₦airaland Forum

5minsmadness:


Bad idea bro trust me on this

I agree !

Abi you want to be dragging shaving stick?


TV

coogar: i wish all the nigerian ladies have this kinda mentality but na lie. eba & ewedu have eroded the sex drive of the majority of them.

The truth is, the failings of "Nigerian ladies" are for the most part the same as those afflicting most others. Although it must be said some are exponetially worse in some regards. Diet and exercise are two such areas.

Never mind, just find exceptions to the rule. You only want the one. Know exactly what you want and refuse to settle for less. But be realistic, no uninterrupted supersonic cruising at 38'000 feet !


TV

carefreewannabe: If and when.

And if you do, unless you are innured from the common things that come upon married couples, prepare yourself !

carefreewannabe: Until then I will contradict statements like this one:

Contradict is not the same as disprove.

carefreewannabe: You are not a woman and you don't know most women. And the fact that MANY women have a lower libido after giving birth has different reasons.

You are a woman and you don't know most women either. Your point being?

And whatever the reason for some women having lower libido after birth, the fact remains that many have it. You still have not disproved it.

And it's but one of the many reasons why libido may drop in women. Along with those for causing a drop in men

carefreewannabe: I am quite sensitive when it comes to generalisations of this kind.

Why? Simply debunk them if they are wrong. Otherwise your "sensitivity" avails nothing.

carefreewannabe: Never mind.

Honestly, I don't .


TV

carefreewannabe: TV, are you talking about your wife and marriage?

Yes to a degree. And yours too when you finally get there !

TV

^{**he said to me...he said; "there are some things I wish l knew about before marriage", to which l replied "there are some things you can't know about until you are married"** ...do quick CFW}

As NL’ chief marriage advocate, I’d be remiss in not responding to this thread .

I’ll try and respond under headings as opposed to individuals, apologies if I miss anything or do not address your particular concern;

1. Wrong Partner – First, make yourself the right partner. Ensure you have a full grasp of what marriage entails in your personal worldview. Find someone whom you fancy like mad and who shares that same worldview. Your worldview could be faith or ideologically driven.

2. Changing Spouse - Character is what you are really after in a partner. That is why you first need to be mature yourself - so that you are of sound character and can recognise AND appreciate it in others. The AND is very important, as it means you appreciate character over more fleeting qualities.

3. Infidelity – If it’s key to your grasp of marriage, 1 and 2 above should ensure it is likewise to your partners.

4. Romance dying – In part this is a continuation of 3. Like a flame the romance alive. It needs stoking. Make an effort. Keep yourself fit, healthy and well-groomed.

5. S3xual incompatibility. I wrote about this here; https://www.nairaland.com/1845744/intimate-incompatibility-marriage#25285259 - but please be committed to working together to achieve mutual satisfaction and being willing to talk about it. It may mean “putting out” for the other at times, but it is certainly worth it and it will be appreciated.

6. Child-bearing effects – yes a tricky one. I wondered about this. Not thinking myself better than your average Joe, I did wonder “if many men cheat at this stage”, why would I be any different? I loved my wife more after the birth of our first child. But our worldview means we pray to be more loving, faithful and harmonious all the time. What does your worldview say? (I also married a woman that was rightly curved and endowed, but a little thinner than perfect, leaving “growth allowance” )

7. Losing Freedom & Control – marry understanding that two become one, with God, your life is not your own, with a spouse, neither is your body. Look forward to the joy of mutual endeavour and the sense of security & being needed (not needy) that having someone who is always concerned about your wellbeing and welfare – as their priority – brings. Sweet accountability.

8. Homosexual child - Short of trauma or a high degree of homosexual socialisation, this is highly unlikely to happen. 75% of teenagers that express SSA are free of it by the time they reach 24. My worldview says pray for your kids and demonstrate masculinity and femininity to them within a strong marriage. Don't invite it into your home by implicitly or explicitly endorsing it.

9. Divorce - This has nothing to do with marriage. Like darkness and light, like life and death. Marry, well, marry with understanding, marry with commitment and it’s actually quite unlikely. The stats mostly reflect those who marry for the wrong reasons.

10. Death of a spouse – The thought of this brings me out in a cold sweat. I’ve learnt to continually submit this to My Lord. May He establish that which he blessed me with. Maybe it would help us all to love them as though each day might be our last together?

