₦airaland Forum

7842I: Enugu deserves the best, they got it in Chume

Well, y'all deserve chume. As to whether he's the best, that's clearly debatable.

As to this issue though, others have already pointed all this out peobably, but I like to indulge myself.

Government works for you, not the other way round. Something most sheeple clearly seem unable to grasp. For some reason they need someone to blindly worship.

Just because someone works for you, contrary to general opinion in these parts as well, that does not make him your slave. (The way we treat employees *smh*, yes, it's downright slavery in some cases)

Think of it as hiring a professional. The pro could be "bigger" than you, some would even say by orders of magnitude, but he still works for you. He has a professional obligation to honor the job so long as he accepts it. In this case, he even campaigned for it.

The people of enugu hired him to do a job, yet he breaks of communication for months, also neglecting to tell them about a condition which could affect his capacity to do the job.

That's rude and unprofessional. Would you tolerate that from say your lawyer, or your doctor, etc. What right do they have? Is it because they are "bigger" than you? Etc etc

Reyginus: That's a lie. You and I know you're not any close.

I lol'd. And that your sig confuses me as well lol

Evil Brain: Nigeria is like a battered housewife. We keep going back to our abusers, we keep defending them. And as long as we continue, we'll keep getting pounded.

The saying is something like "a people get the government they deserve"

davidylan: If you are also conversant with the facts, you would also learn that 70-80% of kids raised in the church leave the church after high school. Hardly sounds like indoctrination no?

Like you are? Stating this without any back up? Where are your facts, hmm? You're telling me 70 to 80 of xtians switch religions, hmm? Did you even skim the link I posted?

Yosh! It's much better now, thanks for the wait.

Mr_Anony: Not at all. You just blabbed some unintelligible garb I that I don't understand. That's all really.

You didn't have a question, then why the question marks?

inurmind: You know you are right, I do seem annoying, but thats because I am concerned about the atheists here. Apparently you are the frontman of the atheists on nairaland, and I think you are leading them down a failed path.
Please do not think I am defending theists, I still find many things wrong with them, its just that I expect better from atheists.

Right now I am still busy, but by next week I will be able to concentrate on the religion section and address all the questions you have put before me, and even much more, a discussion I trust we will both learn a lot from.

We has a front man?

Mr_Anony: ^^^

Do you has a question for me? Be quick, my battery is about to die

xtians: well, it is xtianity that stands between anything goes of world domination intention of the atheist and their satanic supporter and right to worship God.

Really? What can we do to stop this??!

Note, whenever I use the word victims, I use it the way I described above (rights based)

striktlymi: Good morning wiegraf,



This is my point exactly! One's family and friends can be considered victims when their rights are infringed on, hence it won't be appropriate to rule them out completely.

What I was trying to say (perhaps needlessly) is of course you're very welcome to your opinion, but I remain thoroughly unconvinced in this situation.

I think you misunderstood my position on family/friends as victims, their rights in these matters hold as much weight as random person x's rights. And in this case, the family's rights are NOT being infringed on, it's the opposite.

So long as someone owes them nothing they have no say in a person's actions, non at all. Good intentions are no justification for impeding another's rights. Hitler had good intentions, so did bin laden, etc.

Again, no one was born to slave for family. Like I pointed out, on a daily basis simpler infractions occur. For instance these same people who want to do the 'best' for family members force their daughters into marriages against their will, sometimes abusive marriages even. Or would insist you don't have a blood transfusion even if your life depended on it were they were JWs. They have no right, non at all, non at all.

striktlymi: You are still missing the point here...I have no ish categorizing alcohol and cigarettes as 'crimes' with victims but to use this as an argument for narcotics is inappropriate. The fact that studies seem to support the claim that some narcotics are less harmful than alcohol does not in anyway undermine the dangers inherent in the use of narcotics. Humans are social beings...it is impractical for the majority of us to live in isolation. If one uses narcotics and the harm comes to the individual alone, suggesting that the indivdual lives in isolation, then you would be right to say that the person is not harming anyone else.

Unlike bestiality it's not a case of two wrongs don't make a right, so alcohol is indeed a valid case study. It's not a case of alcohol is wrong but we allow it therefore we should allow other drugs, then having that argument rebuked on the basis that drugs are bad, just because we allow one form does not mean we should the others (like I did with meat consumption and bestiality). With drugs there are no victims involved, with bestiality there are.

striktlymi: But the truth is, those who prefer to use narcotics interact with the rest of humanity. Some would be doctors, students, lawyers, construction workers etc. A construction worker who uses narcotics is not only a danger to himself, he also is an active danger to his colleagues for the simple reason that when he is under the influence of narcotics, his senses are numb and in that state he is not suitable to use some delicate equipment which can cause bodily harm to others.

