₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
He hasnt ooo.

I don't mind him, asking his questions rant or rave
but just first answer the three fringing questions,
then after that, the world is your oyster.

I think something prevents him from answering them.
To be honest, I observed him employing this same tactics he does especially with you.
You were the first person that came to my mind, prompting me to say to myself, that's what vaxx does with budaatum.
It was like de javu.

You havent

safe bro. I will find it hard to continue from here.

Muttleylaff. Can you honestly says i have not answer your question?

Can you honestly claim, i haven't so far answer your question from my response?

MuttleyLaff:
What is irrational decision in this kind of marriage?

same sex marriage is not traditional, it is modification that started gaining new ground 15 years ago. And hence needs to reflect in marriage definition and its scope. It shouldn't just be about men and men, or women to women. every other area of equality must be touched and accepted. Since the foundation is based on concent.

1 How, when and where have the western brethren and sisters being intellectually dishonest?

if you have carefully read my response, i have answer this question. Pls do once again.

2 What are the western brethren and sisters intellectualy dishonest of?

just as i said , this question was posted by me and answer by me. To do justice to it. is to read my answer and see if it is corresponding.

budaatum:
Muttley asked you numerous questions but in fashion with the thread, you've danced around without answering one and in your normal way even gone as far as claiming his questions are wrong without an explanation. I'm just delighted that you did it in this thread since it's the same rigid attitude of disregarding opposing views that you've stuck to from the first post in

This will really mean you are not reading my response, You just wish to drive the porcelain bus.

I will obliged you not to start looking for the speck in vaxx eye, rather focus your attention in removing the Planck you have within budaatum eye.

So far, i have enjoy peaceful and mature interaction with muttley


Safe.

MuttleyLaff:
Again, I reiterate, patience is the secret

And i said rational decision that is based on fact should be the key. We can't be intellectually dishonest like our western brethren.

budaatum:
Abba vaxx! You posted Jackie Chan's daughter wearing white kissing the woman she was going to marry, and now it is MuttleyLaff who should provide evidence that they agreed and that forever and ever, the court would agree too!

Na wa o!

it is not about the certificate and the white dreess. It is about if Nigeria should adopt it, and for us to agree on that. We need to discuss the nitty gritty of the topic beyond Jackie chan daughter same marriage certificate that was issued in Canada. Remember if Jackie daughter and her lesbian partner naturalised as a nigeria today, that certificate will not be recognised.

MuttleyLaff:
www.nairaland.com/attachments/8219375_50025822contentphoto1_jpeg40695ddeb5e311ba726d5d98d2a234e5
"[i]Should this kind of marriage be allowed in Nigeria.
The two above should help you remember how this kicked off with me asking the three questions because of yours

Your postulation so far was based solely on concent...and you were please that the state and the same sex in question agree to it by using their certificate and white dress as a validation ""Fine"" in which i postulate same thing can't happen in Nigeria because that move contradict the very notion of concent as stipulated under Nigeria contract of marriage. I even go ahead by stating that the countries validating this contracts are promoting beautiful lies. Because in actual sense, they are not protected by the benefit given to valid marriage contract. That is my basic explanation so far.

Are you sure I suggested anything

""You said what others do in their room should be part of my concern especially if what they do is evil"" i said that we constitute the breach of privacy, in so far what they are doing is not affecting public or enviroment affairs. What others do in their private confine is none of my business. It is against thier constitutional right for me to poke nose into theor private affairs that does not has anything to do with public or enviroment affairs.

Criminal penalties against homosexuality persisted in the UK until 2013
It is going to be a slow, long and winding road
and that's why I earlier mentioned that patience is the secret

i will rather say rational validation is the key, for us ( Nigeria) not to fall into the same dishonest lies like our western brethren, we need to see the flaws of this concent among the same sex marriage and correct it as posssible. A marriage between same sex marriage is not traditional and if same sex marriage must be included then the marriage definition must be changed.. As you may understand it, marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other. It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world. Even when children do not arrive, the differentiated twoness of marriage indicates its inherent structure.

Brother quit being truculent
and regardless of fact and/or or law, just simply answer the three questions

None of my words shows here i exhibit the phrase you are trying ti robbed me with. I want us to discuss the nitty gritty of the the concent you used up there. Answering your question isn't a solution to the problem. You know. But understanding the flaws that comes with your question. In a valid legal sense"" a marriage is a contract between two consented aduilts.(i.e) man and woman. Not man and man or woman and woman. Until that definition change. And gves room to other option which is not limited to gay/lesbianism alone. Or else the definition we be doing partiality. .

