₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
OH wow!! It is no longer a symbolic African marriage ceremony, and we are not to deny what is right before our eyes, as far as what we all know and grew up with in Africa about marriages in Africa. However, the requirement is that in addition to video evidence which we can all see, we need additional proof. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You literally can't make this sheet up... taqiya is unbeweavable levels of brain damage. 🤣🤣🤣

You've deliberately misread me , and then mocked the misreading.

I have said the same thing in every comment I have made. I said the ceremony is a symbolic arrangement, and the question is whether cohabitation followed. I never said it stopped being symbolic? I said it never was a marriage. Those are different claims, and you've merged them into one so you can laugh at it.

As for the proof, nobody is asking for proof of what we can see. We can all see the ceremony. The question is what happened after it , did the child go home with the man or not?

And "taqiya" Hehehehe! , I'm not a Muslim, and I'm not defending a religion. I have condemned the elaborate ceremony and the kiss in this thread, in my first comment, before you ever replied to me. You don't quote my replies, you read them and answer something else. Quote me directly, and everyone can see whether the. "he changed his story" line survives contact with what I actually wrote. An accusation of deception isn't an argument. It's what's left when the argument runs out.

So once more, and this one is answerable: did she go home with him? Yes or no. Quote me and answer directly.

[quote author=Kobojunkie post=141036199]

Pedophilia is still legal in Islam 🧕 💩 🕌

Listen to this Islamic scholar justifying 53 year old prophet Muhammad marrying 6 year old Aisha 😐 pic.twitter.com/5ksxf9q9xW

— CanadianExMuslim (@ExMuslimAz) October 28, 2026

standard is inconsistent. If one cleric represents 1.9 billion Muslims, then one pastor represents all Christians. You don't accept that for Christianity, so don't apply it to the other religion. . Bad faith proof-texting exists in both traditions The test is whether the community repudiates it.

On child marriage, the dominant scholarly and legal position across most of the Muslim world is adult consent. That's why the cleric in the video is a fringe voice, not a representative one.

Kobojunkie:
Now we are being told it is a symbolic marriage ceremony... marriage in Nigeria no longer includes the ceremony but instead what comes after... happening right there in Kano! Walahi Talahi, the denial of even that which the eyes see is unbeweaveble. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Nobody is asking you to disbelieve what you saw. You saw a ceremony, that's not in dispute. What is in dispute is what the ceremony represents . You're treating the ceremony as the marriage. But I'm saying the ceremony is not the marriage and that cohabitation is what begins a marriage. That distinction isn't a dodge. It's the whole point and one you can confirm yourself.

And you don't need to take my word for the cultural practice. It's a practice engaged in by both Muslims and Christians in the northern part of the country, that's researchable, and it's the reason I say your religious framing doesn't hold.

So let it be settled with evidence rather than on who is "in denial". You say the ceremony is the marriage and that cohabitation must follow. Then show it, show that the child went home to live with the man. Show that she is living with him now.

But if she returned to her parents after the ceremony, then what took place was not a marriage, whatever else it was

Provide that proof, and I will accept I'm wrong.

Kobojunkie:
Notice how we are being told not to believe what our eyes literally sees and our heads know to be the case. All because deep down these people are ashamed of their belief being addressed. If you tell them now that the man in the video is affiliated with Epstein or Christianity, you go see them rush to fill this thread with condemnation for Christianity without hesitation. 🤔🤔

The post you just made proves the point.

You're deflecting with the Epstein and Christianity hypothetical, but it doesn't work.

Yes, I agree that if the roles were reversed others would have used it against the religion. But someone like me would still have called that bigotry out, because the objection is to the reasoning, not the religion. A hypothetical about someone else's hypocrisy doesn't answer the objection to yours.

You're also not being told not to believe your eyes or use your head. You're being told that what your eyes saw isn't an actual marriage, and you have been given the reasons. You're entitled to reject the explanation, but rejecting it isn't the same as refuting it. And note what you're actually being asked to disbelieve, not the whole ceremony, but one detail, the kiss. I condemned that kiss in my first comment. If I were trying to defend the practice wholesale , why would I have led with the thing I object to?