Happy hunting, be sure to enjoy your courtships. I still go through my wedding album - one of the best days of my life - even though I played second fiddle .

May your marriages be established and blessings unto generations to come.


The uxorious TV

5minsmadness: Reading about the "female imperative" for the first time. Makes a lot of sense.

Women are not hard to understand. The key is not asking women what women want. They'll tell you what they think you want to hear or what they believe will make them sound good.


TV

freshdude2: TV, is it too late to make you my son's godfather?

I'm honoured.

May your sons honour you and do your house proud.

TV

coconuthead: Dear family members,

My wife is 32 weeks pregy. I'd like mothers in house to advise what to do to assist her. Apart from the household chores, what else can a man do to assist his heavy woman. She doesn't sleep well @ night, turning here and there and sometimes, mood swings too. Pls advise cos I want her to be happy.

cocodome, please tell us that you are not just thinking about this at 32 weeks? Damn bro' you are Alpha! Whatever you so, be sure not to over-indulge her 0! Not that I need tell you that !

Salute

TV

"Initially it seemed a disaster when my husband was called away on business and was unable to join us on our much-anticipated trip aboard..."

Learner. She fell for this?


TV

^{Mariella Frostrup - a husky voice when younger. Not fit or fine! Feminist and naturally gifted c.blocker of course your husbnand is safe with her. He'll prolly appreciate you more after being with her}

...the thought of not being with my wife brings me out in a cold sweat.


TV

^{**oh Lord my God**}

5minsmadness: Like what pls?

I think I've mentioned pretty much all in my response to coogar.


TV

coogar: it must get better till the end of time o!

Very unlikely. Women are much more "fragile", are more easily subject to "mood driven desire" and don't have a pure "sex imperative" like men.

The vagaries of marriage and life generally mean they have a less desire, less consistent desire and more frequent dips. They have less testosterone, are more prone to illness, suffer through childbirth and are more likely to have reproductive illnesses. Think fibroids, endemetriosis, vagismus, various discharges and sundry ailments.

The flight path I described, most men would be more than able to do live with that, it's mostly the women that mean flying consistently at that altitude is not really likely.

coogar: frigidity can be dealt with? how? where's the time to start taking housewife for sex therapy sessions?

It's a long term deal. Even if not frigidity, you are almost certainly going to encounter some "turbulence ". Many that may affect libido.

coogar: women should shape up then! so what's a man to do then? no wonder marital infidelity is almost inevitable.

Agree about women shaping up, but men have to support them.

And yes, it's absolutely why a lot of fidelity happens. Men have these unrealistic expectations and then look outside when they are not met.

Better set expectations and real commitment would greatly reduce the levels of infidelity. And I can't stress getting a wife that you "fancy die" as well. That helps animate your commitment with motivation.

I think marrying a significantly younger wife helps in a lot of ways. Not least because as the man matures he gets less demanding, more appreciative and more indulgent. Without being prescriptive I think 8 - 12 is good. A gym culture without your propmting is real good as well. Assuming the man is taking good physical care of himself, otherwise it could backfire.

coogar: time to start investing in potent aphrodisiacs to slip in my wife's dinner plate. sex taking a back seat is a no-no! what's the essence of marriage then if what is meant to be freely enjoyed is being rationed?

Aphrodisi wetin? Hmmm...I suppose, but I wouldn't.

And don't marry a player, digga, glorified runs girl, ex sugary mama, feminist...actually, it's prolly easier to say what you should marry !

"A younger woman, from a good home, with strong faith and moral values, who is fit, healthy, well endowed, highly accocmplished and a virgin to boot"

And then Captain, expect a routine flight, but be prepared to manage your flight path.

coogar: that's my expectation and we men should start demanding our expectation from our partners. why should we accept the status quo. women can't continue to frown at polygyny & marital infidelity and still deny their husbands at home.

Male female expectations for sex during the course of a normal marriage will rarely match.

coogar: if a woman feels she can no longer meet her husband's needs then she should be a sarah. she should get extra hands like a maiden for her husband. men are being shortchanged with this arrangement & it's now clear why many men in our generation are shunning marriage.

I said some things can help. Money is one of these. Outsource as much as possible so wifey can focus on hubby. The current culture of both parents working back-breaking hours just to make ends meet does no thelp.

