₦airaland Forum

Bahamas95:
This OP must be high on weed.

Owho na Urhobo people traditional food,

That's not true. Read what I wrote up there about the origin of the soup.

Rapmoney:
Stop misleading people. Ogwo soup is a delicacy of the Urhobo and Isoko people of Delta State. It does not belong to the Bini or Edo people. Just because you are from Edo State and your people borrowed the soup doesn't mean it is traditionally yours.

Please stop this. It's not correct to claim that , Owho , Ogwo or Owo, (which ever way you spell it) is from the Urhobo people of Delta State. No one can definitely trace its origin, and the people from the south south of Nigeria rarely debate ownership.
The reason you might associate it with Urhobo is purely because of the name. But the name Owho or Owo is a root word that appears across several languages in that region. It's like the word 'Omo", or "Omoh", (child) which appears in Urhobo, Isoko, Edo, Ishan, without any tribe claiming intellectual property. It's a shared cultural heritage; so there's no need basis for territorial claims. Just enjoy the soup. That's all.

Some are poor because they are unaware of money making opportunities in their environment. And even when they become aware, they often lack the courage and knowledge to follow through.

Some others remain poor because they have internalised limiting beliefs about themselves and their potential.

Ironfaceman:
The excuse coming from the presidency on the exploits of Prince Adeyemi Adeniyi is so watery and contradictory.

If you have ever submitted a proposal to any government parastatal you will know the level of security checks, inter-agency validation and other referencing that goes back and forth.

Yet Prince Adeyemi could open an office in federal secretariat.

Employ over 300 staff doing God knows what

Be captured in the National budget. Most budget go through rigorous checks and balance by the senate.

Has a diplomatic passport. This one baffles me. To get a diplomatic passport the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most validate your credentials.

Opening of CBN account. Did Prince Adeyemi sign the documents alone without confirmation from office of the president.


Operated an (STA) account. single treasury account. The much talked about secured account channel to block leakages in government finance

They're decceiving themselves.

bentenny:
How come a fraudulent agency still found its name inserted in a Nigerian budget allocation?

'If you hear the name you go know ooo
Government magic
Tell me the name now
Government magic
Dem go dabaru everything

Government magic
Dem go turn green into white'

Fela Kuti

Goo0dHardDick:
Sadly it is for women!

They immediately feel you're responsible for their poverty

Where did you get it from that prenuptial agreement only favours women?

It is false equivalence to equate a business partnership with a marriage.

A business partnership exists solely for profit and mutual benefit. If it crumples, you walk away with your share. But a marriage is a covenant,, emotional, spiritual, and deeply personal. When you reduced it to "risk management" you are already framing your spouse as a potential adversary.

Falling "under the annionting ' is common in , and largely restricted to Pentecostal churches and their members. There is a reason for this

The beliefs and expectations of the believers, combined with the emotionally charged atmosphere, trigger certain physiological processes in the body that make them lose control and fall down easily. Though some believers fake it, the experience is real and genuine for the person whose body has responded the right way to make them fall.

However, no holy spirit is involved . It is a normal, predictable brain response to a specific set of triggers I already mentioned: the individual's belief and expectations, combined with intense emotional arousal, and sometimes physical factors like tiredness, fasting and prolonged standing. The same brain mechanism is at work in fans of celebrities who faint or swoon when touched by their idols What the mind expects, the body can manifest .

For any Pentecostal Christian reading this, please be aware I haven't disnnised the "holy spirit" or said it doesn't exist if that is your belief. I only offered an explanation which finds scientific support for why people fall down easily in church, but which they link to the holy spirit

Honestly, apart from the temporary feeling of power or euphoria during and immediately after the experience, there are no lasting tangible benefits that I can see. So, I don't really understand the point of people falling down. Nothing fundamentally changes in their lives afterward.

Amovingman:
Yes I want you to join us

Not interested. Thank you.

Amovingman:
You're Judaism right

I'm not sure why you would ask that after I've already made my position clear. I said I'm irreligious and that means I don't subscribe to any religion . Is there any reason you're trying to assign me a label?