On the substance what the video shows is a symbolic arrangement, not an actual marriage. Marriage involves cohabitation, not just the ceremony alone. The child in the video won't go home with the man. Straight after the ceremony, she returns to her parents and nothing is a guaranteed after that. She may marry him, she may marry someone else when she is of age. This, however, does not make what we a watched in the video acceptable. I have condemned it , and I stand by that condemnation. I have never seen a video of this kind that included a kiss. Not one. If the kiss were part of the practice it would show up in more of them,but it doesn't Which is exactly why I condemned it, and why it can be waved away either.

This is not an actual marriage in the true sense of it. It is a symbolic guardianship arrangement that is common in the northern part of the country.

I will come back to give further explanation.

But before then, I strongly condemn the elaborate ceremony, including the child kissing the man on the lips. That's totally wrong .

Modified

I'm back to give further explanation. But first it is wrong to use a single viral clip to indict a religion. That is bigoted reasoning, not critical analysis, and the "this damages people's ability to reason" line is exactly that.

That said, the clip can't be waved away either, even though it doesn't tell the full story. So let me give a context without defending anything.

It is not an actual marriage. I already said so. It is a symbolic guardianship arrangement common in the North, a cultural practice involving both northern Christians and Muslims, not a religious requirement.

The logic behind it is protection ,and that's what outsiders , and even some insiders, who are supposed to know better, miss. Where poverty is severe, poor parents who can't feed or school a daughter fear she will fall into the hands of men who will get her pregnant and abandon her, or worse. So they place her with a wealthy man they trust, with an unspoken understanding: we are not asking you to marry her now, help us care for her until she is of age. If you want to marry her then you're free. If not the decision to give to someone else is yours. The man gets a socially recognised obligation, the girl gets food, school and protector .

It is also, clearly, a bargain people make because the state has failed them. Explaining it , is not the same as me supporting it. It is an indictment of the conditions, not a defence of the custom. And note that the families who give daughters (babies) away are poor. Wealthy northerners don't hand over their girl child this way.

My late uncle, later a hotelier and well-known politician, was given two girls of around 8 as wives by a junior colleague when he was general manager of a company in the North.That was long ago before social media. Their parents gave them to him as gifts for how good he had been to them. He had just retired and was about to relocate South.So at his retirement party the parents announced they were giving him their two daughters, a man already married with children. They never lived with him. He returned home without them but kept sending money for their upkeep and education. He never truly married them, though the parents continue to call him their in-law.

This may look like a future-wife arrangement and for some men it becomes one. But it depends entirely on the individual. My uncle felt that marrying them and having them live with him would be taking advantage of their condition and innocence, even when they came of age. So he never did, though they were called his wives until one of them got married to another man with his consent. And imagine if this were today, with social media, and people who don't understand the arrangement, it would be reported as a paedophile scandal, and his name destroyed as a politician, even though in this case the outcry would have been wrong

But in this same arrangement there are others who don't care. Who take undue advantage of the custom. They marry them once of age, sometimes as early as 12. And that is exactly the problem. The so-called child marriage is an arrangement whose safety depends on the character of the man holding it. . It offers no real protection if the man chooses otherwise. My late uncle's experience is evidence that decent men exist, not evidence the practice is safe.

A guardianship arrangement does not require public ceremony that mimic spousal intimacy. You don't need a child kissing a grown man in public to secure her protection. Whatever his intentions, that moment wasn't the culture expressing itself, and it isn't the restraint the arrangement is supposed to require.

So ,no matter what anyone wants to make of it, what the video shows is a ceremony of this kind, and that is not a marriage.

orikoku:
Nothing like hell or heaven... Be kind to humanity.

