₦airaland Forum

jokerphilics:
[b]You judge a religion by what it books says [/b]and not how the people behave. Mind you also don't judge a religion by what fraction of it's people do. Look at the ones that are actually following it. This tiny fraction are the ones that are claiming to be religious but doesn't want to follow what the religion commands thereby tainting the religion. Also are those that are intentionally tainting the religion but are not muslims. E.g the west and their cohort putting Islam and terrorism in the same bracket.
Islam is the only true religion of people have done their research right.

Yes, and the book and text of that religion say hate, violence, bloodshed, conquer and dominate. Ayah upon ayah, surah upon surah. Oppression is simply a by-product of the main themes.

The tiny faction are the ones who live it wholeheartedly. The vast majority fully support them, and only a few are against it, but dare not be outspoken, lest hate, violence etc.....come upon them.

The outworking of the religion is clear, not anything the west does. Is it the west decapitating the citizens of Oyo, or carrying out gee.hard across great swathes of Africa?


TV

Rashduct4luv:
Oppression (ظلم, ẓulm) is one of the gravest sins in Islam, encompassing any form of injustice, wrongdoing, or harm inflicted upon others. Islam’s core message revolves around justice, mercy, and the protection of human dignity, making the condemnation of oppression clear and unequivocal.

Spousal Oppression:
Mistreatment, harshness, physical or emotional abuse of one’s spouse, contradicting the principles of kindness and mercy in marriage.

It is not only not a sin, spousal oppression is baked in - thoroughly embedded!

How is being able to take 4 wives - without consent from any existing wife or wives - have temporary marriages, underage marriages - wherein consent is simply not possible - and sex slaves considered "kindness and mercy" in marriage? Kindness and mercy, when a husband is permitted give his wife a good smacking - merely on suspicion . Or divorce her at will .

This creed redefines all that is good and proper about holy matrimony and female worth. It degrades everything.

The Afghanistan type of kindness and mercy in marriage will soon reach you.


TV

IbeOkehie:
Basically environment or culture determines the ability to build HDI?

Well intelligence determines what kind of culture developes in the first place. There's no way an intelligent people will persist with a way of life that diminishes their HDI.

Intelligence is it. This is why a predominantly socialist culture persists among Black Africans. They are fixated on on getting subsidies and freebies even if it destroys their economies.

The statement in bold I will gainsay - unless of course there exist the data and analytics to validate it. It's too much of a reach, doing way too much heavy lifting.

As for the latter part, we can see that clearly in countries that already have HDI - case in question, Sweden, which you pointed out. Is an IQ drop the reason for Swedens current malaise?

Your thesis leaves too many questions unanswered; what is the minimum higher level required? Individually, nationally, amongst the cohort that drives development? What is the minimum floor? What happens if IQ drops, does development cease? Does regression set in?

Upstream of IQ (in as much as IQ plays a part) are thing which I consider more critical. Things such as beliefs, traditions, history etc. This more accurately aligns with what we see lived out. And answers all the cases you cited, such as Sweden and black inventors.

Nor can IQ and its correlation to race be determinant. It's a curve right? All races have distributions stretching to both extremes. Whites\westerners do not have the highest IQ's, but relatively higher standards of living and liberal progressive societies - at present.

Take Medhi Hassan for example. Clearly high IQ. Oxbridge educated. Access to the best of the western milieu. But his north star is clearly to further the cause of his fundamentalist-from which no nation with high HDI has or can ever arise. In terms of driving or even maintaining HDI, his high IQ count for nought.

Closer to home and more broadly, if the Yoruba belief that smallpox had it's own deity persisted, they are unlikely to have ever come across a cure. Not intentionally anyway.

Note also, driving and maintaining HDI is for many countries more a question of adopting best practices. That is more readily done in cultures that have the right upstream make-up. Afterall, how high does the average IQ have to be to solve for open defacation?

To your question, firstly not so much environment. I make no claims regards, weather terrain etc. Secondly culture and it's underpinnings, yes, way more so. They determine the direction that human endeavour and enterprise can take. How enabling they are for things like IQ amongst other qualities to make a meaningful difference.


TV

IbeOkehie:
And Mr wwwtortoise...here's an unassailabe argument that shows that the PARAMETERS of IQ or intelligence is genetically determined.

Every measure has determined that MALES produce a greater number of individuals with extremely high AND extremely low IQ than FEMALES.

Females are predominantly AVERAGE IQ or intelligence or under the statistical bell curve.