This changes little of what's already been said actually. They do interact with the rest of society, but they're under no obligation to indulge society so long as they're not inflicting harm on another's rights. In fact, like I've stated, society is inflicting harm on their own rights.

And note, for potential accidents; the regulations. Don't hire a junkie. In fact, set up laws like those with driving, like handling such equipment while under the influence could get you landed in prison, not just fired. Again, all one need do is look at how alcohol is managed.

striktlymi: Self-harm implies societal harm when the self-abused individual mingles with the society at large. It would be very inappropriate and reckless on the part of government to see this potential for societal harm and decide not to do anything about it. The restrictions we have today on narcotics is in my view appropriate. If an individual can use narcotics 'responsibly' it does not imply that another can do same.

Still the same response, so long as they pay taxes and infringe on no one else's rights they really don't owe society anything. Society shouldn't be dictating to them their purpose, ones purpose is one's personal right.

As for the red bit, the aim is not for government to do nothing, but for government to regulate thereby ensuring at least some sort of safety, like with gambling or alcohol.

striktlymi: You are right to say that the heavy restrictions on narcotics is caused because of fear...everyone should be afraid of what it can do to an individual. Forced prostitution today thrives mainly because of the inherent dangers of narcotics. Narcotics is used as a means to put these victims under 'control'. There have been cases where kidnapped victims were recovered only to find them in an irreparable state because of narcotics. This too is used to force some people into slavery. You really can't say that 'traffickers' would have gotten the same result if they had attempted the use of cigarettes and alcohol to control their victims. Hence my argument that same legal status for alcohol and narcotics is inappropriate and I bet that some individual rights can be given up in order to curb this menace.

Caused by irrational fear, not normal, healthy fear. Irrational fear is rarely good. Fear blinds people.

Now note, I am not against polygamy per se, I'm against the abuse of polygamy, which can be rather blatant. Even the fact that it usually is one way traffic, men with multiple spouses and not the other way round, points in that direction. I do not believe we've shown we can handle that issue maturely. If it can be shown that we could then I'll gladly get out of the way. With drugs though, again, I give you the case alcohol. Reasonably maintained, in fact with good success, yet less harmful drugs are treated with fear, counter productively. Why? For instance, if drugs were regulated then it would be much easier to track down the drugs used to put these victims under control, no?

Note also that forced se.x would go on sadly, drugs or no, as illicit drug use is not a vital part of the trade. A trade which probably wouldn't exist if there were a legal, well regulated sex industry. With people monitoring the 'pimps', looking out for the workers and making sure no abuse takes place, etc. Heck, they could even have unions. Yet there remain knee jerk reactions to these issues when they could be managed sensibly.


Continuing with fear, take rap.e. You have good numbers from the west about the number of victims, types, etc, and a fair deal of measures to tackle the problem honestly. These achieve fairly good results, even though of course there's always room for improvement. At the very least victims are damned well recognized.

Now switch to a conservative islamic country for example, you hear virtually nothing from their news, no proper research being done to address the problem. Silence. One would think perhaps they don't have problems, but if you looked properly you'd find out that's false. They simply cover $hit up, bury their heads in the sand and pretend it does not exist. Or in fact, promote the problem. (They have no problem putting up a holier than though face though, hypocrites.) Facing the problem is well, haram, and no one wants to go to (imaginary) hell. That's irrational fear right there causing terrible harm. Untold amounts of very real victims, their rights egregiously harmed, with no voice. This because society, friends and family included many times, brands the victims themselves as the perpetrators. This mostly out of fear - there are other reasons, but fear is a chief culprit.

Then of course, same sort of fear hinders addressing even victimless crimes rationally, like the simple issue of consensual premarital sex. Better yet, consensual sex between adulterers. They now somehow justify it as an offense that is punishable by stoning one to death. I don't know about you, but that's some stone age $hit to me. Preposterous and completely bat$hit insane over reaction to the issue. As inane a solution as one could possibly imagine, of course, reinforced by the good and irrational fear of what happens to one after one dies.

Drugs, for the most part, get the same type of treatment. A lot of over reacting due to fear. A willingness to pretend people don't take drugs despite clear evidence to the contrary. Most drug users will harm you or any other person in no way whatsoever, and indeed may even be more productive when under one influence or the other. Sure, there is potential for harm, but in many cases like the good doctor pointed out, horse riding is even more dangerous. That's some irrational fear right there. The result of this? Rather than our managing the situation reasonably like with alcohol, aiding one to identify potential problems and dealing with them effectively, we get some rather silly laws that actively restrict people's rights and we even expend valuable resources on them.

striktlymi: Well weigraf, consent does not give one the right to take the life of another. This really has nothing to do with personal morality. Taking the life of another is wrong and especially in the manner Armin took the life of his victim. He also realized this and was sorry for this crime. I won't dwell on this now cause it would be more appropriate to discuss this when we argue about euthanasia.