You're projecting by calling the child an atheist. A baby is neither a theist nor an atheist, they simply have no concept of belief or unbelief. If a child grew up without ever encountering the theist/atheist debate, they would never be conscious of being either as an adult.

mightyhaze:
this is so because ..if he is killed by hanging. We have denied potential recipients of vital organs such as heart liver,kidneys corneas knee caps hip bones scapulas spleen etc of much needed organs. We have also deprived the bereaved families of some financial relief that will come from selling these organs at organ clinics ..we talking tens of millions here. And then again, the kidnapper might have some light heart and some sense of penitence if he learns of what his organs can do for the recipients and financial relief the family he caused pains would be getting.lets stop wasting criminals esp the young ones with healthy bodies. Organ clinics should be set up as a matter of urgency. So that when u learn of what will become of ur body once u cause another person's death u will concentrate and ask fervently for God's blessings over ur legitimate hustle

There is no logicality or sense in your argument. Hanging a convicted criminal is not unfair. It is the lawful penalty for a crime that carries death.

Harvesting his organs is a misguided idea. There are law-abiding donors for that, there's no need to source organs from a killer. And the law already has procedures for disposing of executed criminals bodies.

Your claim that he might have "a light heart" is absurd. This man kidnapped an 83-year-old and his driver, collected ransom, killed them, and dissolved their bodies in acid, so thoroughly they still haven't been found. Such a person is incapable of remorse. You cah see clearly what he has done but want to close your eyes to it to argue for clemency.

The idea that the victims families would find "financial relief" in his organ proceeds is repulsive. No grieving family wants compensation from the body of the person who murdered their loved ones, especially when the victims haven't been given a proper burial.

And organ harvesting would not deter better than hanging. The dead don't know or care what happens to their bodies. The only real deterrent is facing the hangman.

If things are working perfectly for you, even when you don't pray, then it means you don't need to pray for things to work for you.

",He who is not sick doesn't need a physician"

If you are not sick you don't need medication.

Akalia:
I can't agree more with you. A wife has no blood tie with her husband, so the emotional connection that comes with blood tie is not there. Other forms of emotional attachment can easily be broken and jettisoned.

No matter how hurt your siblings might had hurt you, forgive them and find a way to keep them close to you because when push comes the shove they are the ones to stand by you based on the blood ties they share with you.

You are right

Blood they say, is thicker than water.

If your wife leaves you tomorow for another man , she would not even remember you exist. But Your sister will always be your sister. In situation like this,you need to give your sister some respect by telling your wife to respect her.

LordReed:
Please see my AI responses above.

Very good Job. Thank you. You have helped to expose what he has been trying to suppress since yesterday .

@FxMasterz , I hope you have taken a cue on how to ask AI a neutral question. If you had done the same, no caption, no leading question, no swapping to "around the baby's head", the description would have started with the face, which is the most visible element in the image. Instead your question directed it straight to the shape you wanted it to describe.

And notice what happened when the question was actually neutral from the beginning: the AI didn't mention a hand at all. It called the shape an artifact caused by umbilical cord or fetal matter. That's the answer you have been avoiding from the start , the one you claimed you couldn't post because you used "temporary ChatGPT"

I already told you, you cannot win by deception against someone who is arguing honestly. The truth will always
prevail no matter how hard you try to suppress it.

FxMasterz:
I have already given you string basis for dismissing any case of pareidolia. I have asked questions that still beg for answers.

And I didn't say the hand was moulding the head. I used the word "...as though". An image cannot mould anything but it can position itself as a depiction. An artist can draw a hand moulding a clay. It is a depiction.

The thumb part of the hand even has visible pressure on the spot where it made contact with the head. You can check it out again

Oh stop this!
There's no thumb in the image. You continue to imagine what is not there. Your mind is playing tricks on you.

You cannot rule out pareidolia when you don't even understand what it is.
Please ask AI what is the source of the hand-liike image and post the response here.

Why are you reluctant to ask this question?

