₦airaland Forum

toba: You are making a whole lot of mistake. Logicboy wouldn't have won even though MMW claimed he was leading at some point. MMW wouldn't have ended the election without adding a caption like 'voting ends at so so and so time'

Actually, like your other accusations, you seem to be making stuff up. He specifically went against orders while lb was in the lead, yes or no? He suspended it by at least 48 hours no less, and when did your late rally occur?

Are you saying it would have happened sooner? You know this how? Do you have an alternate reality machine hidden somewhere, or even just plain old irrefutable logical evidence to back up your claims?

And you still have not explained how you know atheists would have rigged the election. I'd like empirical evidence for all your accusations as well if you will.

Affiliated: True. This Douglas Adams quote intrigues me

"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc., and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

But, but we are the centre of the universe. The cosmos was specially custom built for just us....

toba: You are wrong. There would have been rigging by the atheist. This happened in 2011 in other section

You just asserted we would rig, yes? And your evidence to support this is where?

I do know that mmw could have ended the election with lb in the lead, but he chose not to for whatever reasons, yes?

Mr_Anony: Justified by who?

By the law. Your fellow xtian bros. Common sense. Most importantly, separation of church and state, a concept completely beyond you

Mr_Anony: All you have to do now is tell me which part of imitating Christ involves suppressing of other religions

This isn't about you imitating what christ did. Did the man even exist? What do I or other non xtians care about 'imitating what christ would do' ffs? Typical can't get my head out of my a$$ selfishness from you. We do not care, that's your biz not ours, so long as you don't infringe on our rights. But here you are suggesting other ideologies be suppressed and yours be supported, that clearly IS infringing on our rights. Even worse, it's exactly what you claim lb would do. Wow

Mr_Anony: I have also seen logicboy support the ban on a little girl from using the word "God" in a poem she wrote to her grandfather. So yes I am quite sure that if Logicboy had the power, he would suppress religion....and that really bothers me for his sake.

Secondly, what we do not need is yet another ideology. there are too many of them around already. What we really need is more true followers of Christ. . . . . .and we need them desperately as a nation.

Xtian girl and the poem was justified

Then you state other ideologies are not needed, but yours needs more support.

You are literally suggesting to do what you insinuate lb is capable of doing, suppress other religions while supporting just yours.

Your antics on this thread has been up to speed, as silly as usual. I might be an a$$, but I don't pretend to be anything else. You, on the other hand...

greatgenius: there is no-thing as accidents.. everything is as a result of choice..btw asthma is jsut a name given to a particular disease. being aware of its name or not is irrelevant. diseases are caused as a result of stress, wrong thinking, wrong beliefs, fear etc.. disease that manifests in the outer, physical body has arisen from within the conscious or subconscious mind.they originate from within They are the effects of your thoughts and feelings... you attract what you vibrate towards...there are no accidents in the universe..



your mind or spirit is simply not only in your brain but also in every other cell of your body..now as far as mind and spiritt being the same thing most people are or get confused because they are trapped by partial viewpoints about what the mind is... everything is mind/spirit

Why oh why do you state this as fact?
I wish I were loaded enough to have oprah do my laundry, but I don't go about telling people she actually does. What gives?

All are welcome to their beliefs, but the way y'all present yours is puzzling. Combo that with a handle like yours and one thinks of one of those communes where kool aid could eventually get popular. Where are your facts?

That's not how it works
Is this why you're afraid of females
Lol, vagoos don't bite. Silly vi.rgin

greatgenius: what has nothing to do with anything? btw what choices led to that slap..

Non, you just got slapped, accident
You're sleeping, someone pours a bucket of water on you
You're unaware you have asthma and have never hear of or come across it, you have an attack and start to choke

Totally unexpected experiences or
Experiencing things you've never heard of for the first time.

greatgenius: your spirit is the mind. mind and spirit are the same thing..