Amovingman:
Have you seen the real Jesus picture before

No .I haven't. But I've never claimed to be a Christian or to have seen a picture of Jesus. I'm irreligious So, why do you ask?

LottiOk:
Was it criticism when Ipob turned Obidents called Tinubu a druggie,fraudster, certificate scammer etc way before he even contested for presidency ⁉️

Political insults are not the same as a fraud accusation. The former is an opinion, the latter is a factual claim. The burden of proof is different, especially when the accusation comes from a well-known individual who claims to have evidence to substantiate it

Obi has been and is still being called names by political opponents, and like Tinubu, he is not suiing anyone for that. They both understand that political insults are part of the game. But that is not the issue here

If Tinubu didn't sue Reno,Bwala and even Hudenyin for defamatory attacks against him without proof, they why can't Obi do same ⁉️

What Tinubu did or didn't do is irrelevant to whether Peter Obi has grounds to act. People have different thresholds for legal action. Following legal advice us not hypocrisy, it is prudence. Moreover, Peter Obi has not even sued Kenneth Okonkwo yet. His lawyers simply demanded a retraction and an apology, threatening legal action if the demand is not met

U Ipob turn Obidents can't take a pinch of what u dis out including those u support. Cos if Tinubu has been doing this u guys would've crucified him long before he became president.

You are deflecting from the substance of the allegation by bringing up unrelated grievances and assuming my identify. I'm not a member of Ipob or even Ibo. You are projectiing who you are onto me with the image you attached at the end of your response.

If you have evidence that Okonkwo 's accusation is true, present it. Otherwise, you are simply engaging in whataboutism

Jonjam269:
Obidients celebrated Okonkwo as a defender of democracy when he was criticising others and singing the praises of their political messiah, Peter Obi. Now that the criticism is directed at them, they should accept it with the same enthusiasm and stop complaining.

Obidients never seem to have learned how to handle criticism, they only know how to criticize and malign others. They have elevated Peter Obi to a messianic figure whom they believe is beyond scrutiny or criticism. What they are promoting is a form of intolerance toward dissenting views, a dictatorship of a vocal few. Their constant double standards often come across as hypocritical and detached from political reality.
The hypocrisy and political delusion on display are hard to ignore.

It is false equivalence and intellectually dishonest to equate "criticism" with an accusation of fraud. This is an accusation of fraud, not a difference of opinion or an inability to "handle criticism"

If anyone is displaying hypocrisy here, it is you, pretending not to know what is at stake while dismissing a serious allegations as mere "criticism"

kayjordan:
On the contrary, I haven't dodged any question you raised. You may say - I answered them incorrectly or vaguely.

Please don't try to gaslight me. You know you never answered correctly or clearly. Take responsibility for your deliberate obfuscation and don't shift the blame onto me.

As a person, I have principles which I follow as a result of orientation - and not necessarily because I really want to abide by certain rules - there are many people like me.

1. The question is not whether you like to follow rules. The question is whether you have any guiding principle that guides you when no one is watching. So far you have not stated one.

Guiding principles are not ruies. They are standards an individual promises to keep in their interactions with others. You follow them because they reflect who you choose to be , not because of fear of punishment. . For example "I will not betray trust" reveals character, not someone blindly following a rule because of fear.

2.Saying that there are others like you without a definite guiding principle does not make your position valid. Popularity is not proof of wisdom. Many people live recklessly without restrain simply because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions..

If I propose a principle I should follow without waiting for corrections or being motivated by fear, that principle would be the "principle of conscience" - the feeling of knowing when you're wrong and knowing when to retreat from a bad or sinful act.

Which principle again? Up there you said you already have principles you follow. Now you say "if I propose a principle" , as if you don't have one yet. My friend, you are contradicting yourself .

A guiding principle is not a vague feeling or a "conscience", that is just a label. Conscience can be ignored or rationalised away, exactly as you did with sleeping with other people's wives.You justified it as "procreation" to silence your conscience.