The major and some would say THE ONLY difference between the genders is GENETIC. It can't be blamed on culture, environment or anythings else.

The OUTPUT also confirms the stats. The highest earning nurses are CRNAs.....it requires quite rigorous mental and physical capacity. For whatever reason, 87% of nurses are women but 40% of CRNAs are men

There's more men in prison than women...people in prison are generally very low IQ.

Harvard President Larry Summers lost his job for pointing out these stats in an informal speech given to a women's science group or something.

The female SCIENTISTS agreed the data is correct but objected to his TONE or him saying it at all.

That's the USA, in these times.

Good Luck to Nigerians.

Hello Oke, good read, well presented. All 3. However I beg to differ.

I won't gainsay your musings regards IQ - between sexes, ethnicities, nations, peoples tribes etc. It's data backed. Kindly correct me if I am wrongly reading you, but I view your conclusion in tying the ability to develop HDI to IQ as flawed IMHO.

My position differs - all human beings possess the innate potential to develop HDI. The limiting factor is not IQ, it is the cultural milieu. As you noted, there will be different outcomes genetically (or in terms of realising genetic potential, including IQ) based on the cultural environment. Hence, as you rightly detailed blacks invent, but almost wholly in western cultural settings, where they are not hampered by the prevailing sociocultural milieu in most of the majority black nations.

Further, the underpinnings of developing HDI are not a very high average IQ. Think about it, the game changers, inventors and innovators are 1. a relatively small (possibly close to statistically insignificant), % of the population. 2. not necessarily the mot intelligent people anyway and 3. whilst cutting edge scientific and technological advancement are important, building the institutions, national character and required social morés that underpin HDI are not solely or even necessarily driven by IQ. And, do not require inordinate high IQ quotients at an individual or national level to be maintained.

Most of the current crop of politicians in the UK are little more than dimwits, totally absent of high IQ or even moral character. Fair to say, the UK is regressing, and it's not due to a drop in IQ. The social fabric upon which their HDI developed is being eroded.

The Japanese can rebuild roads within 10 days of a devastating earthquake. But the real eye-opener is this. People dwelling in the effected areas queued politely and patiently for emergency relief. That is not IQ or IQ driven, it's a civilisational quotient.

HIgh levels of societal trust, freedom of expression and association, a belief in the equality of all men, a coherent deeply embedded social charter, personal liberties and human rights are the bedrock. A shared sense of national unity and orthodoxy are also really helpful, key some may say.

I don't believe luck plays a significant part - but I do wish Nigeria the very best


Cheers
TV

uche87:
https://www.facebook.com/thevillagetowncrier

To summarise a pointlessly long read, "a not very attractive beta male who misses lawlessness and oloshos" .

An aboriginal sheet whole dweller who longs for home - a racist to boot.


TV

Rashduct4luv:
Islam is a comprehensive way of life that balances legal rulings with deep moral and ethical principles. It distinguishes between what is prohibited (haram) and permitted (halal) to protect individuals and society, but this legal framework is rooted in promoting justice, compassion, and preventing harm.

A romanticised view of the religion, presented in what appears to be a palatable narrative manner. As nice sounding as it is, it does not bear scrutiny.

For comprehensive read controlling, totalising even. It regulates every aspect of an individuals life and all of social behaviour. And, in a manner that stifles any notion of individual freedoms or rights. It's one of the main reasons why no real progress can come out of the ideology. It's all about policing and enforcing behaviur.

From the level of prescribing how to access the lavatory - which foot first, to demanding the obligatory adoption of the religions, god, prohet and legal system upon threat of death.

Nope, justice and compassion are far removed. How is dhimmitude for non-believers justice? Or perhaps it's considered compassionate to let them live as heavily taxed 2nd class citizens instead of simply doing away with them

Harm? Harm s the prima facie reason for the ideology. Harm against outsiders and any members who do not conform. Harm predicated on hatred of non-believers, with, as mentioned above, the concomitant notion that they are to be treated as less, as other, and the violence that always follows that mindset.

Harm? Harm is inevitable when it teaches that eliminating non-believers is a valid form of worship and pleasing to the religions deity. And indeed, mandates that violence is a legitimate means of ensuring all worship is for said deity. Gee hard is the faiths leitmotif!

Harm? Harm even in it's reprehensible treatment of females. Denying them of all agency. Little more than chattel to men or their husbands. Can be beaten, co-wifed unannounced, summarily divorced, forced to waddle about in a tent in the blazing sun - sans perfume for good measure. Inane!