"as though" is your imagination working overdrive to see what is not there and that is advanced pareidolia you are displaying. You are ruling out pareidolia yet you are demonstrating it concerning the same image.

@Lordreed , what's your take on the below description .He keeps repeating it. The child in the story only saw a "hand" . But he sees more than that, he sees the hand remoulding the head. A static ultrasound cannot show remouldimg. That's in his mind, not in the image . This is pareidolia in its most advanced form, he is not just seeing a shape, he's seeing action and intention in a frozen shadow.

I think this explains why he is so desperately defending it as a real hand.

FxMasterz:
Take a closer look. It is clearly a hand resting on the baby's head as though it is trying to mould or remould it.

LordReed:
I looked up this case and found places where Christians were expressing embarrassment that their fellow believers were taking this seriously. I just didn't bring it up because I know he will hand wave it away.

Thank you, that's the point. Even within the faith, this isn't obvious as he assumes.

FxMasterz:
I think your allusion to an image on the moon is peculiar to you. I and the many people who grew up together with me have no such experience about the moon. And, honestly, you'll be the first person to be talking about imaginary images seen by children on the moon. But then, if there has been any prior thoughts regarding the moon carefully distilled unto you by your elders, you might have such experience. Your imaginary sightings didn't come from nothing. There was a source- misleading information. There was no such source that could have manipulated anybody's view of the ultrasound image.

What I described using my childhood experience is not peculiar to me. It is called pareidolia. It is a documented universal, feature of human cognition. Lordreed mentioned it earlier as the explanation for what the child called a hand. You didn't realise I was describing the same thing, which is why you say you and those you "grew up with" have no such experience..

But you do. And yours is actually more advanced than the child's.

You claim the image shows a hand "moulding the baby's head" . A static ultrasound cannot show moulding. It cannot show action, movement or intention. All of that is in your mind. You are seeing a hand doing something to the head. That is a more elaborate version than simply seeing a shape.

So you have the gift you claim not to have. You're just misusing it , projecting onto an ambiguous image and calling it evidence.

Please ask ChatGPT about pareidolia.

From what you have already demonstrated on this thread, you surely experienced it growing up, but you have either forgotten about it or didn't take it to mean anything. And it's highly unlikely that you and everyone you grew up with never experienced it. The only thing that would prevent a child or adult from experiencing pareidolia is a rare medical condition called aphantasia . It is not possible for everyone around you to have that. You can only speak for yourself, not others

I won't respond to the other things you said until we complete what we started. I asked you to query AI for the source of the image or the explanation for it. You have deflected from that. Your claim you ask a neutral question but that's not true. You ask the same question by swapping "unnatural" with "around the baby's head" . That is you still telling it what to observe.Moreover, the image uploaded still contain the phrase " hand-liike shape". That is you still asking it to confirm your personal interpretation for you. It did that. So it is not AI personal description, but yours reflected back.

Modified
You say, "there is no such source that could have manipulated anybody's view of the ultrasound image"

There was. The child in the story. She looked at the image and said "hand" . Everyone after that, her mother,her father, the Internet, saw it through her words.. That is how pareidolia spreads. One person names the pattern and everyone else follows . It functions like mass suggestion : once the name is spoken , the shape is locked in and no one can unsee it.
So yes, there' was a source . It was a child's imagination. And once she named it the whole world saw it through her eyes.

FxMasterz:
I told you the ChatGpt used was a temporary chat feature. It deletes immediately you close the browser. And I deliberately used it so that it would not take from any of my previous interactions with it to answer the question.

I cannot use my personal ChatGpt for this for the same reason as above. Moreover, I have exhausted my image upload quota for today.

I will use Google AI mode again with your question frame in mind.


Modified:

I have asked Google AI mode a more neutral question. The response is attached.

Ok, let's work with this, even though you didn't do exactly what I asked. The image you uploaded still contains the caption "hand-like shape". That's a giveaway. You're still telling the AI what to find before it looks and it has done exactly that.