The concept of principles are results of our consciousness as you mentioned earlier  -  and you further stated we can't be compared to computers or lions - nevertheless, if a Lion doesn't have a choice than to kill to survive, then it is purely "survival" - which I've been stressing. The fact, humans have never been put in desperate situations, doesn't mean humans do not have "instincts" to kill, steal and compete regardless of conscience.

Stop comparing yourself to a lion. A lion has no choice but to kill to survive. You, however , do have a choice . You do not need to kill, steal , or cheat to survive. You have alternatives, honesty , integrity and respect for others. The lion acts on instinct, you act on decisions. So stop hiding behind animal behaviour to excuse your own choices.

In a lighter situation - no one tells you to eat except your natural urge - but the law or your conscience, tells you to pay your taxes, rent and bills even if you don't want to.

The law is not a substitute for conscience. The law is external, and its violation caries a penalty or punishment. Conscience is internal. You can ignore it , and no one punishes you except yourself for doing what you know is not right.

As I earlier mentioned, good and bad is recognized and clearly differentiated by laws and principles. You are made "aware" of them because a system exist - not because the system of rules are innate.

Your claim that "good" and " bad" are only recognised because a system makes us aware of them is not true.

Laws and principles do not create morality. They reflect it. Moreover, humans have the capacity to reason, to empathize, and to understand that stealing or betraying trust causes harm, long before any law is written. And that is why we create laws in the first place.

I think you are projecting your own lack of internal moral awareness onto everyone else. Just because you need an external system to tell you what is right does not mean the rest of us do.

We humans eat animals that have consciousness - and we kill them to "survive". If you say the animals "don't have consciousness", then you selfishly and subjectively justify your human actions.

I did not say animals have "no consciousness". You edited my words to make me say what you want. I said a lion has no moral consciousness, which is not the same as having no consciousness at all. There is a difference between sentience and moral reasoning. You are twisting my statement to avoid the real point.

The people of the world are preys to one another - and because humans are higher animals - they naturally "create" a need to be civil - therefore making societies more habitable - but the concept of principles, is a "secondary development" that has slightly improved the world - and it also, has not changed the world completely for better either - why? Simply because you can't master what you're not born with.

Your argument that since we are not "born with any principles we cannot master them is false.That is like saying since we are not born speaking a language, we cannot learn one and master it.

No one is born with a guiding principle. But we are born with the capacity to reason, to learn and to choose. Principles are tools we develop to live harmoniousy with others. Nature can be natured.


A child who has imbibed the virtue of honestly and truthfulness will find dishonesty difficult as an adult. If you struggle with honesty, blame your upbringing or your choices, not nature. And you can still change if you are determined

The reason why there are series of ongoing war, killings, stealing and religious blasphemy - is because the "core" of human nature is "raw" but consciously, coated with "refinement".

The world is already a "big ball" of numerous and complex principles from different schools of thoughts, religion and individuals - yet all these principles, still create confusion in the world today.

I don't agree with you that the "core of human nature is "raw " and that wars, killings and stealing come from that raw core "coated with thin refinement "

Our true nature is not raw and wicked. Our true nature is consciousness itself, capable of empathy, reason, and love. What you refer to as "raw " is the untrained mind, the ego running unchecked. When we lose connection to our deeper Seif and let the undisciplined mind drive our actions, chaos follows

The solution is not to worship that raw impulse as " nature". The solution is Seif -mastery, learning to control the mind from an early age so that refinement is not a thin coat but the very fabric of our character. It is still possible to control one's mind even as an adult and master it.

If you do not learn to control your mind, you lose the ability to control your world.
Your philosophy of surrender to impulse ( worshiping the devil) guarantees the very wars and suffering you point to . It does not fix anything, it only adds more fuel to the fire.

If you think humans can learn internal mastery of guiding principles - in order to make their world safe and peaceful - then what principles should guide the natural resources of the earth such as the mountains, rocks, water and the earth - to prevent them from creating earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes for peaceful existence of humans?

Natural disasters are not moral agents. They have no choices, no conscience, no capacity for principles. We do not need to "guide" mountains or rivers. We need to understand them through science and adapt, by predicting, preparing , and moving out of harms way.

