also be huge here.

No he person wey carry case go police Dey win. When them reach court, you go see logic. Both were drunk, I don’t see this lady winning this.

The issue of consent is flawed if she agrees that they were both drunk. No one knows who raped who if the guy’s lawyer bring the argument that anybody could have raped each other under the influence of alcohol.

sanpipita:
Lol both are drunk isnt an excuse, UK isnt Nigeria,they could even say the situation was premeditated

The lady could have also rape the guy because both are drunk.

You can’t really ascertain who raped who in that premise. Unless you want to argue that men cannot be raped.

MoneyMindset:
seconded,when a woman accuses a man of rape,no one listens to the man. Worst case scenario when the judge is a female

The fallacy of appealing to emotions is immediately committed. Logic no longer has a role there anymore.

You go make an now, one girl wey you date for your 18years old will just pop outta no where and accuse you of rape.

Person wey enter plane from naija go U.k, wetin she dey look for?

sanpipita:
I feel for him, UK laws are different, being drunk isnt consent thats why people should try learn especially ones travelling out I can't believe he has been living there only to slack like this, hopefully he comes out unscathed

He has nothing to fear if they were both drunk.

It’s no brainer.

Gr8amechi:
Whether they are in romantic relationship or not, consent is different from what you guys sometimes see it, this is why I always pity guys who are quick to pick sides with rape accusers.

This same doctor has been running his mouth on twitter since but can't keep what he preaches.

The law gives ladies too much power and if you check what the law really says rape is you would be very scared or having sex with any lady because she can change it for you

That part of the law should be reviewed because these ladies are going nut.

J111333:
..."According to him, they had consensual sex, twice. The 1st being after they were both drunk, only for her to tell him the next day she didn’t give her consent to the sex they had"...






The above statement alone will get him in serious trouble. When she is drunk, you ain't suppose to sleep with her especially when not in an established relationship.
Guys be careful and know when to abort mission. Control your prick, don't let it control you. Yea it can be hard and strong but e no go break for sure.

But THEY were both drunk.
Judge will just tell them to settle out of court. Two drunk people had sex.

phemmyfour:
"They were both drunk"

Being drunk is not a consent sir

Both drunk, they did it under the influence of alcohol.

EMILO2STAY:
God is a just God. He does not act without a cause. The essence of the freewill is for you to make a rational decision and choose by yourself which side you want to be.


He had seen before hand that your heart is hardened and will not make heaven because of the side you choose by your self but still needs me to convince you so as to try to save you in order for you not have an excuse on the day of judgement .

Remember God being all knowing does not mean he made you to go to hell.

Even if God wasn't all knowing the result will still be the same.

ok bye