Men are shunning marriage because it's increasingly a bad-deal for them - apart from sex. Most men would still prefer to marry and have a side-chick, than not marry and have a harem of side-chicks.

I am not championing polygamy, side-chicks or runs. Just the right setting of expectations.


TV

MrAnony1: LOLOLOLOL Na wa Oooh. Who let the loonies out of the psych ward?

...and the funniest thing? No male or female on the list !

I feel pressured to adopt one of the 58 listed. Perhaps a cold glass of "gender fluid" whill I mull it over !


TV

Kay17: Let's have your view on the definition of Gender. Whether it is abandoned in the colloquial meaning (biologicAL sex) or social dimension on the sexes.

I believe I have been quite clear in that regard - it's a needless construct at best. Its use is mostly ideological in nature and used to promote dysfunction and deviancy.

But I'm always game for a laugh


The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

•Agender
•Androgyne
•Androgynous
•Bigender
•Cis
•Cisgender
•Cis Female
•Cis Male
•Cis Man
•Cis Woman
•Cisgender Female
•Cisgender Male
•Cisgender Man
•Cisgender Woman
•Female to Male
•FTM
•Gender Fluid
•Gender Nonconforming
•Gender Questioning
•Gender Variant
•Genderqueer
•Intersex
•Male to Female
•MTF
•Neither
•Neutrois
•Non-binary
•Other
•Pangender
•Trans
•Trans*
•Trans Female
•Trans* Female
•Trans Male
•Trans* Male
•Trans Man
•Trans* Man
•Trans Person
•Trans* Person
•Trans Woman
•Trans* Woman
•Transfeminine
•Transgender
•Transgender Female
•Transgender Male
•Transgender Man
•Transgender Person
•Transgender Woman
•Transmasculine
•Transsexual
•Transsexual Female
•Transsexual Male
•Transsexual Man
•Transsexual Person
•Transsexual Woman
•Two-Spirit


TV

^{plus, don't think you are off the hook re abortion. You've woefully failed to make any semblance of a case on that !}

coogar: haha!
thought so too!

...if anything newlywed 2backbeastin' should get progressively better - for a time...

coogar: but i would be in a much safer place knowing she was once good at it......rather than going ahead with a woman that has never been good at it & expecting miracles to happen after marriage. i would be a hypocrite if i complain about her performance after knowing she has never been up to scratch.

...point! But it's still no guarantee and frigidity can be dealt with...

coogar: hypergamy is an interesting topic. women rarely accept it exists or they try to make you think it was never thought about during their selection process.

...for most women, sex is first and foremost a means to an end. For most men, it is an end in itself. Many women go about their ways instinctively and often are not consciously aware why. It's why you have the "just follow your heart" mantra and it's variants. Seemingly all about feelings , but in truth it's the FI kicking in.

The feminine imperative is largely about getting a man to invest in them and their children. Nesting basically. For the most part sex is secondary, or something to help them secure what they want.

Once a woman has got the man and the children, it takes a lot of desire and effort to keep the urge (and the figure) for sex. In fact where there are competing interests on her time, sex will typically take a back seat.

Ask any of the married women here if sex got more vigourous or frequent after the advent of a child, talkless children. Don't get me wrong, it can still hit the heights and there can still be frenzied bouts.

But it's not like a plane on a 10'000 mile journey, taking off, climbing to 38'000 feet, and then crusing at the altitude until just before landing. Any man that thinks that's how his sex life will play out over the course of his marriage needs an ice dousing and a slap with a wet fish to sharply reset his expectations.

Lots of things can help sha!


TV

baralatie: here you guys get it wrong.test drive does not mean sexual needs met!many complaints come from those who indeed had test drives.intimacy in the marital I statehood.. is a totally different set up. it is not premarital.overture,not a one night stand. what you seek comes attached to a human being who faces other value which affect marital Intimacy and this is what pawns out in many homes

coogar: i don't understand what you are saying....

baralatie: let me make it plain
1.premarital.sex does not mean sexual satisfaction when eventually one gets married.
2.the marital institution sees sex differently.it is not the same way you share intimacy in one night stands,or with girlfriends.
3.the parts used for intimacy are directly connected to a complete person with feelings,values etc and these build pressure.
4.not all imagined fantansies about she.x is wholly considered satisfying by the wives of some husbands.

coogar: says who?
if the premarital sex is crap, why marry the crappy partner in the first place? i would rather know what i am dealing with for the rest of my life rather than playing lottery with my future partner.