However, your analogy is a red herring. We are discussing human behaviour where principles do apply because humans have free will and choices. So please stick to the topic.

You seem too fixated on a "perfect world" without acknowledging the elements beyond human control.

If I were fixated on a ", perfect world" I would not have agreed with you on anything. At the beginning of this conversation I acknowledged that no one is perfect even me but said we should strive for balance. Too much of anything is bad.

This is the intent of my article - to reveal an IMPERFECT WORLD  - not the "beautiful dream-world" you think can be memorized in a classroom of perfection - all in the name of INTERNAL MASTERY...

No . You lie. This is not the "intent" of your article . You are denying because you have been exposed. Your intention is clear to everyone.

Now that I have answered that my principle is conscience - are you ready to admit that your definition of morality is a social construct based on fear and consequences?

No . Conscience is not a principle. It can be silenced or rationalised away, as you yourself demonstrated when you justified adultery as "procreation" to quiet your conscience

My definition of morality has never been "based on fear". I have said repeatedly that guiding principles are internal standards we choose to live by, such as honestly, keeping agreements, and not causing unnecessary harm. These are not from fear. They are from character

Your so-called.principle , from your own "devil's philosophy", is simply this: do whatever you like to survive, and don't care if anyone is hurt.

You have spent this entire exchange building straw men, deflecting every direct question and twisting my words. I will no longer waste my time.

So, Kayjordan, , I am done with you. The conversation is over. Thank you.

kayjordan:
I am going to collapse my last rebuttal to you and neutralize it.

I'm starting this argument from this specific rebuttal you've made.

Main Argument: In my honest opinion, there's no pre-existing principle guiding human behavior - thus, what people refer to as principles are ideological and not biological.

You have straw- manned what I said. No where did I claim that guiding principles are biological. I said humans create guiding principles and adopt them to guide their behaviour to prevent unwise decisions.If you have no guiding principle then the only thing restraining you right now is fear of punishment.

And the question is not whether principles exist in nature. The question is , What principle have you personally adopted to restrain yourself when no one is watching? Instead of answering that you are now debating biology and ideology to dodge

The perspective you see life from is - from the mid-level of "hierarchy of survival", rather than from the foundational level of the hierarchy.

"Hierarchy of survival" is a vague phrase designed to make you sound profound. It explains nothing.

As I have shared this idea with a critic before; I want you to know that in the animal kingdom - there's no good or bad - every animal including "humans", have one similar desire - "food".

The idea of good and bad is subjective - meaning: the Lion chasing the Deer believes she's doing a "good thing" (trying to get food) - and the Deer escaping believes she's also doing a "good thing" (saving her life).

The concept of "bad" becomes subjective when an animal becomes a prey - only the prey would hold onto that belief, not the predator.

It's true that some ideologies are birthed by the human nature such as trust, safety and responsibility - but still, they don't dismantle the foundational integrity for human existence which is - "survival".

If at all a universal principle must be identified - it would be "Nature".

Your lion and prey analogy is inappropriate. You are projectiing human concepts of "good" and " bad" onto animals to justify avoiding moral responsibility for yourself.

A lion does not think it is doing "good" . It has no morai beliefs at all. It acts on instinct, not conscious choice. It is a carnivore driven by its biology to prey on other animals for survival. It must kill to eat. It has no choice.

But you are not a lion. You are a human being with the capacity for moral reasoning. When you lie, cheat or commit adultery, you are not following a biological necessity like a lion hurting. You are making a deliberate choice. And those choices can be evaluated because you have alternatives, you can choose honestly, integrity and fidelity..

In human society, we do not need to be the "prey" to recognise that betrayal, corruption,and dishonesty cause harm. We can see it objectively because we have empathy and reason.

So stop lying to yourself that you are the same as lower animals in the wild.

The symptoms of nature which you describe as "reactions" - are therefore, the reason humans seek internal mastery as you stated earlier - and the reason why people create ideologies (principles) to make life, the complete opposite of the "wild".