And the summary of the response is that it appears like a hand or resemble a hand. But "like a hand or hand-like features" is not " it is a hand".

Notice we don't say the baby's face looks or resembles a face. We say it is a face, because it is clearly visible. If a real hand from outside were in that space, it would image clearly as a hand, the same way the baby's own hand would. Instead, we have a grainy shadow that looks like a hand.

When I was a child, I used to look at the moon and see what looked like a woman carrying a baby on her back. Every child in this part could "see it" due to our cultural upbringing where it is not uncommon for mothers to carry their babies behind them. That didn't make it real. It was a pattern in the lunar surface, a shadow our brains turned into a figure. A child growing up a different environment, like Europe, for instance, would have his or her brain turn the same image into something common in his or her environment, something like a huge rabbit or Father Christmas and it would fit.

The fact that it was a child who first noticed this shape from the story and called it a hand should tell you what we are looking at through the child's eyes: an ambiguous ultrasound artifact that a child's imagination named , not the hand of God, but a shape that looks like one.

Appearance is not reality.

We are not done yet. Ask AI where did the hand-like image come from or what might have caused the image to appear. Ask the question to prove you didn't deliberately crop out that part when you asked ChatGPT . Share the answer for all to read.

FxMasterz:
Not true at all. It's a pity I used ChatGpt's temporary chat feature for that. I'll now use Google AI mode. .

The question:

What unnatural feature did you observe around the baby's head in the attached ultrasound image?

See the response below:

You can ask the same question on your own AI. This is an absolutely neutral question. It waa deliberately neutral. No one has any pre-trained AI in Google AI Mode. So this result should be enough.

What I am using this AI query to establish is that the hand shape is clearly visible to anyone.

I edited my comment. Ignore this one and respond to the one before this

Ask a neutral question.. Not the one you keep asking.Do not switch to Google yet. Continue with the first one so you provide the natural explanation it gave you which you cut out..

"What unnatural feature" is you telling AI the feature is "unnatural". "Around the baby's head "is telling it where to look.

The caption " hahd like shape" in the image is you feeding it with the answer .AI is garbage in, garbage out.

FxMasterz:
I have attached a screenshot of ChatGpt's own observation.

What you called "ChatGpt's observation is your own personal observation reflected back to you.

You uploaded an image with the caption saying "hand like shape". You didn't ask a neutral question . You fed it the answer you wanted , and it reflected your framing back to you. . Then you posted only the part that agreed with you and cut out the part that explained where it explained what could have caused the image naturally. .

You edited evidence to suit a conclusion. And you cannot win a debate with someone who is arguing sincerely with you by doing that because you are no longer debating anymore.

Lordreed has shown remarkable patience throughout this exchange. He has been consistent . He hasn't invented facts or cropped anything to make his case .Not many persons would tolerate the style of argument you have used against his. That deserves acknowledgement even from you.

The image in the ultrasound is not a hand. Please stop saying "everyone sees it as that" I am not among that "everyone". And I am sure a lot of Christians would not see it the way you and some others here are seeing it.. Even your Bible contradicts you.

God doesn't reveal himself to humans. That is what the bible says. So you are arguing against Scripture.

LordReed:
The screenshot was clear, her medical providers CANNOT openly declare themselves as her medical providers. The only way is to either for her to give her consent to directly address the matter or get a court order.

I can bet a million dollars that she will do neither.

Your million dollar bet is safe . She won't consent or get a court order because she already knows what the specialist would say.

jaephoenix:
You made this comment

You started with "we are hopeless", meaning nothing can change

Good,since you said the map is incorrect, can you show me an IQ map of the world and what Africa is? Thank you

I can use any word I want to use to describe any observations. If you dont like them,take a hike to Lagoon. The crocs would love you. And I never changed the meaning. Maybe you have poor comprehension skills

I asked you to show me where I said "Cretard doesn't change", not to show where I interpreted your "We are hopeless " statement as something that cannot change. You claimed I said "cretard doesn't change" when I never did. So, I asked you to show me where I said it . Instead of doing the right thing and proving your accusation to be true, you have brought in confusion to confuse yourself, not me

The word is your own coinage, so why should I be the one to clearly define it for you.? The responsibility is yours not mine. You coin it. You define it. It is as simple as that.