At least we agree that polygamy is not 'victim-less'.


Thanks!

Yes, euthenasia coming up.
We do recognize victims for polygamy, but we recognize different victims I believe.


Much better now, thanks for allowing for the edit!

Deep Sight: The fact thus remains that regardless of whether or not one wants to argue for the morality or immorality of any of these acts - one cannot argue that they are victimless.

I still disagree obviously, they are victimless in the way I describe above; they do not harm the rights of others. Also, we need to be weary of using subjective experiences to form laws. That's obviously a rather slippery slope.

Bestiality though, I agree, isn't victimless

striktlymi: Good morning wiegraf,

Saw the latest inclusion to your list. I will focus on the first and share my view on the second in a separate post.

For the purpose of our discuss, let's take gambling as the act of playing a game of chance which involves either a gain or loss of some form of economic resources to include money or property of which the outcome is uncertain. I know gambling can have other meanings which includes risk-taking in one's business endeavour but I will appreciate it if we can go with the definition I have provided in other to avoid complexities in our analysis.

I order to arrive at a logical conclusion on whether or not gambling is a 'victim-less crime', it is important to consider the various scenarios but for simplicity sake, I will limit these scenarios to just two with the hope that I will be able to cover the various aspects that will help us determine whether gambling is a 'victim-less crime' or not.

Scenario 1:

An individual gambler who is calculative in his approach to risk-taken in terms of the extent to which he is willing to commit an economic resource to each act of gambling. He is aware of the need to limit his losses and maximize his gains and no matter how much he stands to gain he treats gambling like a limited liability company i.e he limits the maximum exposure to the amount he has decided to 'invest' in gambling. For this individual he knows that there is a need to keep the chunk of his economic resource for himself and his family such that whatever he gains or loses should not have a material impact on the life style of himself and his family.

The above individual is a rational decision taker and he knows the extent to which he can gamble. In this scenario, the individual gambler is not hurting anyone by his actions and even if he loses all, his ability to take care of his family is not impaired in anyway. This I consider NOT to be a crime talk-less of it
having a victim.

Scenario 2:

This gambler is the direct opposite of his counterpart above. He acts irrationally when committing economic resources to each act of gambling. For him there is nothing like a maximum exposure. He believes in a 'sure deal' and is willing to give up all in order to take advantage of this 'sure deal'. He is oblivious to the fact that gambling derives its name and meaning because there is nothing like a 'sure deal'. He is willing to even bet his house, children's school fees, his wife etc for the sake of gambling.

Considering the second scenario, I will say that gambling is not so victim-less after all. But in the overall analysis, gambling in itself is not a crime and whether or not it becomes a crime has to do with the individual gambler. If you ask me whether it should be outlawed, I will say NO but there should be some form of regulation to protect the interest of the likely victims of the excesses of the irrational gambler.

This regulation is also important for the gambler himself because some persons do not play fair. There are cases where the outcome of an event only favours the owner and no matter what the gambler does, he possibly cannot win cause his chances of losing is always 1, instead of it being 0.5 for winning and 0.5 for losing.


Thank you!

This is, broadly speaking, the approach I would like taken for all victimless crimes. Regulation.

The irresponsible gambler for instance, frankly shouldn't be responsible for minors, that can be monitored. Like you note, by regulating gambling authorities can protect gamblers from the bookies, casinos and what not. Designated areas for casinos could be assigned so as to monitor activity better, etc. They could even generate revenue via taxing those involved, rather than waste money prosecuting petty offenders that harm no one. Revenue that would fund all these regulations, among many other things.

Narcotics do not have this for the most part. The result is shared needles and toxic cocktails which could kill the users. Poor education about dangers, possibly poor support structures for addicts (depends on the community, eg an addict in an islamic country is probably screwed), etc, etc.

Nepa, I can't do any work... Who's been to /islam recently btw, it's still really, really troubling... Cancer level of troubling... Ah, yes, my bahdt for senseless random.

@ubene

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seemed to be pushing for was an objective, transcendal morality. Be it from a god or no, yes? Virtually all theistic moral codes are of this nature (on paper, I may not have explained why I hold it's actually not so here in detail but if you want I'll post a link where I do that), and that's why I use them as an example to contrast against strictly secular morals, which are usually from the onset billed as subjective.

Like you noticed though (and it was worrying me as well), this is all off topic

Enigma: Actually, apart from him being a dunce it is also fair to accuse the Daddy G.O. of evangelical atheists of being a liar too.