Your definition of mind equals spirit, ok. Then your spirit is simply in your brain then.

greatgenius: lol that was funny but lets get serious here..i will repeat you cannot experience that which you do not believe in or chosen aat some level.. for you to get slapped randomly you would have to believe at some level that you could get slapped at random.. for what reason should you evn think or believe that anyone can come up to you and start slapping you? well if you believe that can happen you will eventually get what you wish for..

This has nothing to do with anything. Someone objectively slaps you, you've been slapped. Nothing you do can change that fact.

greatgenius: everything is of the mind.. mental or spiritual..

Everything you perceive is processed by your brain. But there are things that exist with or without your consciousness. Spirits are definitely not one of those, whatever spirits are. That is only in your brain.

pleep: No, you miss the point. All i am saying is that patriarchy was a balanced system that was not unfairly burdensome to women, I never said men were oppressed don't put words in my mouth.

The definition of the word oppressed is; "To keep from progressing though the use of severe and unjust use of force or authority." That would be to say that men were collectively using harsh authority to prevent women from living better lives, this is silly because the wellbeing of both males and females has always been intertwined. None can progress without the other. To apply the word oppression to patriarchy is a blatant lie.

No that is the very definition of restriction, not oppression. I could spell this out to you guys a million times and you wouldn't understand, because you don't want to accept it. Half of it is because you don't want to look wrong, the other half is stupidity

Same old nonsense. Pleep-kun, watch the way you post if you don't want to be belittled.

-Prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
-The state of being subject to such treatment or control.


You have claimed men have suffered as well, yes? That it all balances out. What you call suffer, restrictions, what not, is oppression you m.oron, regardless of how you color it. The mess you think rephrasing will actually mean anything? Or perhaps you have a special version of english you use? Just because some endured it with a smile does not change the nature of the situation. Only sociopaths would see it the way you do. Seriously, you come across as some sort of cheap imitation of eric cartman.

This post, again is sheer stoopidity, but you're welcome to your opinion. And it's just that, a really s.hitty opinion which has no basis in fact or common sense. Equating restriction to oppression.. Did they have a say in framing this restrictions or not you imbe.cile? I would suppose that qualifies as severe and unjust force, no? Or you think they could have just had their way without repercussions of all sorts, hmm? You think they've not been subjected noted and one-sided cruelty through the ages, hmm? You may be in dire need of some emasculating in order to put some sense into that rock you have for a brain.

The rest is your usual nonsense. Stick to bieber for now. I'm off.

@pleep, you still miss the point. Discrimination is always oppression, regardless of circumstance. A nobel prize who couldn't get a job as a professor for instance, because she was female (maria mayer). Regardless of how you spin it, ultimately they did not have a say, that is what matters most.

Men oppressed? They could always go home and bully their wives, through antiquity. Sacrifices? Both sides sacrificed so that is moot. Yet, women have been more or else property, through greece to just maybe 100 years ago or so. And again, they were neither children nor inferior (except of course athletically).

Whether they claim to be happy, perceive themselves as being protected etc, moot. They had no say in the issue. That is the very definition of oppression. If it was men doing the oppressing, then the question of who was more oppressed is clear, no? This is fairly simple

greatgenius: lol funny but
1. if he does you would not be able to see him.
2.you will not see him becuase first of your beliefs says that phenamnon like such do not exist..you cannot experience what you do not BELIEVE IN..

If someone came up and slapped you, you might not believe it just happened but I'm pretty sure you'd experience it. So what are you on about?

Perhaps people experience it because they want to believe it occurs, in other words, it's all in their heads, hmmm? But why should I have to point this out?

Martian: I'm sitting on my porcelain throne right now and taking a sh:t. I think this will be a good time for you to die, think about my bathroom and appear right in front of me. You claim you can do it, so go ahead and die.

I can't possibly top this...
Damn it

pleep: There is a very very important distinction between the word restrict and the word oppress, oppression implies not having the 'victims' best interests at heart, while restriction is a more broad term. If you have kids, im sure you restrict them because you love them, not because you hate them? That's why earlier i said when women were considered inferior, it was like a child to an adult not a human to an animal. People don't truely think children are inferior, they simply think they were less able than adults.