Whilst laws are good for discipline - the foundation (nature) as mentioned, should always inform your moral question of "why are people evil?"

Are people evil because they want to - or because they just want to survive?

Why can't people do good things genuinely without first responding to fear or correction?

The universal principle (nature) - answers all!

To re-interate: laws are just applications; humans are the systems. If the system is bad - the application will equally be as bad - or be unsustainable.

Look at life from a computer system analogy - let's address the system before asking questions about "principles".

"Put the horse before the cart"...

I never asked "why are people evil" nor did I describe " reactions" as "symptoms of nature" . You keep answering questions I never asked.

Your computer analogy fails because a human being is not a machine with fixed programming . We have consciousness, choice and the ability to adopt internal principles.

Put the horse before the cart ? Fine. But first give your principle, then we can discuss everything else.

kayjordan:
Hello @ triplechoice!

Your two questions appear to use different standards.

First:

“What principle distinguishes what is not acceptable and what is harmful without saying it depends on the person?”

Then later:

“What distinguishes what is acceptable and what is harmful?”

Those are two different framings, so I’ll address both directly.

The distinction I’m making is this:

An act may be socially tolerated if it produces limited harm - while a harmful act is one that causes serious damage to individuals or society.

For example: flirting may be morally debated depending on context - but it is generally tolerated because it does not automatically produce serious harm

Another Example: fraud, abuse or violent acts are treated differently because they create measurable harm and threaten safety, rights or stability.

So the difference is not merely whether an act exists as an impulse - because many human impulses are "natural" - but whether the expression of that impulse becomes destructive to others - that is where morality, law, and social order intersect.

Upbringing, personality, culture, and environment strongly influence self-control and moral behavior - although no single factor completely determines human conduct.

This is also why constitutional law tends to produce more consistent behavioral control than religion alone.

Constitutional law operates through visible and immediate enforcement, while religious consequences are often delayed, interpretive or faith-based.

So in my view, the deeper principle underneath morality and law is "human nature" itself - because morality, religion, and legal systems only function through human behavior, interpretation, and enforcement.

That is the framework behind my argument.

If you disagree with any part of it, feel free to address it directly.

You have created a false inconsistency where none exists. You falsely claimed my two questions are not the same. They are the same. The second restated the first: What internal principle guides you when no one is watching and no laws threaten punishment?.

For instance,the guiding principle for members of the Rotary club is the. " Four way test": "is it true? Is it fair? will it build goodwill? Will it benefit all"?

Even witches, Wiccan members, have theirs. "An it harm none, do what ye will"

These are principles. They guide behaviour from within when the individual adopts them. They don't depend on police, courts of fear of getting caught

Your examples of "limited harm" which you struggled to define, " social tolerance" and "human nature", describe society's reactions, not any personal guiding principle. Flirting is not lying, neither is it adultery (cheating)

So I ask again. Give me a clear, consistent internal standard you would follow when no one can see you.

If you cannot, you admit your only restrain is fear of punishment, not conscience, integrity or internal commitment. Without a guiding principle, your philosophy justifies anything. I cannot trust someone whose only break is getting caught.I am not the only one who think this way.

jaephoenix:
Lets assume we dont know the 'evidence of summoning' looks like. Do you know?

Wrong . Your latest question is irrelevant and a deflection. Questioning a claim does not require prior knowledge. What is required is logic and curiousity.

I don't need to know what evidence of summoning look like to ask your friend to define his own standard for evidence . A student can ask a teacher for criteria without already knowing the subject. So your attempt to disqualify me from asking fails .

Abeg rest so you stop replying with absurdity.

Nowayback10:
Forgive me mods for posting on this section as I needed a quick response and enough attention on this issue. Sometime around last week at around midnight 1am precisely, it was raining heavily and I opened my kitchen back door because I have a net that covers the door from outside. While I was standing I felt a sharp pain on my arm and quickly got a flash light to check and I saw 3 sharp finger marks that is almost bleeding, as if I was been scratched by something. Not upto 2 mins again I felt another pain on my lap while I was sitting and its another 3 finger marks , very sharp and it was bringing out signs of blood. I had to quickly wake my wife up from sleep and showed her. Then she called her mum instantly and we prayed over it, and we also called a friend of mine who is a pastor and he said its an attack, usually a marine spirit. Pls how true? Why I remember to bring this issue up is because while passing through the kitchen door this afternoon I just saw the same mark on my kitchen door as it appeared on my body as it happened that day. Please I need advise or any experience on this will really be appreciated. What am I dealing with here?