What are you on about?
Consent, especially, the two adults' consent, in the questions, is not at all complicated

when it is same sex, it become more complicated. The western nation that adopts it are aware, and that is the logic in making it a much more of ceremony marriage instead of a legitimate marriage that comes with benefit. It is a way of telling you to go ahead but don't ask for benefits. It is a private affairs .

The two consenting adults, mutually, permit the way they both behave towards each other in the faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour

As i said, what people do in their bedroom is not my business so far it is not affecting public and enviromental affairs.

MuttleyLaff:
Unlike you, I answered your questions
the least you could have done was to have the decency to answer my three questions,
then, after, if you like, maybe give a piece of your mind, rant or rave.

You should have business to what anybody is doing in his or her bedroom,
especially if what is done in his or her bedroom is evil,
is not an adult mutual consent,
and if it is detriment to another person, betrayal of another person, cheating on another person, and is harmful to an object or neighbour

The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Gay liberation and the decriminalisation of homosexuality was gradual.
Patience is the secret

i have taken you thru, why the concent assumption you raised is wrong. You can't justify concent in this case. For me to go ahead in answering your question the limitation therein should be address. Answering your question is not important more than the values your questions will be providing if it is answer. And to get to the values of your question, we need to evaluate the question itself. Your question foundation is faulty
.
You are suggesting that privacy should not be a human right and my right to privacy should be abolished at best.. .

This why some academia are advocating that the sanction for rights has to be rescinded in favour of moral and political philosophy. I.e. jurisprudence due to this kind of notion you brought forward.

Yes the journey of thousands miles begins with one step"" which i can say it was a single sperm cells that was before infant and baby before child, child before an adult.likewise the condition of gay and lesbianism is not matured to be term legal in Nigeria, factors are there to be consider . The first step that is necessary for this whole journey will be taken when Nigerians legal system gives a valid argument that applying the word "marriage" to some relationships and not to others is not unequal treatment, and thus not discrimination.

Unless you argue that unequal treatment of things that are not the same isn't automatically wrong to discriminate per se.

Bro this veiw should rather be given base on fact instead of law . The concent notion here will need a whole lot of rational and logical evidence to be given a notice

MuttleyLaff:
vaxx, now you'll have to answer my original three questions

Or are you against same sex relationships and/or marriage of this kind?
Are you in cahoot with pressplay411, that believes homosexuality hurts no one until your children decide to be homosexual
and the future is filled with a bunch of immoral, vain, unstable and self-centered adults who hate children?

.
You show me the evidence of certificate and white cloth evidence as the basis of concent right? You forgot that the certificate does not guaranty them the concent of the real couple in a legal sense. (I.e )like employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges, Per diem payment to spouse for civil service employees when relocating as it stipulated in canadian law that was influenced by british law which Nigeria also adopt.

So what is the essence of certificate that those not protect legal right for two concenting adult You see the beautiful lies the gays/lesbian supporting society are promoting. ""Fine you can practice your gay but no benefits for you " that is the unwritten silent statement of gay/lesbians approved nation. concent here had been breached.

I have no buisness to what anybody is doing in his or her bedroom. But I i am against illogical thought that willl end up not protecting human concent as it may be. It is crucial to notice that including gays/lesbianism marriage laws into Nigeria legal system will meaan the revision of marriage. In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed. In which case, what same-sex couples will have will not be the same as what differently sexed couples now have.

It will be called marriage, but it won't be marriage as we know it. It won't be "marriage equality it will be an entirely new thing. To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.

MuttleyLaff:
I insist we get our priorities right, first things first
Those three important questions should be answered first before you table your questions, your arguments or any other things.

Your questions is wrong, i have even try by bringing out the wrong assumptions/implication in it . That is the best i can do. Infact i have as well challenged you to correct my notions. Give me a valid evidence you raised a good question. I am asking for evidence to support the implied claims.

“Please offer evidence that consent is fact base”

“Please offer evidence that the concent is provable ”

"" please offer evidence that the concent will always be permitted in court of law regardless ""

This are my simple basic question.....

MuttleyLaff:
Let me summarise, I am not here to argue with you about fighting.