No. It is not my responsibility to provide you with a reliable IQ map. You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. It will not work. You made the claim. You provide evidence in support. If you cannot find one, then admit your comment about Africa rest on nothing, and that it is baseless, implicit racist talk.

And yes, you can use any acceptable English word you want to describe "any observations", but not free to invent any word to describe same and still expect to communicate effectively. As usual, you are trying to confuse two different things, but I caught you again.

Words are not coined abitrarily. There is always a reason behind any invented word. Apart from mechanically repeating " I invented the word" , you have not provided any valid reason why you choose to invent a new one for the widely accepted and well known phrase, "low IQ".What is even worse, is that you are trying to shift the meaning after the fact, which can only mean one thing; you invented "cretard" to deflect .Hence the reason you have been going round in circles.


So to put an end to the unnecessary back and forth, I am asking, Does "cretard " mean"hopeless "? Yes or no? .I am almost certain you will never answer .Try it , let us see what comes next. You think you can be smart by telling barefaced lies. No.

Here again.

This time from Barbara Sear the researcher who has been campaigning for the disuse of your so-called evidence. Shame you didn't bother to investigate the racist propaganda material you shared on page one and still defending ignorantly.
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/11/25/meet-the-researcher-aiming-to-halt-use-of-fundamentally-flawed-database-linking-iq-and-nationality/

"There is absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever in the National IQ database,” Sear told Retraction Watch. “That means that any conclusions drawn from the database will be faulty and worthless.

The database was first published in 2002 after psychologists Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen constructed what they claimed were averaged estimates of IQ scores for different countries. Critics say the database fueled networks of “race science” activists who argue Western countries are under threat from certain ethnic groups with low intelligence and higher propensity to commit crimes.

In 2019, Lynn, a self-proclaimed “scientific racist,” was stripped of his emeritus status by Ulster University in Northern Ireland after students protested against his views, as we reported. By our"


@jaephonix stop sharing racist propaganda on Nairaland so you don't serve as an unwitting tool for those who regard you as intellectually inferior, the same people whose racist material you are spreading. Get sense please . You're a victim of the lie you're spreading.

Another one.

Since 2010 Wicherts and his colleagues have proved that the research behind the map which is updated every year as "latest" when it is not, is deeply flawed .

Read again so you stop spreading racist propaganda on Nairaland.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm

Cc jaephonix .

jaephoenix:
If you think a cretard doesn't change then why do you think a Low IQ can change? Do you see the flaws in your reasoning!
You declared my map is invalid cos you said so? Who are you to invalidate an IQ map made by research? You can imagine a lowly Nairalander who hasnt done a speck of research sitting on his toilet seat in saying researchers that spent hours did not do a good job without even checking out their research
And who are you to tell me not to invent words? Who do you think you are? An English arbiter? So u dont know many words we speak were coined by individuals and later adopted by the public before being incorporated by official dictionaries? Oga if you no know anything abeg go check

Oga , stop misrepresenting me. Can you show me where I said "Cretard doesn't change"? I said "hopeless" cannot change. If according to you, " Cretard" is the same as IQ which I said can change, then *hopeless" and " Cretard" are not synonymous. So where is the flawed logic? Stop creating confusion by pretending you don't know what you are doing.

Yes, the map is invalid, not because I said so, but because experts from around the world said so. The European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association, EHBEA, called the research " scientifically unsound, systematically biased, and ethically problematic " Wicherts a top scientists, who did a review of the datasets behind the map found IQ scores 18 points higher than Richard Lynn and David Becker reported. And Lynn and Becker deliberately excluded the higher scoring African samples, keeping only the lowest scores to produce the result they wanted. Richard Lynn called himself a "scientific racist" when he was alive. What you shared as latest figures of IQ scores of 2026, are a replication of their invalid 2019 online test, with a little modification to make it appear current. You shared a lie, not valid evidence. And you don't even know despite, your claim of being highly educated and well informed. You didn't research it.