Rashduct4luv:
The concept of "those your right hand possesses" refers to a historical context of captives during war, which Islam regulated with strict rules emphasizing humane treatment and eventual emancipation, not endorsing slavery as a permanent institution.

Is slavery haram in ee.slam? Did the hay.rab\moose.slim nations voluntarily abolish slavery? Did the de jure abolition effect de facto cessation? One can still buy black slaves in the moose.slim world today!

Rashduct4luv:
Temporary marriage (mut'ah) is a debated practice, largely prohibited in Sunni Islam which i subcribe to. Polygamy is permitted with strict conditions of justice and fairness, not as a license for exploitation.

Sunni ees.slam has a version - misyar; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misyar_marriage - so using the shia to deflect is pointless. At least they are honest about it.

LIke "largely prohibited" means anything. In fact it makes my point - not as a right or wrong, not as moral or immoral, but whether permmisable or not, regardless of harm or effect. Any mullah can decide it is while another can equally decide it's not. Another poblem with ees.slam- it fails to give clear guidance and almost all positions or approaches can be justified. There is no underpinning morall imperative, no themes of righteousness or holiness.

Rashduct4luv:
Islam encourages the use of conscience and reason alongside divine guidance to discern right from wrong, aiming for a moral society grounded in both law and ethics. You can never see any divinely/humanly legislated framework that surpasses this.

Debunked above. What it is, and totally understandable from that perspective, is a brigands charter, that justifies conquest and pillage, Harm is managed to ensure it happens to, or is inflicted on the other and is actually a necessity or it goes nowhere. Its genius lies in the claim that "god said so" No He did not.


TV

DeepSight:
Such a covenant is racist.

A covenant between a peoples and God? And note, anyone that joined the Jews and was willing to adhere to the terms of the agreement was accepted.

DeepSight:
Indeed up till today they dont marry non Jews and this is racism.

I did not countenance marrying a non-Christian. Is that racist?

And don't think I didn't notice how you slyly omitted "race" from your definition of racism - going as far as to make it synonymous with tribalism, which is at odds with previous statements you have made .. There are black Jews and marriages between black and white Jews.

DeepSight:
The woman's reaction was just like a high minded person reacting to gutter talk.
I dont really believe the story by the way, many myths are written about the figure called Jesus and its a figure I have great respect and admiration for.

You don't want to believe. No fear...your tribal deities are there for you .

DeepSight:
I dont think the same Jesus that said so much to the contrary would talk like that.

Whatever tickles your fancy!

DeepSight:
I see I have to school you a little.

Ancient Codes & Spiritual Traditions
c. 2350 BCE – 539 BCE
Early legal codes (such as the Code of Hammurabi) regulated social order rather than individual rights. A major shift occurred with the Cyrus Cylinder (539 BCE), issued by Cyrus the Great of Persia after conquering Babylon. It declared freedom of religion, abolished forced labor, and allowed displaced peoples to return home, earning a reputation as one of the earliest declarations of human rights.

Natural Law Philosophies
c. 500 BCE – 300 CE
Greek Stoicism and Roman jurisprudence introduced the concept of Natural Law (lex naturalis). Thinkers like Cicero argued that a universal moral order exists above state-made law, applicable to all human beings by virtue of reason.

Medieval Charters & Constitutional Limits
1215 – 1689
The English Magna Carta (1215) established that the sovereign's power was not absolute, introducing early protections against arbitrary detention and due process (Clause 39). This constitutional thread continued through the English Bill of Rights (1689), which restricted royal prerogative and protected freedom of speech within Parliament.

The Enlightenment & Social Contract Theory
17th – 18th Century
Philosophers like John Locke redefined rights as innate ("natural rights" to life, liberty, and property) rather than granted by monarchs. This intellectual shift fueled revolutionary documents that explicitly linked state legitimacy to individual liberty:

US Declaration of Independence (1776): Asserted unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789): Declared all men born free and equal in rights.

Post-WWII Codification
1945 – 1948
The atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust demonstrated that domestic legal systems were insufficient to guarantee human dignity. The United Nations Charter (1945) established human rights as a core pillar of international order, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt.
-------------
The above is a brief extract on the history of concepts on Human Rights and they well predate Christ.

Human rights as we know them! Sans slavery, ritual sacrifice, equal agency for women. Full-spectrum human rights, individual freedoms and personal liberties. Nothing above alluded or led to this and most post-dates Christ.

Human rights as we know them, emanated from countries whose cultures are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Human rights as we know them. That not all countries sign up too. And many fail to practice in any meaningful way. Like yours.