I posted three questions about a particular kind of marriage, that is between two consenting adults, in a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour to discuss on
but my observation shows that you strongly want to contrast this kind of marriage with fighting

Fair enough but I reiterate, pleavese answer the posed three questions outrightly first before dropping and slinging in distractions.
Can you kindly manage to answer the three questions first.

it will have been simple for me to answer, if the notion of your concept of concent is settled.

How do you expect me to answer a wrong question?

MuttleyLaff:
To start with I am not asking questions about fighting but talking about this kind of marriage that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour.

Please answer the questions outrightly first before dropping and slinging in distractions.

let me summarise our discussion so far..
1 Your basis is on concenting aduilt. You asserting the notion that it has no negative effect on the environment which is taking place and neither does it cost harm to the consenting adults.

2 This is your veiw, i let you know that the same veiw can also be used to invalidate the crime levelled against two mutual fighter. Infact in most countries there are legal forms of boxing or MMA style fighting. Football, rugby and hockey satisfy the rest of the blood-lust. What will you do about this? This is not distraction at all. It is even spicing your notion.

See bro, The concept of concent you are using here is bogus as it needs to address some basic question


1 what is the scope of concent

2 what is the extent of permissible concent

3 how are you going to prove concent.

the legality of lesbianism/gay is really more of a question of fact, not of law. Unless you have an answer to the questions i raised?.

MuttleyLaff:
Make a good and strong note of the manner the questions ended and tell if your argument is in tune with the question

then with that understanding mutual combat shouldn't be illegal if a bystander is not injured or property is not damaged.....

I ask again do you still suspect your response can be used to validate fighting between two concenting adult?

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Why shouldnt this kind of marriage, that is between two consenting adults, in a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour?
2/ What evil(s) has this kind of marriage, that is between two consenting adults, in a faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving, lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and is not harmful to an object or neighbour?
3/ What harm(s) has this kind of marriage between two consenting adults?

Why is fighting illegal, even if both opponents consent to it? Do you suspect the same argument you provide here can be used to invalidate the legality of making mutual combat a crime?


I think you should look at it base on fact rather than law....

Surprising, i never received this mention till this morning.

kkins25:
You're a funny man, accussing me of asking unscientific questions when you, sir, is making such a claim @bolded. Where is your scientific data contesting that God created the universe hmm?
I presume your concept of God for this debate is that of a pantheist. Can you say the same for abrahamic religions?

That is the mordern definition of God as used by human being and this those not exclude scientist as well. Whether the definition compliment scienctifc findings is another discussion entirely. My God concept here is based on the mordern definition and hence not limited to pantheist idea only.

People had always believed that the earth was flat

.Not true, as primitive as that time might be, some individual like Pythagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle were not subscribing to such idea. Aristotle an agnostic at best offer a very rational and logicsl explanation as to reasons the earth is round instead of flat..The Islamic scholars were also the first to develop the mathematics to derive the dimensions of the earth. It’s circumference, radius, ..etc... so your postulation isn't true.

it is rather aggressively ignorant of you, a scholar to not keep an open mind and to not bear in mind that science doesn't reveal all mysteries in one night. Time is of the essence.

i will argue that in the essence of revealing mysteries, science is even creating more. For example, how does liquid water existed in earth? We know scientifically that early in Earth’s history the sun would have been fainter than it is now, and wouldn’t have had a big enough power output to melt ice on Earth. But from geological evidence we know that there was liquid water at the surface of our planet between 3.8 and 2.4 billion years ago, when life evolved. There are a few theories floating around but no explanation just yet. Do you even know it take more genes to make tomato than human. Science is yet ti offer profound explanation for this. You see the problem here, the more science try to offer explanation to a particular mystery, the more science encounter another one. Science is s progressive work that will never finished so far humanity exist until the mystery decide to reveal itself.

We dont know? Are you speaking as a scientist or religious someone?

i am speaking as human who knows his or her limitation.

We already know of the GUT and TOE so it not about giving it a shoot. Thanks to science.

couldn't comprehend you here. An explanation will be fine.

From a scientific POV i dont think it would be wrong to ask about the big bang. Afterall science is all about answering the "How's" and "why's".

Are you suggesting that science can answer all question? If so provide a reliable evidence for this. And pls why questions is meaningless to science. Science works with how?