If "Cretard means low IQ, according to you, why invent a word? Why not just say low IQ so you communicate effectively . Whom were you trying to impress? . You didn't not impress anyone. You confused yourself.

And you keep changing the meaning after the fact. You never defined it when you first used it. It was only after I said something about it, you claimed it "means the same as low IQ". Now you want to include "hopeless" as part of the meaning after I just criticised you for holding two contradictory ideas in your head at once. You have made it worse. A person who invents a new word as substitute for one that already exists and keeps changing the meaning after the fact is not a genius He is a performer, and the performance is embarrassing.

Here is a Link to the full statement issued by EHBEA asking members of the public to ignore the research behind the map you shared. It is debunked racist propaganda.

https://www.ehbea.org/pages/national-iq-datasets

Others will come shortly

jaephoenix:
Cretards is the same as low IQ.
You didn't ask me what cretard mean cos I coined the word. Its the same as low IQ person. Its a cross of crettinn# and b.trerad. So no I'm not shifting any post,if there is a goalpost shift,its you.
You asked me to provide evidence and i have with an IQ map,now you're telling me it has no source(even though you can see it,or even crosscheck online),IQ is not final and is related to environment(whatever that means) etc etc
Oga jus put your tail between your legs and flee
Truth is bitter,and I don't care who is uncomfortable with it

You haven't spoken any bitter truth that would make me, or any right thinking human feel uncomfortable. You have spent your time repeating and defending a lie you were taught to believe.

You started with "we are hopeless", meaning nothing can change. When challenged, you shifted to "cretard", which you now insist is the same as low IQ, meaning we can change. You cannot dance to two different drumbeats at the same time an expect those watching to regard you as sane. Either your first claim was false, or your current definition is false.

And IQ test result is not final, nor is it a death sentence. It is affected by environment and education. When those are addressed, IQ results can improve. So low IQ is not synonymous to "hopeless". You're trying to hold two contradictory ideas in your head at once.

BTW, who gave you the license to invent a new word as substitute for a well-known phrase in English language, without even putting it in quotes? It is delusional to think you have such liberty when you're not writing poetry.

Your so-called evidence, the map you brought , based on an invalid research, has not evidenced that "Africa is hopeless" . If you think it has, then you don't know the meaning of the word.

You're not speaking truth. You're arguing blindly. And when you cannot defend the irrational statement you started with, you deflect and now ask me to run.

Modified. Read your initial claim on page one, "we are hopeless". When I challenged you, you shifted to "we have a higher percentage of cretards than those countries or regions". And you have been shifting ever since .

StoryHaven:
Many of the guys forming Wise atheists a big fools who can't not see beyond their nose.
They want to experience a thing before they will believe it exist.
On of their forerunners in Nigeria Dr. TAI SOLARIN, on live television in the 80s said on live TV interview. I watched it with my late dad.
He said, God does not exist, witches don't exist, Juju doest work.
The interviewer asked him, what gave him the conviction that God doesn't exist and he gave an instance.
He said he was from a Christian family and he once believed in God, but he used to get bad grades in school. He was very prayerful. He said he was fed up one day and he looked told his friends that God doesn't exist that he He does, he wouldn't have been a dullard in school despite all his prayers. So, he looked up and said, "God you dont exist. And I want to prove to you that you dont exist, we are about to do our exams. Don't help me. I dont need your help. But I want to tell you that I will pass my exams, "

He said, he made sure he read his books and studied well. The exam came, and he never prayed again. The results came out and he passed with flying colours. Since then, he concluded that God doesn't exist.