The same applied to women in the past. During slavery in the 1820's the black slaves were oppressed while the white female plantation wives were restricted, they couldn't vote, but were probably the happiest and most pampered people in the whole nation. Words have power, feminists have been twisting words to fit their agenda since the movements inception.

Let a feminist tell history the plantation wives had it harder, or just as hard as the slaves in the field. "Slaves got to vote before women!"

I'm sorry i refuse to be brainwashed by feminism like you guys have.

This is still pure nonsense. They were not children. At that stage you're clearly infringing on rights, and that is oppression/discrimination. They never should have had the right to 'restrict' (ugh, call it what it is) them in the first place, at all. Was the favor returned? Casuistry or sophistry, not sure what to call this. For instance 'less able' is now not equal to 'inferior'? *smh*

Again, you're welcome to your opinions, but wow.

Martian: You should get together with Buzugee.

I was thinking something similar. I think I need madness to counter madness. Buzugee might be the man for the job

Edit: actually highyo may be better suited

pleep: [size=100pt] ?[/size] dafuq do jews have to do with aything. So I want to exterminate all women now? You are one crazy mangina

You're dumber than I thought you were, an impressive feat. Read this s-l-o-w-l-y

To tell your puny little brain what you're supporting is alright you replace the word "oppress" with "restrict", thereby dealing with your guilt and trying to sell it as somehow more politically correct. Like (your probable hero) hitler et al did by replacing "genocide" with "final solution". Seems to me you know all too well what you're doing
, you're simply cowardly hiding behind logic, or rather, sophism.

It could be you're just really, really stoopid sheeple who cannot tell right from wrong though.

Do tell, what exactly do females do to you to warrant this sort of hate?

pleep: Men have never oppressed women in the west, what you see in history is restriction not oppression. It was balanced out via protection and provision.

Fellis you think this particular eediot is going through a phase?

Look at this nonsense...lol... *smh* will not suffice

pleep: ^listen monkeyboy number 2, this is not about "my case". I have been proving my case for the last 3 pages.

This is about the blatantly false allegation from fellis

Under the impression that there was "oppression" of women before feminism, what she said is the polar opposite of the truth. Im still laughing at how all you dudes popped up to defend her. Over-protective much?

Yes I know you don't think it "oppression", you think of it as a "restriction". How stoopid can you be? Wtf is wrong with you? Hitler called jews "the final problem", you know that, yes? You m.oron

Now, since you're apparently logical, don't dodge the issue, and show us your superior logical powah. How does this help your case?

It doesn't? So what have you been doing all day? Roasting ants with a magnifying glass while thinking about how you can get one over those damned manginas on the internets?

You may have some issues

To top it up, this is the best you could come up it..

Billyonaire: Congratulations for your ability to speak in tongues. Hallelujah. You asked a question, you got a response, you disbelieve without iota of alternative resolvability for your doubts. You left religion and got stucked in philosophy and logic even when you have unanswered questions that logic cant solve. I left religion, i moved on to logic, logic couldnt solve, I moved on to spiritism and mysticism and all my questions are answered. So this is what we experience on the other side. Hovering over the body, going to other planes and getting all answers.

Logic couldn't solve so you just make $hit up?

pleep: ^ I'm not going to argue circles with you little man. Is she wrong or not? Arguing with me is one thing, but you going to argue with a government happiness census?

.... about a subject you clearly know nothing about?

Big man, how does this help your case? I'm not the one who presented that finding, I'm wondering how your re.tarded a$$ thinks it helps your case.

This particular case of inaneness involves you claiming the situation has been fair, not that they've been happier you t.wat. I do recall going through a bit of pain to point out many women actively support the status quo, no? So how does this support your case?