I Thank you for the quote. A perfect reply for @bolded above. We don't know yet doesn't mean God should come and complete the equation.

""We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer"" ― Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"quote.

i guess nobody knows it.

Beg your pardon but i dont see religion providing answers to the questions that has plaque humanity since when the H. sapien opened its eyes.
Vaax

Nobody knows everything, that is why it is mystery itself. This is what pope francis says, " If a person says without any doubt that he has found GOD, something is wrong. If one has an answer to all questions, GOD is not with that person. A Christian who has everything clear and certain will not find anything"" flawless evidence itself is an error, science and logic does not support it.

kkins25:
Why not. In btw wonder why Jackie chan kids are akward

So most of his children reallly are awkward?

Connoisseur:
Investors make money when they still their share of the business. Profits from the business only increases the value of their holdings.
OP's point is; the Fund(investors) holds 40% of the business which they can divest after a period say 5years and move on to fund other businesses.
Brilliant idea but needs a lot of fine-tuning.
Mention me if this gains traction.

why not develop packages then, just lift stocks. The more you invest, the more you return/shares.some people may want to invest more than 100k or less. Loj

budaatum:
So, much more than consensus, which simply means 'general agreement'!

That is the synonym of consensus. Science here emphasised on the quality and not just the quantity

budaatum:
You're sounding like if I can get all my friends and family and a few paid others to consent that my imaginary million pounds is real, the Ferrari salesperson would have to let me have one.

Surely I'll need more than numbers?

No, the unique idea here is to demonsrate in such a possible way your family and the few others can praticalise. What your family, the new car Ferrari dealer needs is the utility and value of your imaginary million pounds which we become the ability to buy the Ferrari car in its recognition as a widely accepted medium of exchange..


It isn't about quantity numbers, it is about numerous evidence. ( quality numbers)

budaatum:
Basic, yes. But inaccurate. Consensus has almost nothing to do with science. Everyone may even disagree with a scientific finding and it may still be valid, or invalid. That is the reason that the scientific method is not based on a vote but on "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".

Science is defined, in part, in terms of its utility. The utility of particular scientific models is dependent, in part, on the reliability of those models. Consensus improves the utility of models by reinforcing their perceived reliability and likewise Consensus in science allows the acceptance of a preponderance of evidence without proving that an idea is 100% true (since “proof” in science is fallacy on its own.
:

But I'm certain this is what you meant. You said pretty much the same thing in the last paragraph. Goes to show that the 'truth' can most certainly be, objective. And a subjective truth is whatever one may cook up in one's own head.

No, we human have a constraint will work with when it when it comes to science, we have a scienctifc method that address that, that was developed thru the subjective veiw of Aristotle. when it comes to general veiw, i personally used rigidity testing, i try as much as possible to put the statement into testing (checking for errors) and if it in allingness with my calculation, instinct and emotions. This appraoch may become objective tomorrow if i become an authority myself.

I'm still looking for a Ferrari salesperson who would accept the imaginary million pounds I've cooked up in my bank account in exchange for a real spanking brand new red Ferrari .

our current scientific method works with evidence not proof. If you can demonstrate that your imaginary millions pounds is indeed real by consensus approach. you should get your new Ferrari.

Consensus helps differentiate the observation of the natural world from miracle.

LoJ:
This is not ángel investing.

10 people offer 100k for the project. I am sure there are many here who can afford that without much worries.

That money is placed into a Trust / Fund. The fund manages the money and the contest in such a way that by financing one project they generate enough revenues to finance the next contest and projects.

So it is a social program but a constructive one, designed in a sustainable way. Of course the idea is opened to suggestions, Improvements.

Honestly, i am still trying to wrapped my head on such idea. We the people offering the 100k do it without expecting anything in return? We they get their invested capital back?

LoJ:
I do not understand.

i mean how will the angel investors get return from the business they fund? What will be their percentage ? The 40 percent right?

LoJ:
Hello to all,

For quite sometime I have been overwhelmed by the number of help requests I receive in my private messages. At the beginning I have tried to help but at some Point I began to wonder.

It is my belief that majority of people seeking help in this platform are scammers or unserious people. Still there are some who are genuine and it is not always easy to discriminate among them. I guess many here have made the same observation.

It could be a good idea to organize a contest every 2 years for the best start up project. The winner receives a financing of a million naira.