Back to school for you tisha. Let the Truth set you free.


TV

DeepSight:
In answer to your question, believing that one race or tribe deserves pre eminent or preferential treatment to another on account of it's very race/ ancestry.

And after umpteen posts you refuse to see or acknowledge what has been repeatedly pointed out - it was covenant based, not culture.

And, he granted the woman her desire despite the fact she was not party to the covenants of promise. That was the reverse of racism. The Lord granted her something she had no right to. What was the harm done? Racism that brought a blessing. Your faulty lens will always mislead you.

DeepSight:
And no, he was not the author of human rights.

Human rights as we know them are an outworking of His work. Argue with your child-sacrifice demanding tribal deity.


TV

LordReed:
Are cultural prejudices necessarily racism?

...abi? Especially if the cultural (or religious) practice was clearly harmful, like FGM.


TV

DeepSight:
Good grief. Can you not even just address the question of what Jesus said. And for heavens sake the notion of human rights did not originate with him.

It wasn't really much of a question was it? It was an attempt to smear!

And, in as much as it was, I answered. I showed you a broad-lens view of the work and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. His ministry, what his acolytes taught & preached, and, most pertinently, the generational and national outworking in peoples and amongst nations that follow His teaching.

I even showed you that the progressive human rights which you predicate your poser on originated from the peoples and nations followed Him. No other peoples or nations gave rise to them or at best copied them.

I also pointed out that the cultural and civil milieu you hail from, does not have these kind of progressive human rights natively - if\where they exist, they are borrowed. And you can see they are, as they haven't really embedded, have they? Oyo, Sokoto, Alu and so on and so forth.

Now, answer the question - What is the unique trait or behaviour that defines a racist?. Waiting patiently to blow some wind .



TV

DeepSight:
You are all over the place. You are saying something like human rights are a borrowed concept so we in Africa must never complain of breach of human rights. If you have anything to say, address what Jesus said and thats all.

Complain away. How about you start with decapitations in Oyo, or public lynchings in Sokoto? Instead you raise a contrived allegation against the One from whom the very notion of human rights emanated.

You can question Christ, trash the West, smear white people, hate the juice - all to avoid taking a good hard look at your own culture and people. Bobo reflect small na. Truly what ails you?


TV

Rashduct4luv:
Haram or Non-Halal:
Haram literally means the prohibited or unlawful. In technical language it means 'that which the Law-Giver has absolutely prohibited, i.e.in the Holy Qur'an or in the sound clear Sunnah; anyone who engages in it is liable to incur the punishment in this world.'

One of the many weaknesses with islam. It is not about holiness, morality, or even right and wrong - it's about prohibited vs. non-prohibited, which is not the same.

It is legalistic, with no regard for a mans God-given conscience and the ability to discern right from wrong. More specifically, what may cause harm or loss to another.

What is the ruling on "those your right hand possess", sexual slavery to be precise ? Halal or Haram? Moral or Immoral?? Same for "temporary wives". And how about "multiple wives"?


TV

DeepSight:
All this is puerile self-hating ad hominem without addressing an inch of the issue raised.
Self hating because you spend your time insulting Nigeria as though I, singularly am Nigeria alone, and you are not Nigerian.
At all events, it does nothing to address the issue.

You would say that wouldn't you?
But at once fail to respond to any of the points or answer the question.

The milieu you hail from does not natally have any notion of rights, freedoms or liberties. Not the sort that would conceptualise racism as commonly used. It's borrowed language. And, borrowed from nations that developed those very notions on the basis of the teaching and work of Jesus Christ - the very person you ironically have the nads to allege racism against! You can't make this up. Take off the race-tinted lens and cape of victimhood.

What is the unique trait or behaviour that defines a racist?


TV

DeepSight:
What does this scripture disclose?

Mark 7.

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.......

Perhaps some leading Christians can help out here.

Kukutente23/ TV01/ Jesusjnr2020

Fourth time of posting what I believe is an excellent piece. NL' loss !


TV

honesttalk21:
TV01, reading Paul's instructions to slaves as pastoral guidance in historical context, not endorsement, is legitimate. But if context is legitimate for Christian texts, it's legitimate for Islamic ones too.

Historical, but also, theological, doctrinal and most importantly, the practical outworking. Feel free to apply the same to Islam.

honesttalk21:
Ephesians 6:5 instructs slaves to obey their masters; Philemon appeals to a Christian slaveowner to receive a runaway slave back as a brother, and is commended, not commanded. Luke 4:18 is a profound proclamation, but it isn't a legal statute abolishing slavery any more than 90:13 or 24:33 is for Islam. Neither testament contains a verse explicitly abolishing slavery as an institution. Interpretation isn't the problem here but the unequal standards of interpretation are.