Please see a doctor first before concluding paranormal.

kayjordan:
I

That's why I mentioned earlier that - you can't change man's nature; you can only regulate it with constitutional laws and the enforcement agencies.

This is exactly what I meant when I said your philosophy offers no mechanism for internal mastery. If there is no law and no policeman watching, your "natural being" will steal , lie, and betray without hesitation. It means at the moment you're being restrained by fear or punishment.

You did not show here that man can choose to do good. You have only shown that man can be forced to behave.

So I ask again: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes acceptable impulse from harmful one, without relying on external laws or threats? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes when no one is watching"

Hello @Kayjordan,

I have read through your arguments about "Worshiping the devil" carefully . You have made some interesting points, some of which I want to address. However, before I do so, I want to state clearly that I am not here to defend Christianity or any religion . I am writing from a neutral perspective concerning the topic keeping in mind the universal values of trust, responsibility, self- mastery and the society we all want to live in.

First, let me acknowledge where we agree. I agree that an absolute "thou shalt not lie" is too rigid and difficult to practice in real life. It does not leave room for emergency exception, life or death situations, such as lying to a terrorist to save an Innocent life, or hiding someone from a murderous mob. I accept that preserving an Innocent life override a general rule, especially when that rule goes against our natural instinct to survive and protect others.

However, where we disagree is your use of this narrow emergency exception, lying to save an Innocent life, to justify a much wider range of behaviours some of which are everyday self-serving deception which you framed as "survival of the fittest".

Procreation does not require adultery. There are countless unmarried people seeking to procreate within committed, honest relationships. Adultery is not just about sex . It is the betrayal of trust, the lying, and the emotional harm inflicted on a spouse.

Policemen taking bribes and framing innocent people is not "survival of the fittest". It is corruption that destroys innocent lives. If everyone follow your logic, no one would be safe.

Lying to a boss about waking up late is not survival. It is avoiding a minor embarrassment. The honest path, apologising, builds character and long-term trust. Lying risks exposure and a damaged reputation .

I'm not saying I am perfect. Nobody is. My point is that we should not "worship the devil", that is , submit totally to our animal instincts or nature, and call that "honestly" while framing discipline or self- control (which religion tries to impose indirectly and rigidly through divine laws) as "deceit".

"He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon" is an old proverb. In the context of this discussion, this means that if you must deal with dangerous impulses, keep them at arms length. Anything less, and you risk becoming the devil yourself, someone nobody would want to do business with.


The fact that we can observe an impulse and choose not to act proves we are more than the impulse. We should not "worship" what we are larger than. To worship the "devil" makes us no different from a brute without self-control.


Finally, apart from the fact your philosophy is contradictory at its core, it offers no mechanism for self-restraint beyond external laws. It lacks the concept of internal mastery, the ability to say "no" to an impulse even when no one is watching and law to forbid it.

So my question to you is this: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes when lying or following an impulse is not acceptable versus when it is harmful, without saying "it's up to the individual".? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes" if one can find justification for it.

jaephoenix:
He didn't make a positive claim. He simply said there was no evidence. If the Op has evidence, he or she would deposit it. Simple. Stop capping
And yes,we all know how conjuring up bees look like. Remember we have eyes

Listen for the last time. I never asked how to summon bees or conjure them. I asked for criteria. I didn't post the video. I'm a neutral bystander.The person who posted it concluded based on belief. And nothing like " here's the evidence of the man summoning the bees" in the video.