Coogar me old mucker, I'm afraid bro' Balaratie is pretty much spot on here. For the reasons as noted and the "female imperative"

coogar: maybe in nigeria....
the marital institution where i am at sees sex the way it is with girlfriends and whoever. my newlywed neighbours have been having noisy sex in their bedroom balcony all summer.

Not much difference between pre-marital and newlywed shaggin'. Especially if it's before kids and the marriage dynamic proper sets in.

coogar: then why marry such frigid women? that's exactly the point here, isn't it? if they had test-driven, both partners would have known the dos & don'ts. if things won't work out, let them go their separate ways. if my wife isn't satisfied with my cravings, she's in trouble.

Evenif you discard a GF after determining the coupling is not up to scratch, it does not follow that if it is, it will continue to remain so after marriage.

Shall we take this to the man cave? It's about time we touched on hypergamy and the feminine imperative in more detail. It's actually quite dangerous for men to marry wothout being fully aware of this.


TV

Kay17: Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

Kay17: YOU ARE THE ONE that holds those two conflicting positions and I was tryying to point that out to you!!

My position is clear. Your strategy seems to consist of misrepresernting it to make your case. For clarity, I restated it in my last post.

Kay17: And you have to stop this denial business, when a pregnancy endangers a woman's life the option is an abortion -- killing more or less.

Very, very poor Kay17.Lets look at this in more detail;

Firstly, I said we do not abort. That a life may be lost - and that that life may well be the childs - but we do not kill the child. It does not mean that we undertake an abortion.

Secondly, God is good and great (that is really fist though - you understand me ). The beauty of His creation - even in it's fallen state - is a wonder to behold. An unviable preganancy will normally terminate naturally if it is a danger to the mother, or even if conditions are not condusive. This will typically happen within the first trimester.

Thirdly, although term is typically 36-40 weeks babies can actually survive from about 20 weeks onwards. Not always and it's not that common. But it's becoming more frequent and as technology improves, much more likely

Fourthly, a mother who is not physically capable of carrying a child to term, should really think about not being pregnant in the first place.

Fifthly, do you know how many mothers would understand the sanctity of their childrens lives and reject your solution of "murder"?

And finally, you are trying to pivot your whole morally weak "abortion on demand" mantra on a situation that should rarely arise, and can be well managed without abortion.

Sans morals, absent arguement. Again I invite you to yield & repent !

Either way, please don;t feel you have to task yourself further if you have no new insight to add here.


TV

With the rising trend of wives naming their children after ex-lovers, I predict virgin wives becoming more popular among men !


TV

Morrin' Kay17,

you are not making any headway here. I nfact you are unpicking your own position !

First you claim I said this;

Kay17: Thank you for the understanding, however you undermine your own position that the right to life of the foetus is inalienable by asserting the mother's life over it. As i said earlier that the point of the right to life.

then in the very next sentence you claim I said the opposite?

Kay17: It is a dilemma for you to resolve, because my position already prioritises the mother over the foetus, so I don't suffer that dilemma. you on the other hand, say they are equal.

And here you just scattered the whole thing?

Kay17: You have to concede that the right to the foetus is not alienable, since in the special circumstances when the pregnancy endangers the mother, the foetus would be de-prioritised to the mother.

Surely saying "is not alienable" is the same as saying is inalienable". If you want to make my point for me, please, be my guest !

This sounds like you are either stuck, lost, or attempting to use sophistry to make your point. So for the last time;

The sanctity of human life applies to all humans without fear or favour. A baby is a human at inception. Where a pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother, we do all we can too keep both alive. We do not kill one in order to save the other. Yes, one may die, but we do not purposely kill anyone - geddit? Killing is never the answer to the dillema of death. I have no personal dillema, my position is clear.

And finally, rare instances such as the one we are discussing do not morally or intellectually lead one to conclude that women should have the right to kill thier unborn babies - under the guise of equality, rights and autonomy - at any time and for any reason.

Once again I offer terms .


TV

merieam16: Tell d guy 2 b matured its just a name

Men hey? Why the upset?