I have already explained the pastoral approach in context. Christianity is by love, not compulsion - as I have noted. Islam by contrast is wholly legalistic.

Luke 4:18 is a leitmotiv of the Christian faith. Once rightly apprehended and internalised, it will logically and inexorably lead to the abolition of slavery and, in as much as possible all harmful actions against your fellow man. As noted Islam has no parallel. It is tribal, and "others", non-believers and infidels. Effectively dehumanising them, leading to hate and violence - making slavery an obvious outworking.

honesttalk21:
So, yes, slavery existed in Muslim societies. Yes, law regulated it. Yes, injustices occurred. No, Muslim 1602 doesn't establish racial inequality was taught. No, the hadith doesn't say the purchased man was valued higher for being non-black; if anything, the classical reading points toward manumission, not permanence. No, historical practice equals divine command. No, Christian abolitionism exempts Christian texts from the same standard being applied to Islam's. So judge both traditions by the same rule. And if the real question is what is Islam? Know it isn't slavery, race, or Arab superiority. It's nothing is worthy of worship except Allah. That's the foundation everything else stands on.

Slavery still exists in Muslim societies - and always will as long as there are non-Muslims. It is not haram and no one can make it so. The belief that the word and will of Islam's deity is unchanging ensures that. De jure changes in Muslim countries were forced and never really became de facto - it's the outworking! Your reading, is discordant with contemporary mainstream Islamic scholarship.


TV

DeepSight:
What sanctions can Israel place on the UK?

Why does retaliation have to be purely in the form of economic sanctions? The Israelis know their situation is existential and will act accordingly. The UK government may feel they are delivering constituency pleasing hardball diplomacy, but Israel are waging war and have the concomitant mindset - that's the difference. A proud Brit, a patriot here and I wouldn't back the rabble the govern us against the Israelis.

How far? Miss me . I landed heavy gbas gbos on your head on another thread - got banned !


TV

honesttalk21:
Same rule applies to your counter as Luke 4:18 proclaims liberty, fulfilled per v21 yet Ephesians 6:5 still tells slaves to obey. Can you clarify?

My pleasure .

The salient point and the relevant context here, is Christianity’s beginnings. How did it arise how was it spread? What was the era and time of the passages quoted?

Christianity at inception was a small and although growing – a raggedy band - of mostly converted Jews. Rejected, if not outright despised by their own, often suffering great persecution.

There were no armies, zero military might. A campaign of conquest was not even the remotest of possibilities. Neither was there any form of political presence. It did not have high-profile celebrity figures or a social media presence. At once, slavery was not only practiced worldwide, it was legal. Pray tell, how should, how could Christianity have abolished slavery?

What should the apostle Paul have advised converts who were slaves? To rebel? To ecape? Against or from masters who could have them summarily executed on a whim? And what of converts who were slave owners? The book of Philemon clearly addresses them and is an appeal to free slave convts as an act of brotherly love, not out of compulsion.

God has revealed himself to us as the God of Love, the God who is love. The Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, Who “came to set the captives free”. The author of the epistles you referenced, also wrote 1 Corinthians 13, commonly known as the chapter of love – read at celebrations of holy matrimony everywhere. It is characterised by the verse “love does no harm to anther”. Nowhere in the Christian scriptures is slavery even remotely in view.

I won’t gainsay the fact that in reality, some who claim to be Christians may have practised chattel slavery, even read it into the scriptures, but it is simply not there. And over time that became increasingly apparent and inexorably the norm in Christian communities and nations worldwide.

And beyond, as Christian abolitionist campaigned globally to end slavery, where it was de jure even in Saudi Arabia until late last century, and is still exists de facto in much of the moose.slim world.

Slavery is not haram in ees.lam. Therefore it cannot ever truly be abolished. It is writ large with the clear permission to own sex slaves. Ees.lam’s traducing of holy matrimony and denial of agency to women, although side issues for the purpose of this discussion, are also reasons to outright reject an ideology which outright denies human rights, civil liberties and personal freedoms. Although I can see why it would appeal to 7th century Arabian brigands, it will always be discordant to modern day thiners with even a basic understanding and a modicum of knowledge.