But your friend said, "no evidence of summoning" . That is itself a positive claim, an assertion of absence. You cannot assert " no evidence of X" unless you have some idea of what X would look like. It is basic logic. So yes, he made a positive claim, and I asked him to clarify his standard. And he did: . He said, "verbal announcement and coincidence " .But instead of you to correct him, you ignored him to attack me, confirming you are not here for any sincere debate.

" What would the evidence of child abuse look like"? is not the same as, "How do you abuse a child "?. If you continue to miss this clear distinction, I'm sorry, there's nothing else I can discuss with you. You will continue to misrepresent me and waste my time.


I asked a hypothetical question. "What would the evidence look like if the man were to have the power"?. This is not a direct request for evidence, or how to summon bees, but you continue to interpret it literally despite claiming to be highly educated .

CoolUsername:
None of this changes the fact that no evidence was provided. If it was, show me, if it wasn't, then you typed all that for nothing

I'm not trying to change any fact. I never claimed evidence was provided. I asked, "What would the evidence look like"? You have either misunderstood this or pretending not to understand. Just say you don't know if you want to answer for your friend.

I have been asking for criteria, not what you think.

CoolUsername:
If you can't point out the evidence that was provided, then you agree that you have also seen no evidence.

Anything else is a waste of time

You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. I never made any claim. I never concluded on anything whether there's evidence or not. So you can't ask me to. "point out the evidence that was provided ". I'm a neutral bystander asking your friend who made a positive assertion, "no evidence of summoning ", to describe for me what would the evidence look like if the man were to have the power. That's an hypothetical question about criteria, not a literal demand for evidence. If you struggle with hypothetical question, you will struggle to answer. And clearly you are struggling .

CoolUsername:
Don't "all sides" this matter. Whether the video is AI generated or not, it is still true that there is no evidence that bees were summoned

I never asked your friend to provide evidence of summoning. I asked what would the evidence look like since he made a positive assertion.

If you can't see the difference no need to reply me again.

CoolUsername:
Whether we know how to summon bees or not is irrelevant. It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence that it happened. If there is no evidence that he summoned the bees, then the claim has nothing to stand on.

If I told you that I'm the one who makes the sun rise every morning and you tell me to provide evidence for that claim. It would be extremely silly for me to tell you to provide evidence for what it looks like to make the sun rise and then claim victory.

You still don't get it. I never posted the video. I never claimed the man summoned bees. I'm a neutral bystander questioning the positive claim made by the person you're defending.

The person who posted the video didn't say "here is the evidence of summoning". He concluded based on belief. That's why the correct skeptical response should have been "where is the evidence "'?, not "No evidence of summoning" as if he knows what evidence of magically summoning bees looks like.

You can't claim "no evidence of stealing" if you don't know or have some idea of what stealing is. That has been my position.

Your sunrise analogy fails because you left me out. You reduced three roles ( the person who posted the video, your friend, me) to two ( claimant, doubter). I'm not the one who said "the man summoned bees. I'm the bystander asking the skeptic: "You say no evidence, so what would evidence look like if the man were to possess the power"? That's not a silly question. It's asking you to define your terms before declaring absence.

I never said the man summoned bees magically. So you and Jaephonix should stop inventing a position for me you can easily argue against.

jaephoenix:
I know a lot and I have explained how one can control bees. Its an art that has been mastered by centuries and its in public domain but somehow, you dont know that

You are answering a question I never asked. I didn't ask him how to summon bees. I asked what evidence of summoning would look like because he claimed "no evidence of summoning without defining it.

You have now offered a natural explanation (queen bee). But that undermines the person you are defending who said summoning requires a verbal announcement and called the bees appearance coincidence.

So I ask, Why aren't you correcting him instead of attacking me who only sought for further clarification, not to explain how bees can be summoned magically, but what would the evidence look like. What would the evidence of child abuse look like is not the the same as how to abuse a child. The distinction is very clear. You have been arguing against a question I never asked.