Here, an article about the people who at one time polled themselves happiest the people on the planet. We've been usurped, but we'll forever undeniably be the kings of 'suffering and smiling'

www.guardian.co.uk/global/2011/jan/04/nigerians-top-optimism-poll

Sheeple are going to be sheeple. It is not exactly uncommon in history either. The sha in iran, napoleon's code in europe, frederic and his attempts to give plebs rights. Even good and proper slaves have been known to balk at attempts to free them.

So explain to me how this helps your case you imb.ecile. It looks to be doing the opposite from where I'm standing. Seems they're finally cognizant of the fact they've been shafted for a bit too long for now.

pleep: Shimexx, physics and all the other smart posters out there... do you see why i call these ppl dumb?

Fellis you stupid wench, you just made a post that said

That graph shows that is the complete opposite of the truth. Can you dumbasses stop talking air and admit that i have disproven almost every single thing you have posted on this topic?

But you've failed every single time. Would you like us to lie just for you?

This latest 'victory', supposing she's wrong, how does it help your sorry excuse of a case?

greatgenius: lol about soulmate Annony... but seriously though my job is not to convince but have people examine their limiting beliefs.. most people have things backwards..

Have what backwards? Truth, where? This soul and god you keep harping about as if they were established fact, when? You probably should define them properly

pleep: Its funny how the gender "happyness gap" only becomes an issue when mens happyness increases a hair above womens for the first time in human history

Not that I'm fully reading the link, but from what I can tell how does this help your case pleep-kun?

hisblud: read mazaje's posts where he emphatically stated that thoughts are non physical but under "the control of the brain". You can simply read mazaje's posts

Again, when was this established? Mazaje says so does not equal established fact.

In what ways physical anyways?

hisblud: well its established that tots are non physical. Its not the soul but the brain that is faulty!

When was it established that thoughts are non physical?

obadiah777: IF YOU SAY SO BRUV

Wise. Heathens gonna be heathens

All this talk about 'souls'. Well, it is a thread about souls I suppose, hence my holding back. Anyways, for all of you pushing souls, people with schizophrenia, which is faulty, their souls or brains?

obadiah777: STOP SNIFFING GLUE BRUV. YOU ARE STARTING TO TALK CRAZY

NEVAH

Point still stands though. 1 must exist without god, by extension 1 + 1 = 2, therefore 2 must exist, etc etc

obadiah777: IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT FRACTAL, BE MY GUEST BRUV. IT IS NUMEROLOGY. IS GOD SUBJECT TO NUMERICAL LAWS ? GOD CREATED NUMERICAL LAWS. ALL INTELLIGENCE IS FROM GOD.

Hmmmm

You come back to the knowledge problem.

Knowledge must exist independent of your god. Numbers included. Generally, abstraction of a sort, concepts also, etc.

There is one god. The number "1" must have existed before you could say there was one god

Your god exists. 'Existence' must have existed before your god, else how did it come into existence, etc...

obadiah777: ITS AN ORDER OF REPETITIONS TO WHICH THIS VERSE CAN ATTEST

ECCLESIASTES 1 VS 9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. <<< ORDER . SAY FOR EXAMPLE IN ANCIENT TIMES. THE ANCIENT BABYLONIAN EMPIRE WAS DESTROYED BY THE ANCIENT PERSIAN EMPIRE. IN OUR DAY AND TIME, THE MODERN BABYLONIAN EMPIRE ( USA ) WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN BY THE MODERN PERSIAN EMPIRE ( IRAN). ANOTHER EXAMPLE WILL BE, THE GENTILE EMPIRE ON EARTH WAS STARTED BY THE ANCIENT BABYLONIAN EMPIRE. AND HENCE THE GENTILE EMPIRE ON EARTH WILL BE ENDED BY THE MODERN BABYLONIAN EMPIRE. ITS AN ORDER TO EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE NUMBERS OF HIS DISCIPLES, THE TRIBES, ETC ETC. ITS ALL NUMEROLOGY

This looks like a fractal. Repeating

So, is god subject to numerical laws?


Oops, this is off topic. No vex