Just because everytime he calls his sons name he is reminded of the man that first shined, polished and buffed his wife's congo, the one who popped her cherry. The one who pillaged and plundered her virgin territory. Who plucked it like a guitar, flipped it up, turned it over, positioned it and turned it around. The striker who worked his way into her box and scored. Repeatedly! Header, back-heel, nutmeg and volley. The tap-in, long range thunderbolt, half-volley and penalty strike.

A permanent reminder of another player - who may have been better. Someone he'll suspect he's "substitute too" and not a "replacement for".

And he can't actually do anything to prove otherwise - this guy is immortalised and a legend - as his wife will always have this romanticised ideal of loffaboy in her head.

Such treachery - that's why he's refusing to play! Name change, transfer or substitution .


TV

001ng: I'm a happier Man now.

But the question is; are you a better man?

You've had a close - and welcome - escape, but there are almost certainly lessons for you to take away from that relationship.
Keep your game up to date. The one you currently have may seem happy now, but that could change and it doesn't mean she's the right one.
Be wise, look within yourself and focus on your current relationship

Meanwhile, regardless of what happened between you in the past, she is another mans wife. Keep off.


TV

Kay17: @TV01 I'm not trying to be sneaky, rather trying to admit you to my side.

I understand your side, but I also have a clear grasp of what the issues and principles are in this discussion. Your basic premise is; "a woman has the right to terminate the life of her unb0orn child at any time and for any reason". I disagree.

Further, trying to base that on the rare instances where being pregnant may jeopardise the life of the mother is, in my opinion, disingenious.

Kay17: Human rights are recognized for the sanctity of life and personhood, so such rights are inalienable especially for reasons like sacrifice. So if a foetus has a real right to life, it would be adverse to the mother's life also.

And I believe this sanctity of life and personhood is equally applicable to the unborn. And to deny them the same is to violate their "inalienable" rights.

Pregancy is not thrust upon a woman. A foetus is not a parasite, neither does it ask to be concieved.

Kay17: So one must admit that women just have a natural right which they can easily enforce over the foetus.

Both mother and child have "natural" rights and none have primacy over the other. Further, the mother has a duty of care for her unborn child as one entrusted with it's care and nurture and we all have that duty of care in defense of the defenseless.

Why are you even fighting for or championing rights if you would deny them to the most vulnerable amongst us?

Kay17: Besides the foetus is as much potential as egg and sperm. Nonetheless please see my arguments as being without malice or deceit.

Thankfully, this has already been debunked.
Nobody is claiming rights for the billions of spermatozoa that don't make it (losers !) or the unfertilised ova that are passed as waste.

Mon ami, you are astruggling

TV

Kay17: 1. You didn't contradict me regardless of how sketchy my argument was. So what I have said remains uncontroverted.

MrAnony1: How you can say that your argument is indisputably true without actually making an argument beats me.

Big belly laugh...early candidate for riposte of the year !


TV

Kay17: TV, I'm dwelling on the narrow cases - the special circumstances cases - the doctor does kill/murder/abort the child to rescue the mother and out of necessity. But you can't say it is not wilful. That's donkey talk.

No you are not dwelling on the narrow cases. Your position is "Abortion on demand - at any time and for any reason, under the rubric of autonomous bodily control and equal rights for women"

What you are attempting to do is qualify the whole based on sneakily worded outliers or cunningly framed exceptions. What I have adequately and repeatedly demonstrated is the inherent moral relativism and lack of real basis for, or content in your rather poorly presented "special pleading" ) !

Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey...

So yes I may be talking like an a55, but you are talking out of yours .


Yield...then repent!


TV

Kay17: My position has always been that the foetus is not a legal person. So does not have a superceding right over its mother.

...lol! You are now trying to hide behind "legalities". The law is not the source of morality in as much as it atttempts - often quite woefully - to codify it.

The law permits partial birth abortion - abortion at or near term of a perfectly viable baby. In your view "not a legal person". What morality or intelligence concludes that a human being has to be legally deemed so by others in order to be a person accorded the sanctity of life?

As MrAnony1 has pointed out, what if women were deemed legally (or culturally or religiously) less than men - or babies - would your "morality" readily accept the reversal of your position?

Kay17: Yours however is it has an equal right. Now in a special circumstance where the pregnancy is the cause of the mortal danger to the mother, you appear to believe that the doctor can abort the pregnancy but what amazes me is how a doctor aborts with a foresight of protecting the mother by removing a foetus, and you think it is not wilful. That should be murder in your language.