Please stop misrepresenting me. I never claimed the man summoned bees magically . I only asked for criteria. You are fighting a ghost. Next time understand the conversation before jumping in to show yourself. This is not the first time.

jaephoenix:
That guy triplechoice na case. I know him. Just ignore him

Name calling won't help you win an argument.

jaephoenix:
Same way u were capping nonsense about providing evidence. You didn't know

Wrong. I didn't ask him to provide evidence. I asked him what would be the evidence of summoning look like since he made a positive claim
You can't claim no evidence of X if you don't have some idea of what X would look like..

completeskills:
Video caption says contains AI generated media.

Good. I suspected that.

So everyone, the Juju crowd , the coincidence crowd, and the Queen bee expert, Jaephonix and his friends, was just filling gaps with imagination. None of them knew it was AI generated.

That's the whole point: don't speak confidently about what you don't actually know until you have all the facts.

CoolUsername:
Post said the man summoned bees. The guy said there is no evidence of that. How does what you're saying relate to it? You clearly did not understand

You're projecting. I understand perfectly. You and the person you want to defend don't yet understand that asserting absence requires a definition of presence.

Your friend asserted. "no evidence of summoning". To make that assertion, he must know what evidence of summoning looks like. I asked him and he couldn't give a coherent answer, he kept changing his definition. That's my point. I never said the man summoned bees magically.

Let's assume the Uganda man has the power to summon bees, how would your friend know the exact way he summoned them? Whether verbally or through some hidden method, how could he conclude the man didn't summon them?

Some persons have offered a natural explanation: the man holding the Queen bee to summon the colony. If that is the case, is that not proof that he summoned them himself through natural means, contrary to his claim of "no evidence of summoning?


Since he is not sure, the correct response should have been "where is the evidence of summoning "? not "no evidence of summoning " as if he knows what the evidence would look like.

Now, can you tell me what the evidence of summoning would look like ?

voiceunheard:
The pastor's case is different! He promised to do what he doesn't have the capacity to do and he knows that it was urgent. He also have people he made promise to and he is yet to fulfill, why making another massive promise again?

And another thing that made me report him is what I was going through where I was staying, waiting for him to fulfill his promise, I couldn't have stayed there for long (up till the time they started humiliating me with words) if he didn't made a promise, I would have rented a house and should have left there before the humiliation which I still haven't fully recovered from started.

His promise made me look like a fo*l, as if I don't know what I am doing. That is why I have to report him. Not everything I can say here.

Talking about someone making a promise and something came up, I don't see the pastor as an innocent person who made a promise, I see him as a person who makes reckless promises. If something came up, he could have let me know, he don't have to tell me the full story. But instead, he was watching me to see how I will look for a way out since I stopped calling him.

Yes, the pastor wronged you. I already said so. He invoked God to give you double assurance which prevented you from taking action to solve your own problem. And then ghosted you and threatened you. That is spiritual manipulation and abuse which is traumatic for a believer.

But it's not the same with the person here trying to offer you help. He has not given you assurance similar to the pastor's.

If you need help to pay the overdue loan, announce that openly without shame. Don't use emotional blackmail. That won't work.

Or reach out to the loan app to give you a discount which you can afford to pay.

Focus on yourself and starting building your life.

TheGift:
I

LOL this one is more like baseless logic.

He is telling you X doesnt exist, you are telling h to tell you how X comes into existence. If you cant see the illogicality of that argument. I feel for you.

Also, in basic law of evidence, which i am sure you know little or nothing about, it is the person who alleges that must prove. Therefore;

If A alleges that a man sent bees.
And B says He sees no evidence of any man sending bees
It is A (and all those who agree with Him) that should bring evidence, not B.

You cant ask Him to prove something he doesnt believe in in the first place.

If you still cant understand that, then you are operating below the level of basic logic, Sir.

Wrong. Asking what would evidence of summoning look like? isn't asking him to prove magic exists or how magical summoning works. It's asking him to clarify his claim. If you say "no evidence of X", you must know what X would look like on video. Your friend doesn't know. That's the point you both keep missing.

Let me ask you a simple question. Can someone claim "No evidence of stealing " if they don't know what stealing is? Obviously not. You need to know what you're looking for.


Next time understand the argument before lecturing about logic. This advice is also for Jaephonix who likes to brag about how highly educated he is but struggle to demonstrate it.