After putting forward directed panspermia as a hypothesis for the origin of life on earth (which his undiscerning disciples lapped up naturally), he later denied that what he was doing was putting forward that hypothesis.


https://www.nairaland.com/1182831/interview-richard-dawkins-ben-stein/5#14141020

For all the talk you've made, is this all you have?


@logic, when y'all indulge a thread as baseless and asinine as that one for 15+ pages, please note the results.

There's the famous pew census of religiosity (too lazy to google) in the US. If you look at the numbers there you'll find that 50% of children from unaffiliated (not necessarily irreligious, just unaffiliated) homes go on to become affiliated, indicating freedom to choose.

Of course, not so (even remotely) for those from affiliated backgrounds. But because of the differences in overall population, the relatively small number of affiliated that become unaffiliated more then make up for the 50% of unaffiliated children that become affiliated. In fact, the converts from affiliated to unaffiliated more then double the population of the unaffiliated.

I would say the ideal balanced situation would be a 50/50, comprised of affiliated of all sorts vs the unafilliated. That's maybe just opinion though.


Edit; here's the link

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
It seems quite a lot of catholics ship out as well

^^

Don't misunderstand, the whole point is to debate this issues. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, but I remain unconvinced. Loved ones, hated ones, even society as a whole, cannot be considered victims until their rights have been affected imo.

With narcotics in particular, alcohol, like studies have pointed out, is rather dangerous. Easily one of the most dangerous by most measures to an individual (and 'society'?), yet it has been successfully regulated in a lot of the world. Same, in a manner, with cigarettes which are actively harmful (really, they should be outright illegal in most public settings...well, they are). And note again, there were no victims (as I defined the word, remember, conscious self harm does not count) in the cases of ecstasy and a few other lesser narcotics. Indeed the good doctor still holds his assertion that you're more likely to die from horse back riding than taking ecstasy.

When all these are considered, there really is no reason to ban most drugs other than fear. Fear is a silly thing to base your decisions, as we all know. Rational approach would be regulation, like that which has worked well in america after the folly that was prohibition. As it stands, we're hindering the rights of others because we don't like it, simply. That shouldn't stand imo.



With polygamy, my position is somewhat more nuanced. I see absolutely nothing wrong with on paper, at all. The jealousies and what not that oga deep sight mentions for instance, I regard as non issues. People cheat all the time, those issues remain one wife or ten. We also shouldn't be taking cues from the animal kingdom, for obvious reasons. We also have to consider that there are situations where polygamy has been indeed healthy and productive, even in the west with certain couples with open relationships. Really, I see no reason to impose our morals on others when there are no victims, I'd rather regulation. The tricky part with this case, and the burka as well, is consent.

Consider the grisly tale of the infamous german cannibal. I'll spare details for anyone who's not heard of the case before (for the rest of you, sorry for the small brain freeze you just experienced), but the case had a peculiar factor (among many others of course). The victim very clearly gave his consent. In fact he participated, he actually willingly attempted to eat bits of himself as well, before he was eventually (lovingly...) turned to suya. The cannibal actually interviewed other people interested in becoming dinner as well, amicably and what not. They willingly showed up after reading his ad online, but they all had second thoughts and backed out, no pressure involved. The only on to go through with it of course was our eventual bonkers hero victim. So, how was he a victim? Why should the cannibal be held accountable?

Eventually it was ruled that the victim was clearly bat $hit insane and was somewhat manipulated by the cannibal, therefore the cannibal was responsible. Personally, I disagree with this, the cannibal is clearly as crazy as the victim. I'm not convinced he was capable of manipulation per se, I mean, he failed with all the others who answered his advert. I do think he should remain locked though because all the psychology clearly points to the fact that if free, he will continue to look for another crazy willing to become dinner.

Regardless, my point is that as that court recognized, some people are simply not in the best situation to make decisions for themselves. Young women and girls, constantly manipulated into thinking what is more or else slavery in some of these situations is acceptable and indeed desirable, apply. Why would anyone willingly sell herself into slavery? There probably is something wrong somewhere. And some don't willingly get into these situations mind you, they are actively coerced by family and friends, the same group you consider victims in other situations, into these situation. The number of followers of a practice does not make it right, a la old school slavery. She was not born to slave for them, regardless of whatever they're silly traditions may espouse, it is an (gross) infringement of her rights.

So, yeah, basically, to protect the very real danger of producing victims we have keep these practices in check. And quite a lot of victims in these cases, with women actually perpetuating the problem. They usually grow up to become the oppressor of fellow women as well, as they know nothing else. A few are lucky to escape, this woman here being a notable example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

So, again, while there might seem to be nothing wrong with polygamy ostensibly, there are rather real dangers as far as rights are concerned. We are not mature enough to deal with this yet, imo. But ideally, eventually, I would say regulation of this, like any other marriage, will be the solution.