How to finance it? For the first year, 10 people give a 100k to a Moderator / Administrator. The money is kept into a Trust/Fund which will manage the interest of the Contest. At the end of each session, the selected project is financed but the Trust keeps 40% ownership of the project for 5 to 10 years. After that period the Trust pulls out its funds and the winner can continue with his project.

The proceeds from one project can help finance the next one. And the cycle goes.

This is a basic idea. The ultimate aim is to give a chance to serious people looking for an avenue to make it, while discouraging the scammers. It also gives an opportunity to those who wanna help (and they are many) to do so in a constructive manner.

If nairaland has a yearly party event or beauty contest, there should definitely be the possibility of having a start up contest too.

Let me know what you people Think.

Cc Seun, Lalasticlala, mynd44, HardMirror, Hahn, Johnydon22, Ifenes, Pastoraio.

Angel investor....


How will they share research and pool their their investment capital. No free launch bro.....

Popular Jackie Chan’s 19-year-old daughter Etta Ng Chok Lam in a recent Instagram post confirmed that she had married her long time Canadian girlfriend, Andi Autumn.

She posted a photo of herself and Andi on her personal Instagram account, both wearing white dresses and holding a marriage certificate dated November 8, 2018. She captioned the photo, “united by love and law, on our wedding day”.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/section-news.php?id=202649


Should this kind of marriage be accepted in Nigeria?

OkaNaUbe:
For those that grew up in or have visited the rural environment, this is natural refrigerator.

I remember, my grandmum had one beside her house and when the day was hot, I drank cold water from the pot. Just cover it to avoid dirt and other unwanted things from entering it. Behold, the native clay pot!

Did you use it? Have you ever drank from it? What do you call it in your language? Share your experiences.

You just made me remember my grandma, i lost her early this year. 102 by the way, She had this pot back then.. it is called ikoko Amu in Yoruba language

budaatum:
No argument here, though I struggle to comprehend. But it t sounds like a description of the scientific method I already alluded was one way the subjective is removed from the objective.

My explanation here is basic. I am only stating the rationality behind peer review which is to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Which is purely base on consensus decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the scienctifc field.

Let me do a vaxx on this, you tell me what you think:

The statement, 'gold is yellow' is subjective.

And it's value too is cooked up in the head, according to some.

Both the yellowish gold and valuable gold is both the decision made on consensus agreement. What men decide.


"

There is God o" is an objective statement?

Does the statement gives room for scrutiny, probing and evaluation base on consensus agreement? If so yes, if no, then it is not.

You and I both know people try to pass their subjectives off as objectives, but would you believe someone recently tried to use their own subjectives to prove to atheists that gods was created, and without even bothering to show that that which was claimed to be created actually exists? We all said he was tripping, but according to him, that was our subjective opinion, even though objective evidence exists to prove our point

There is lay down for objectivism to be meet according to science, there is scienctifc method, according to General veiw which are testability and falsifability. Does this people pass statement that meet the lay down for objectivism ? Or was it term personal due to the lack of law down procedure above .

That is your subjective opinion, vaxx. One made without regard to objective evidence. I call it, creating others in the image oneself is created in, and not realising that other people can possible be different to oneself.

look up, it is address.

Yes, the two words may overlap, for some, but it is possible for a person to know what is objective, and how it differs to what one cooks up in one's head! One just needs to try hard to remove the imperfections that create the error, by basically, opening one's eyes to the evidence before one.

it overlap when human lacks the technicality to evaluate them. (I.e) it both meet up with subjectivism and objectivism . I will say God existence meet up with this statement, i will also say love existence meet up with this statement. But when we can easily address and place value on our statement, it is important we objectify and subjectify our statement.

What you claim is impossible was cured by the taking up of mud, spitting on it and rubbing it in the eye. Then you shall see!

From an evolutionary biology perspective, emotions are the key to cohesion in society, human being are very much subjected to this....our observation will always have this to fight.

budaatum:
Lol! You saying vaxx and buda can agree on something they cook up in their heads and call it true because one of them has convinced the other? Yes, I agree they can do that. But getting others to agree with us that would take some doing, though the Emperor and his New Clothes suggest it might be possible to not have only deluded oneself but to delude others too.

I don't see how truth can depend on a subjective me and my gender cannot. By the reasoning I see here, buda can just chose a truth for the day and be a man on Monday and Thursday, and a woman every other day! And since the "rationale justifying the truth" could even be ridiculous, I wouldn't ever have to cut off my boobs or glue on a prick to make the switch.