That is why for me, Christianity leaves ees.lam in it’s wake – not just as Gods clear path to salvation, but also as a social charter. Ees.lam has no notion of love, not as thematically explicated in Christian scripture. In ees.lam, human interactions are wholly transactional, often decided by force or might, typically based on hatred (the very opposite of love), and enforced by violence and bloodshed.

Just as early Christianity could not abolish slavery, neither can any Christian force you to leave your religion or join our faith. Rather we would appeal to you, for the love of God and out of love.

Know the Love of God in Christ Jesus. Please join us.


TV

DeepSight:
Honestly TV01 is the most comical of the lot. Only he has ever argued that blacks have never achieved anything and also never will.

The guy baffles me because he doesn't know how small he is.

Oga, I am not just small, but miniscule . I am the runt of the family litter, and my family is barely noteworthy in our hamlet .

Please stop strawmanning and artfully tapping out. The question was never about "blacK achievement". It was as follows;

What will Nigeria et al (most African, Arab and Asian people groups) do to shift their cultural milieu to enable full sustainable modern societies

I maintain, I don't personally see anything to suggest they will. If your position is tenable, it should be easy to articulate - regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. I know you hope, but you do not see. As the Bible says, "one does not hope for what one sees"

The floor is yours.


TV

^{Ekemefune flees his homeland, rocks up in the west. Now wants it to burn because he is teaming up with a supposed kashmiri hottie . You will convert sha. Bilal sounds about right . All good - reformed ee.slam suggests you can "beat her lightly" .}

DeepSight:
You know, in spite of myself, I had to smile at this. Viciously written.
Anyway, it was saved by the red.

It's all cold, hard, truth. Spoken in the clear light of a bright day .
What I wrote collectively about Nigeria, applies to the constituent tribes (nations if one prefers).

Native west African sold their brethren for beads and mirrors. That at least is suggestive of the level of natal tech that existed amongst them in that age. It also raises questions about the sanctity\value placed on human life?

What artefacts are there to demonstrate that pre-slavery or colonialism, native Africans were developing technologically in any meaningful sense? Would we have developed the same or, a parallel scientific\technological milieu? With the best "benefit of the doubt", the most we can say is that "possibly, but it would have come later".

Now it is with us. Grab it, copy, imitate, advance it. Nobody cares. Just do it - native, foreign, alien - please! And not just technology, what about institutions, liberties, rights and freedoms. What about notions of patriotism, commonwealth, meritocracy, competency hierarchies? And at scale.

If you can't invent, imitate, if you can't create, copy. Please running water is not that hard. Underground sewage is not the purview of brainiac aliens .

Please stop mentioning or quoting me unless you have answers or the 'nads for a real debate.

Otherwise, I will show you vicious .


TV

DeepSight:
In that case the climate, geography, flora and fauna to mention a few of the factors I have pointed to must also be white?

All of these have been conquered by mankind. They are no longer limiting factors - stop with the excuses bro'

DeepSight:
I said "much of" and "middle America" for reasons.

How do you know? Do you imagine "much of white\middle America" care or obsess about BO . And on what basis. If they found a black presidency objectionable, they have their votes. Why do northern Nigerians find a non-northern presidency objectionable. Or Nigerians more generally an Igbo one? Please take the advice from my previous response - what ails you requires attention!

DeepSight:
That said, whats your own grounds for your hatred of black people?

No grounds for hatred here sir. Race is not a lead indicator or reference for me. All men are created the image of God, and all came from one blood.

Some have developed backward and regressive cultures. I say it like it is. You can reference a far-away, unrelated past, and point to an unfathomable distant future. But can't make sense of the present.

If I said "what" at work, but could not explain the "how" and "when", I'd be sacked. Please forget discussion\debate for a while, perhaps take some time out to reflect.


TV

RodgersAkpafu:
How does a colonised person benefit from speaking the language of the coloniser?

Man, this brain washing is deep.

So speaking a language introduced to you via colonisation is a benefit ?

Oluwa ooooo

Ekemefune, you are back...missed you .
The only person I enjoy trolling more than ShallowVision is you.

Please sir, what is Igbo for "mitosis", or Yoruba for "chromosomes"? How about the Ijaw word for "Autophagy"? What native Nigerian language had a scientific lexicon? How would speakers of native Nigerian languages have engaged in scientific discourse?

In the absence of "misadventure" from the west. or the use of their language, what scientific engagement did African tribes have, or could have in their native tongues?

If English had not come to us by way of colonisation, to even begin to partake of the technological advancement of the more developed nations we would have had to use their language? How would Nigeria develop a common language? I see Fula may be on the cards .