Sooo looong, so much time wasted. No time to edit and remove redundancy... When did I even type this? Gaddem. Anyways, I was also thinking about business monopolies.

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,

First of all, let's see how we have progressed so far:

1. Narcotics - Still under dispute

2. Bestiality - We agreed that this is a 'crime' with victims.

3. Blasphemy - Not sure of the conclusion here.

4. Polygamy (both ways) - Not sure of this too.

Since the bone of contention for now is (1) so I will focus on just that.

Agreed, I think that's how it stands atm.

Now, to the crux. We've done this already but let me expantiate. Who qualify as 'victims'? Friends and family do not imho.

Your mother wants you to be a doctor, you want to be an artist. So, does her wish override yours simply because she's family? It's your life, not hers. It's your decision, you are not mandated indulge peoples desires when you owe them nothing. They do not have that right. If it were so, I might as well say I'm disappointed you're an xtian, does that now make me a victim? That's my problem, certainly not yours. This applies to any sort of relationship, family, friends, enemies, etc. A rival at work gets a promotion thereby hurting my feelings, does that now make me a victim? Perhaps he should quit and recommend me for the position.

Now when your actions directly harm another or his rights, then we're talking. We now have a victim. There are probably other scenarios with victims but I think I'll leave it like this, for now...

striktlymi: Well wiegraf, there is no way a law enacted will satisfy the needs of everyone. Some trade-off is expected irrespective of the law. The bottom line for a society is the greater good and in determining this greater good it is expedient that a cost/benefit analysis be carried out. Now, a proper cost/benefit analysis need not be subjective as you suggested. An objective cost/benefit analysis is very possible. The point is, the disadvantages of allowing narcotics far outweighs the advantages for the society at large.

Let's take France as an example. The use of the burqa was banned for very good reasons though it impedes on some individual rights. However, in the overall analysis the benefits of using the burqa cannot measure with the disadvantages, hence the need for the ban. We really can't make everyone happy! Some individual rights MUST be sacrificed in some cases.

There is some truth here, but figuring out those cases cannot be done whimsically.

The burka is a complicated case, very much like polygamy actually. In fact in most ways, it's the same thing. Here's the thing with both cases; there are victims. Quite a few women don't have a say on whether they should wear it or not, they're forced to even if by just societal pressure (in some countries by law, of course). Same with polygamy.

Now if we were mature enough, both these situations should be legal, no problems (well, except security concerns as far as burkas in some places is concerned). But they've been abused so much so their illegal status in some countries is justified. They do lead to a sort of modern day slavery, robbing people of their rights, thus creating victims.

striktlymi: Though I don't smoke but I really do not have any beef against one who does. Note that smoking cigarettes is quite different from using narcotics like say cocaine. The use of cigarettes won't really affect an individual such that the individual would be moved to cause harm on another but cocaine on the other hand can lead one to harm others. We are actually talking about the person here and not the 'tool'.

But smoking actively harms non smokers minding their own business. In fact, it kills quite a few. If I went around knowingly giving people cancer with my cancer-ray-gun, like say some nuclear reactor, I'm sure society will make me pay one way or another. That is more or else what cigarette smokers in public do. I would say smoking isn't victimless as well

striktlymi: Um...Oga wiegraf you just brought out the link that proves my case. From the article, I got the following:

Nutt later apologized to to anyone offended by the article and to those who have lost loved ones to ecstasy. He said he had no intention of trivializing the dangers of the drug and that he only wanted to compare the risks.

With the above, do you still maintain that this is a "Victimless crime"? I hope you see the potential for harm?

For the reasons I noted above, yes.

Also, do note he's apologizing for his perceived insensitivity. He's not suggesting his statement was wrong, just that it was tactless to put it that way.

I believe he said something like there's more of a chance of one dying from horse back riding than from ecstasy. He still stands by that claim but acknowledges its insensitivity. No matter how few, loved ones still died, and his statement could come across as trivializing the issue to some.



Oh, yeah, thanks! I'll be back for the gambling post as well your response to this soon. It looks juicy at first glance

This is from a book I've been reading...So not quotes from a real life atheist, but they will do, I think...