Your "subjective truth" sounds like it's based on numbers. The more people agree with lies, the truer they become, sort of. I wonder what happens when a child speaks up and says the Emperor is clothesless? Child doesn't know what its talking about, perhaps?

Real life science is base on evidence gathered from experiment. it is when NUMEROUS supporting evidence support it that is labelled a theory ( thru peer review ) . The peer review purpose is to make the work consensus and valid. And there are laydown method for the experts to follow..

Gold is objectively a yellow, soft, chemically inert metal. But to say gold is valuable is a subjective view that we all share.(maybe we cook it up in our head anyway.

Statements of "is" are statements of the objective.
Statements of "ought" are statements of the subjective.

In practice, we all understand objective reality via our subjective impressions and interpretations. There is no way around this fact: we are all imperfect observers. In practice, the "two worlds" overlap.

HappyPagan:
For me, truth is objective. Never subjective. The problem is our 'experience' of the objective is merely subjective - you are just one instance in a world of many.

Most people rarely move beyond their 'knowledge zones'. Their feet rarely travel - life is a monotonous journey, a repetition of few tasks. Others read books that their minds far away - into the lives of others, into the past before they were, into the future through the minds of others.

The knowledge base grows, gaining one more clarity, detail and insight. It's my opinion that some objective truth MUST exist, and if it does, it exists beyond what we know... Maybe, it's this limit that makes us humans.

Maybe, the computers might do it. But would that be we, since we created them?

Are you advocating for radical honesty ? Well that is good by the way, but in all honesty society can't function that way.

honestly.....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Honesty.

As for me i choose being pragmatic that tends to satisfy curiosity rather than awaken or changing emotions.. imagine a Five-year old girl (presenting you her much-labored-over drawing): Do you like my butterfly?[You examine the drawing and discover that it looks like a rainbow colored ]

You (being honest): No. It looks like shit. Might not be impressive here.

It would have been acceptable to keep away your fact in this instance, maybe even effusively so.You: Wow! It’s so pretty! I love the colors![Your benevolent reply of it is fine may inspire the girl to become the next Frida Kahlo or Marc Chagall]. That is the philosophy behind religion. The priest and the scholars know the fact and yet compliment it with pragmatic thinking. Factual evidence is not immune from revision and change ( this is an objective truth which science operate with).


Ok , Look on to principle of charity too.

...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

HappyPagan:
Im dancing naked
Swinging my lala
Its Sinday
Time to go gaga

I no dey go church
But all the sermons dey reach my mansion
Church speakers loud pass my igbo,
All my windows dey receive the transmission

Islamization? Na dem dey colonise
Na church make NEPA bring transformer come my street
All the instrumentalists from my hood
If no be church, dem no go fit make beat...

Make I go find food out for belle
These my rhymes no dey give protein
But e go give your brain vitamin A
Make you start to dey see wella...

Rapperholic.....

SonsOfLiverpool:
Good, then you agree with me, even camera cannot be trusted with the truth hence every Criminal is first called a suspect.

If that cannot be trusted, imagine a phenomenon that cannot be observed with physical intelligence being portrayed as the truth.

There are no lies, there are no truths.

Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence. what we cannot reached is the absolute true as it is shrouded in mystery......


Lies can subjectively and objectively exist too

SonsOfLiverpool:
Where there is little or no evidence as in the case of God or no God, the right religion or the wrong one, etc, they are relative. Am not talking about fact base phenomenon like someone stealing while the camera caught him or her am talking about religious and philosophical truth.

Every religion claim to know truth and also claim others are wrong, they all claim this with uthmost certainty, deep within their hearts they all feel their own is the truth, can we blame them? Naaah

Everyone is so engulfed in their own head, their own truth seem to be the real deal. That's why I have that position.

footage camera will only be enough if it is completely and totally uninterrupted; that is, there are zero gaps and zero blind spots, otherwise a defense can be made that they put the item down in those gaps or blind spots. Mostly in this kind of incidence. What we have are approximation. Inteligent police officers and lawyers can train a criminal how to by pass it.

johnydon22:
Not knowing for truth to be binding it must be absolute.

And the very nature of truth suggests it is absolute or it isn't truth.

what is the very nature of truth?