Colonisation was damaging, but not wholesale without benefit. Keep using it as a reason for not advancing.

How's the market in vibranium (sorry I forget its indigenous name) . Wakanda ko, Zamunda ni.


TV

DeepSight:
That it can be so open, so in-their-faces, so boldfaced and without tangible resistance is what really fascinates me.
Somewhere in the belly of much of white and middle America, I cant help feeling, rests the willingness to allow Trump any atrocity in compensation for what was the greatest abomination they could ever imagine - the fact that a black man ever became their president with a black first lady to boot.

Your hatred of Juice is untrammelled and unblinking. Now your hatred of white people is on full view. Your real problem - one of them anyway - is that you can't explain why your nation is in the position it's in, or how to work through it. Viewing things through your "colour lens", leaves only one way out, one coping mechanism - to hate white people and ascribe all black issues to them.

At a minimum 40% of white people had to vote for Barack Obama to become president. It's likely that 40-50% actually did. You would be doing yourself a great service if you could for once drop the colour lens and the attendant hate framing.


TV

Zero questions addressed

What will Nigeria et al (most African, Arab and Asian people groups) do to shift their cultural milieu to enable full sustainable modern societies - that's all.


TV

DeepSight:
Please don't be disingenuous. I did not misascribe anything to you. You specifically demanded that I point to any progress made by black Africans. Not only does that infer clearly that you don't believe there are any, but you also dismissed the progress on education and economics I pointed to. You went further to answer that you don't envisage black Africans achieving anything in the next one hundred years. You said very clearly that they would stagnate or regress. Indeed you have more than hinted that such regression will be to something primitive (the "Kraal" ).

What can anyone deduce from this. No one needs to interpret this. It is clear what you are saying, namely that you don't believe blacks have ever achieved anything or ever will.

Not to mention your jibe that there must be a Rene before a sance, basically saying that there cannot be an African Renaissance since there was nothing previously.

You have also said verbatim that you have no problem using the word "inferior."

So please if nothing else, at least be honest and bold enough to own what you have said.

The fact that what you have said is extremist, self hating and shameful is not my handiwork. It is yours.

And excuse me, I did not breach the deal. Show me where. I for example said that SA blacks are not barbaric and that was somehow supposed to be an insult to you?

And for Pete's sake, if you say that blacks have never achieved anything and never will, how is it wrong for me to say that that's clearly a racist position. My deal with you was not to point out such things.

I just can't see what there is to discuss further when you are adamant that blacks have never and will never achieve anything.

Please what on earth can I argue further from such a point of view, you tell me? It's an absurd extreme.
Bemeruca, if you agree with TV01 that black Africans have never achieved anything and never will, say so.

bemeruca:
My problem is with you is that you bring up history, climate, and colonialism mostly to explain failure away from internal responsibility.

But when I bring up greed, corruption, tribalism, poor leadership, disunity, and destructive culture, suddenly you say, greed is common to humanity. Of course greed is common to humanity.

That is exactly why strong institutions, accountability, values, and leadership matter.

Saying greed is common does not answer why some societies control it better than others, while others allow it to destroy public institutions.

And this your Trump deflection don tire person. If Trump is corrupt, condemn him. I that's your shtick, condemning corruption anywhere no problem.

But Trump does not explain Emefiele. Trump does not explain African leaders stealing the oil money.

Trump does not explain tribal voting. Trump does not explain why Nigeria with massive resources still cannot provide basic electricity, roads, security, or clean governance.

So yes, there are many factors. But you cannot list external factors forever and then become offended when internal failures are added to the list. Even your external factors are outdated. Colonialism helped us in many ways.

My argument is not education alone does not fix everything because I think you named only one factor.

My argument is that education, history, colonialism, and climate still do not remove responsibility from people, leaders, cultures, and institutions today.

Why can't you understand this basic thing?

Realisation sets in. DeepSight does not answer questions , explain or go granular. A "prefered" hypothesis is put together, inference - no matter how skewed - is drawn and stuck too.

Counters and interlocutors are challenged in 2 main ways; derided as not scholarly or mischaracterised to claim responses are extreme (introducing words like "savage", "barbaric", and mis-ascribing positions like "black people have never achieved anything good ever".

There is no meaningful debate to be had. Not sure debate is what is sought - more like agreement or validation.

What will Nigeria et al (most African, Arab and Asian people groups) do to shift their cultural milieu to enable full sustainable modern societies - that's all.

Man traduces his own treaty, taps out of his own challenge .