SPOILERS, IF YOU INTEND TO READ FIRST LAW FROM ABERCOMBRIE, IGNORE THIS POST

Convo for context,

"He slapped a hand down on Temple’s shoulder and Temple twitched, heard a squeal and turned just in time to see an old woman kicked from the precipice.
‘Oh God.’
‘Exactly what I mean!’ Cosca slapped him on the shoulder again. ‘But if there is a God, why in all these years has He not raised a hand to stop me?’
‘Perhaps we are His hand,’ rumbled Jubair, who had stepped from a doorway wiping blood from his sword with a cloth. ‘His ways are mysterious.’
Cosca snorted. ‘A whor3 with a veil is mysterious. God’s ways appear to be . . . insane.’"

.......................................

In the context of the post about prayer above..

"‘Prayer is arrogance,’ intoned Jubair. ‘The hope of man to change the will of God. But God’s plan is set and His words already spoken.’"

..............................................

"Ashjid stood in the midst, eyes bulging with fervour, sinewy arms stretched up to the pouring heavens, the Fellowship’s idiot kneeling at his feet, the whole like a sculpture of some martyred Prophet. ‘There is no running from the sky!’ he was shrieking, finger outstretched. ‘There is no hiding from God! God is always watching!’
It seemed to Temple he was that most dangerous kind of priest – one who really believes. ‘Have you ever noticed that God is wonderful at watching,’ he called, ‘but quite poor when it comes to helping out?’"


Note, Ashjid was the only one that died in that scene. Not sure why god chose to kill only him, the only believer present no less..
...............................................

Jubair solemnly nodded. ‘He is a terrible and a merciless God and all things must bend to His design.’

PS: this Jubair guy was awesome throughout the book, dispatching god's will relish
...............................................

If there was a God, the world seemed exactly the way it would be if there wasn’t one.

onetrack: The Quran does not say what women will get in paradise. People can only guess. However, the hadiths do say that men will get 72 transparent virgins (meaning that you can even see the marrow in their bones), and another hadith says that the virgins are 25 meters tall. In any case Muhammad said that 999 out of every 1000 people will go to hell anyway.

This makes sense, you have to consider the logistics of giving everyone they're own planet with mansions, virginns etc. That's probably why the illogical laws to get to heaven

ooman: Pls dont let us fight.

I am sorry,i am the cause of the strife btw wiegraf and Billyonaire.

Not sure if troll but...

Nobody's fighting.
I had no idea you were on this thread.

Billyonaire: Congratulations, you have been promoted to Kindergarten cos of an IQ less than 17% of a 2yrs old.

I'd probably be more worried if you thought me intelligent actually, my good pig in sheep skin. You've displayed rather little of that, thus your opinions on the issue are suspect.

For instance, you don't seem to even know what IQ means, talk less of recognizing it. You probably mean to say I've displayed the emotional maturity (or something similar) of a 2yr, not IQ. There's nothing low IQ about my comments, in fact they may be just out of the reach of your comprehensive abilities, but they are unquestionably childish. There are various types of intelligences, IQ is just one of them. Only the ignorant or mor.ons cannot tell the difference.

And I believe you mean to say I've been demoted good ser, not promoted. Similar to when sheeple toss their brains out the window as soon as the word 'god' is mentioned. A gaffe like this doesn't speak well of your intelligence. Note, you aren't sheeple so you're not tossing out your reasoning skills like they do, this is probably you at your smartest. You could, however, mean to say my IQ was even less than 17 earlier on, so I'm not certain it was another blunder.


So, what am I having for breakfast? You'll be here soon abi? In about an hour abeg, I'll set up some room for you. I would also, of course, enjoy some of that vodka and weed mentioned, along with whatever secret ingredient you're hiding. This combo doesn't explain schizophrenia as bad as yours, that's clear as daylight for all to see. Please bring some along.

davidylan: The problem however is that atheists and gnostics like you have consistently used this trick to hide the fact that you really have no alternative explanation to how the first life form appeared outside of the God hypothesis.

Wow..just..wow

heheheheh. Really, what type of scientist are you?

inspiredbyGOD:.:
@Billyonaire, don't you feel that Wiegraf has been a pain in ur b.utt? Why don't you make his brain explode or possess his body and throw him into a lagoon or something like that?
Oh wait, you can't do that, you must just have been spewing the amala + rice that you ate.

inspiredbyGOD:.:
Don't bring Jesus into this. He asked you questions and instead of giving him answers, you were busy flexing ur E-muscles. And ummm, why is my moniker a lie and yours isn't?

Look at what you did, billy-goat-naire, you've made a theist appear reasonable. On the other topic you have around here, you even made a muslim look good. Are you happy with yourself now? At least this theist asked a question no atheist would ask, as the answer would appear obvious to any of us, thereby proving our supeririar logicah reasoning skills. So, to answer the bold @inspired, it's because he's a billionare in zimbawean currency. You could check if you're a billionaire in ZWD as well by going to... would you look at that, the currency has been suspended. Anyhoo, the rate used to be 1USD = 80,000 – 300,000,000,000,000 ZWD. Not saying your moniker is a lie mind you, just showing you how his isn't.