Please stop mis-ascribing things to me. I have not said abortion should be an option in any circumstance - although I have noted their will be some difficult choices, I repeat Killing is no the solution to the dillema of death.

I outlined clearly what I believed the course of action should be to afford the sanctity of life to both mother and child. Even if it meant a life was lost, it did not mean a life had to be taken.

You also note that these are "special cases". Why then do you insist on a blaket right to abortion on demand. Effectively making it no more than contraception?


TV


^{Do your "legally" derived morals and rights lead you to the intellectual conclusion that this is right? That this is not killing? Murder of the most vulnerable amongst us?}

Kay17: @TV01

Are you saying that there isn't any circumstance whereby a pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger?! And you are speaking as a medical expert?

It's been civil thus far, otherwise I wouldn't dignify this with a response. In response to your questions;

1. No. And not only did I not say that, I also stated exactly what shoul dbe done in such an instance.
2. Again no. Are you? Or where "the law" has been in view, have you spoken as a legal expert?

Kay17: My position has always been that a woman has a natural right to life over the foetus either when her life is at risk or not.

The sanctity of life is universal; and it is equally applicable to all.[/quote]For what reason does a "mother" have the right to life over her unborn child? And to the extent that she can willfully violate the sanctity of life of the foetus for just "any reason?" Do people that claim this really believe it?

Kay17: But you and TV01 share the belief that both the woman and the foetus have the equal right to life. So in a situation where the mother is at risk of death as a result of the pregnancy, a dilemma occurs - because both have equal rights to life - so to choose the mother the child (in your terms) would be murder of the child. To choose the child over the mother would be an evil. Yet the inconsistency remains both are supposed to have equal rights.

There is absolutely no inconsitency here. It is your framing of the issue that is designed to present a dillema where none exists. I repeat, nobody is willfully killed, even if there is the unavoidable loss of life.

There is sanctity of life - it applies to all. And even if there are instances where a life may be in jeopardy, it does not thereby follow, that the right to extinguish the life of an unborn child should be granted on demand for any reason. That is neither moral nor intellectual.


TV

^{**in the UK, there are approximately 200'00 abortions a year. 30% of all pregnancies are aborted. 91% are carried out under 13 weeks and 78% under 10 weeks. Only 1% are due to potential serious handicap to the baby. It's hard to estimate those due to rape or incest or due to danger to the mothers life, what is clear is that abortion has become defacto contraception - especially when you consider the number of women having multiple abortions. Many in the same year**}

An0nimus:

what happened to this thread?

Nothing. I'ts a guy thread. We get to do our own thing and reconvene as and when suits. We pick up right were we left off; it's banter, jocularity and lots of situational advice.

Well done the Gunners and congrats to all Gooners. Nothing for 9 years and then 2 in 9 weeks. May your trophies come like buses.


TV

^{**whats up house**}

MrAnony1: [size=18pt]Death can never be the resolution to avoiding the dilemma of death.[/size] - TV01
Very well said. This ought to be framed and hung in the sitting room.

Thank you. It may well read better if "killing" or "murder" replace the first "death".

I wonder how far and with what arguments pedople will go in order to justify on demand abortion in the name of autonomy, rights and equality?

TV

KAYD007: 1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers

2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.

3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.

4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.

5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.

6) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom

We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life

No one is saying non-believers cannot have a sense of morality or code of ethics. Simply put, without God, there can be no absolute or objective morality. Without God, morality is actually pointless.


TV

KAYD007: Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources.

And you can confiently say this because

KAYD007: If a modern human were to stone to death an adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

And how do you know that we do not follow are texts to the letter. You've already demonstrated your ignorance by claiming stoning as the prescribed sanction for juvenile delinquency?

KAYD007: determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Nope, I discard nothing from the scriptures. Does that make me insane as you declared in your first post on this thread?

KAYD007: Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source,

So, we intuitively know right from wrong and intuitively deny morals have a divine source? That must mean that belief in God is the source of all mens ills?

KAYD007: we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

It would be interesting if you could provide proof of a perfect morality amongst those that do not believe in God, along with proof that it is also absolute - not arbitrary like Gods morality.

TV