The interviewer asked him, why he said there is nothing like a witch. And he said, okay, there must be witches watching us now. "I beg you witches, come and prove to me you exist. Don't kill me In my sleep, because if you do, I wont realise you exist when Im dead, but come and cut off my thumb in my sleep to show me exist," grin

He said if that happens, he will believe there are witches. But it never happened till he died.

MY POINT IS THAT MOST ATHEISTS ARE DISSAPOINTED FELLOWS WHO FEEL DISPOINTED BY GOD. THEY HAVE PRAYED AND PRAYED AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO THEIR REQUESTS. SO, AT LONG LAST, THEY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST.

No need to call any group of people "fools " for their non-belief . Insults do not win debates.

Many atheists were never religious before they embrace atheism fully. So it is not completely true thar unanswered prayers are the reason they reject God. No one can be disappointed in something they never participated in .

jaephoenix:
Look at that pic and tell me the continent with lowest IQ
Now i have shown you evidence.Stop arguing blindly.

You are the one who has been arguing not only blindly but also deceptively. You keep shifting the goalpost. First , "we are hopeless " to "cretard " and now lowest IQ. You haven't even defined "cretard" yet you want to treat it as low IQ .

Low IQ doesn't translate to "hopeless" nor "retard". You have shown you don't even know what the IQ test results represents. IQ is not final. It can rise or fall based on environment and learning. Africa's score, even if verified to be true, which it is not, reflects lack of access, not genetics. So we are not hopeless.

Your IQ argument is a deflection. You talked about "hopeless" and "cretard". How does a low IQ test that can change translate to those?

The image you shared has no source. Who conducted it. Is it peer reviewed?. You did not bother to check. Yet you called it evidence.You just found something online that supports your bias.and threw at me. That's all.

jaephoenix:
Cretard is not a regular English word. I coined it myself
Does Africa have the highest number of low IQ,or not? Oya answer

Good you have just admitted that *cretard" is not a real word, you coined it yourself and used it to avoid being banned or have the comment hidden by the mods. That means the slur is entirely your own invention derived from the actual word, retard. You cannot hide behind language. You deliberately created a word to dehumanise your own people and by extension your own self. It is a tragedy.

As for your question, the burden of proof is on you. You made the assertion. You provide the statistics. You show the research. You prove your case. . Until you do, your claim is anecdotal, just your personal observation.

And no, I will not answer a question that is built on an unproven, racist premise. Answer it yourself first, or withdraw the claim. That's all.

BATified2023:
so if I borrow 5 million naira from u n I didn't spend it for 10 years

That means I am not oweing u n u have no right to tell anyone I took money from u.

That's what obi is implying.


I know for sure if this exact scenerio happens to u in real life the person go collect but here u are supporting it cos u want your brother as president so anything he says u must defend it

It's sickening bro

False equivalence. This wasn't a personal loan. It was a facility taken on behalf of the state government by the federal government, and according to Obi's account, he handed it over to the administration that took over from him. When you borrow #5 million personally, you remain the debtor no matter what.

But a state is a continuing entity: the debt stays with the state and the custodianship of the money passes to the next administration
Peter Obi is not denying the loan existed. He's saying he didn't utilize it, his successor did. So, the question isn't "does the debt exist"? . It exists. But who spent it and failed to account for it?

If it is proven the reserve were left intact, and the next government drew them down, responsibility for the outcome rest with that government . And this logic applies to any governor, not Obi alone. So spare us "you're just defending your brother " line.

jaephoenix:
We have a higher percentage of cretards than those countries or regions

If you say Africa has more people without formal education, I would agree. But to conclude that we have a higher number of cretards is misdirected anger. The word, cretard, is too strong a word to describe any group of people. . It is a slur, one that is used to dehumanise and reinforce the racist narrative that Blacks are inferior to whites.

You should direct your anger at those who have deliberately made it difficult for literacy levels to increase, the corrupt leaders who steal education budgets, the systems that keep schools underfunded, and the colonial structures that were designed to keep Africa ignorant.

Wike just confessed how the last election was rigged.