Yes, I don't particularly consider you a theist per se, hence my need to separate you from the average theist. I think of you as something else trying to fleece sheeple. Can't say you're a wolf in sheep skin though, the pic below would better describe how I see you. Consider this is going by your terms, ie, assuming I'm a goat, so there are goats in this hypothetical universe we're using for analogies. There are wolves as well, and sheeple are sheep, etc. The second pic demonstrates what I think your objectives are.

So, back to my questions. A small demonstration of your awesome surely cannot hurt, no? You know, like tell me what am I thinking of right now? Or melt my brains so I 'back off'. Or tell me what I'll be having for breakfast tomorrow, you're always welcome to teleport and observe. You can pick the location of course.

prairie: I already did jamb so these jamb questions you are asking me are just not for me, lol @ do i know what sarcasm means....... JESUS is waiting for u with open arms, harden not your heart

Heheheheh

Yes, perhaps stick to what you know, like saying the bolded (though it's misguided). Leave the JAMB sessions to others.

Kudos

prairie: your sarcasm is so much synonymous to the sahara, y not get back to the ish at hand

Do you know what 'sarcasm' means? As for getting back to the issue at hand, do you require a lecture on hypocrisy as well?

prairie: did u have to reply me ni? Abi I cant comment on nl again?

did u have to reply me ni? Abi I cant comment on nl again?

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,



Your Oxymoron is thought provoking...knowledge is indeed power as they say! A good argument for the need to be learned is breaking off the shackles of helplessness. So if one is learned and at the same time unable to help himself then that individual is in a sorry state and Wole Soyinka would be vindicated when he said: 'The man died!!!".

One can't answer the question you asked with a simple 'yes' or 'no'. The variables you have there are highly subjective and each can fall prey to individual opinion. The questions that would come up would be:

a) How can one who is learned and helpless at the same time be productive in the society? What kind of helplessness?...does this helplessness has anything to do with the individual's mentality?...so many questions I tell you.

b) Is there a link between culture and a society's development?...if there is, can this be measured objectively? Do developed countries share a similar culture? can culture be divided into that of the black man and that of the white? Is the culture of say, a Japanese man the same as that of an English man or at best are they similar?

c) You and I know too well how subjective morality is and the challenges it poses so I won't dwell on this.



No P bro!


Thanks!

You maybe mistake the term 'learned helplessness". I'll get back to this later brah. In the meantime, I choose 'wiki'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness

wiki: Learned helplessness is the condition of a human or animal that has learned to behave helplessly, failing to respond even though there are opportunities for it to help itself by avoiding unpleasant circumstances or by gaining positive rewards. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation.[1] Organisms which have been ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of their behavior are defined as having acquired learned helplessness.

prairie: phew! Some people are pissed! U go fear venting

And theeeeennnnnnnn....

davidylan: wiegraf obviously has significant anger issues as he has consistently demonstrated an inability to post without thrashing around in a meaningless show of frustration.

And what does that have to do with this issue, oh great eediot, face the issues rather than you constant need to deflect. You spent how many 4king pages talking about genetics?! Wtf does that have to do with this op ffs??! Then you look us in the eye and claim atheists only show up to derail and spread bile? And accuse me of having anger issues. You 4tard, do you have any idea how hypocritical your very existence is? If you have no problem with being a hypocrite though, you're fine.

davidylan: but somehow religion should?

No, but you claim you do. Don't be a 4king eediot, "god did it" is your very bestesetest thing to say. Or you never noticed?

davidylan: This is weak. Black atheists have failed in EVERY BLACK NATION ON EARTH... why? Why are the white and asian atheists more successful than you who spend your time spewing ill-informed verbiage on the web? Of course i was only indulging both kmcutez and muskeetoo.
Interesting that you mention the jews... they have been successful as minorities in Nazi Germany (they were responsible for the German submarine technology and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons), in arab countries, in Russia, the USA and in Israel... no excuses of failing in some places and succeeding in others. The problem isnt really atheism failing... black atheists are just fair and square inferior to white and asian atheists and that is FACT.

The op has been indulging your biology nonsense for how many pages now? Again, it's a noob mistake. I fail to see where you were indulging anyone here, it's been the very opposite. I tire of it hence my need to shut your ridiculousness up atm. Really...

So, again, note my great willfully blind, how they were not successful for a very large part of their history, like I clearly stated. They were utter failures even, in case you haven't noticed. They somehow managed to cling on and attain the success they now enjoy. But to say they have always been successful, and across the board even, is PATENTLY FALSE.