TV

DeepSight:
There are mischaracterizations here, but I don't see the point in debating a position that says black people have never done anything positive and never will.

That is too extremist a position to debate.

The debate pivots on cultural milieu and how it will shift to drive the necessary transition to a fully-fledged, sustainable modernity. The extremity is all yours - which I cautioned against in my very first rejoinder.

I am gracious enough to allow your reverse ferret without crowing .

Godspeed


TV

DeepSight:
Well, thus closes our conversation. I take away from it the understanding that your position is that the black African has never done anything positive and never will. This is well noted for posterity.

PS: Enjoy the bold caricature of what i have argued. I have said enough.

The convo ended when you repeatedly broke terms. More pertinently when you were unable to evidence what was being done to move Nigeria et al closer to what we would expect in a modern nation state.

All you could do was refer to unrelated empires and civilisations of the past and assume on that basis that Nigeria et al had to flourish in the (distant) future - just because

Further, you rightly introduced the FD concept, and were subsequently unable to show how this had measurably improved enough for Nigeria et al to progress towards full-fledged modernity.

Bemeruca amongst others has repeatedly shown you that education and even a burgeoning middle class are not enough on their own or necessarily evidence of long-term sustainability, if the cultural milieu does not radically alter.

Quite naturally, post colonialism, Nigeria et al reverted to their natal cultural mindset. That is to be expected. The question is, how many of the negative aspects can they shed and how many of the requisite morés can they adopt, to create the cultural consciousness required for the transition to fully-fledged modernity?

What mostly obtains now are colonial artefacts atop a legacy cultural consciousness. A major organ transplant gone wrong? Can it be fixed? Is there the will, the wherewithal? Evidence please.

And if you subscribe to the notion that white supremacy and racism continue to play a determinative role - which Nigeria et al are unable to surmount - why bother? Why have this discussion at all - other than to troll you of course

You haven't rested your case my learned friend, you have simply failed to make it .


TV

^{...and for what it is worth, I believe the west is now on a downward trajectory. Having lost sight of how they advanced and flourished. The question for them is can they turn it around or what will the pace of decline look like and where will it bottom out?}

bemeruca:
You are mixing two different things. And budaatum also has this issue.

When I say education is already there, I am talking about formal education and access to information.

People know corruption is bad. They know tribalism, greed, selfishness, and disunity destroy societies.

This is not some hidden secret that only a university professor can explain.

The problem is not that people have never heard the truth. The problem is that many people know the truth and still choose the wrong thing when money, power, tribe, religion, or personal interest is involved.

See Emefiele as an example. He is not an illiterate man. He is educated, experienced, and had access to every economic expert, etc.

Yet what did that education produce when character, accountability, and national interest were missing?

So no, I am not contradicting myself.

Education can expose wrong thinking, but education alone does not fix character.

You can educate a greedy person and simply produce a smarter thief.

You can educate a tribalist and simply produce someone who justifies tribalism with better grammar.

My point is this - the deeper problem is mindset, culture, values, accountability, and unity.

Education helps, yes, but pretending education alone is the magic solution is shallow.

And when I push back on Deepsight blaming everything on white people, colonialism, or climate, that is also a form of education. I am challenging excuses, exposing weak arguments, and forcing him to confront internal failures.

So the issue is not left or right. The issue is whether we are honest enough to admit that our own choices, leaders, culture, greed, and disunity are major reasons for our problems.

So we have a culture of greed and selfishness in the country.

...thank you and hello wherever you are.

Until anyone or any group of people are able to take a hard look at themselves in the cold harsh light of day and take unilateral and unwavering action for their own flourishing, nothing happens. How much more when you believe there are supremacists and racists looking to do you in?

I will always acknowledge the Israel' resoluteness. They continue to chart their own path to progress and prosperity whatever anyone else thinks, says or does - even the US. That's how it should be. Keep whining about deserts being sandy and the sun emanating heat . And of course water being too wet


TV

DeepSight:
Wait a minute, before I even address anything here, are you Israeli? What is "that's how we do?"

Am Yisrael Chai.
It's in quotes. Don't deflect jor .

Israel are battering the hayrab\moose.slm hordes with one hand whilst pioneering tech advance, leading scientific enquiry and making barren lands fruitful with the other - in barely 3 generations, whilst shrugging off aunty sem.ee.tism. You are hoping for clement weather, wailing against "raycism" and asking for a few more centuries - before you can lay a passable road or roll out flushing loos at scale. Abeg, leave off .


TV