As for your silly fact, really? How many black atheists do you know? Perhaps our lack of such thinkers, atheists and objective thinkers who don't worship 'god of the gaps' like you do, could explain the conspicuous dearth of black nobel prize winners in the sciences and our general backwardness in that area, hmmm? Perhaps our culture, motivated by our blind love of the slave religions, something the slave masters themselves don't do much anymore no less, discourages that sort of thinking, hmm? Just a thought

davidylan: Really? America is still a major christian nation... it is today the most powerful nation on earth. Religion hasnt failed... the black man has.

Yes, and it is the most powerful nation on earth because of xtian values, not the conscious efforts of its founders to separate church and state, like you've so brilliantly demonstrated, contrary to history of course.

davidylan: this is disingenous nonsense. Secular values are responsible for America's greatness? Do you even live here?
So wait... now you say that even if those scientific methods and societal values responsible for the success america enjoys today werent atheistic they were not religious? lol you can only do so many flipflops to desperately try to make sure religion gets no credit for anything.

Errm, this is frankly, stoopid. Do you hear me talking up atheistic values? I did mention there is no such thing, or can you not read? What I am talking up are SECULAR values, unquestionably superior to the religious nonsense you claim is free of any of the blame. And to compound on that foo.lishness you want to somehow imply religious values are responsible for america's success...

davidylan: At least you admit that many many of the scientific inventions of today were invented by christians and sometimes comissioned by the church... but somehow it doesnt matter? What if the religious were as backward as you claim? where would the curious get the tools (developed by christians as you admit) to find solutions to questions?

Try to keep up (hard, I know, when so slavish). It's all about objectives, see, and unseen consequences.

Let's consider muslims, they craved success and what not during their golden era, and indeed used the sciences to achieve quite a lot. Eventually, quite a few heresies come to light, questioning the koran and its supposedly immutable truths. What happens next? They lock free enquiry away in a locker and toss out the keys, we now have today's situation with their general backwardness as far as science is concerned. Science was a tool to confirm the greatness of their religion, that's all. They had no real interest in science per se, that wasn't their objective, the good stuff gleaned from that period were bonuses, certainly not main meat. Same with your xtianity, my good eediot. The side effects of their attempts to probably print out a lot more propaganda to continue continue to breed sheeple was free enquiry unabated. That's why I used the word 'inadvertently' a few times.

This happens all the time, my good scientist. I would have thought you would have noticed, hmmm? For instance, mastah biologist, how were antibiotics discovered again?

davidylan: The rest of the unintelligent hubris you wrote here was just too tedious to take apart. Please have a seat... its hard to make sense when your main goal is to be offensive.

In other words, my great eediot, you have nothing of value to add, except of course continuing your blind, hate filled tirade against atheists. Yes? I will have to look up my dictionary to figure out a suitable word to describe your folly, hypocrite is far too forgiving. Again, wtf did you jump in here to waste pages talking about biology in a thread about social conditions? I've asked you this how many times now 4k...

davidylan: i agree, he learned the atheist MoA - NEVER EVER attempt to argue your point... keep yammering on about how much you hate the bible and god... it prevents you from having to defend a coherent position especially since it exposes your chronic dearth of any brain cells. Bravo.

Isn't that what you just did now? With this very post, oh great genius? Wtf is wrong with you?

And your silly reply just now to mus and the other poster, hmm? One of them said the one percent may have influenced usa, the other one said atheists probably have had no say in 9ja's policies, etc. Never did one say one was speaking for the other. Why does the notion of people thinking for themselves seem so alien to you? Not all of us are zombies, you know? What is so hard about understanding there isn't an atheist manifesto somewhere that has magical 'answers' to all the worlds problems? Like how many spoons of sugar should you have with your tea? Or how many hail marys should one say before taking a $hit?



Now, even if one person made both statements, has it occurred to you that (as has been pointed out, more or else) maybe, just maybe, it's possible for one percent to be able to affect changes in some situations but fail in others? Jews at some point in history managed to become so successful, despite their paltry numbers, it beggars belief. At other points in history or in other environments? Not so much.


Do we have enough data to gauge the merits of atheistic values? There is no such thing. Do we have enough to gauge the merits of having large atheist populations? No, not really, save maybe the last 100 years. As for secular values, we may have enough data, and I hope I don't have to point out the results to you. Ah, I do..

With religion, except for the last 100 years or so, there has never been a point in time when it was not a primary force in determining a society's value system and policies. It's had plenty time to show its influence and effects. It has failed, spectacularly.

You enjoy todays many advantages to yesteryears mostly because of secular values and the scientific method. Even if these are not atheistic, they certainly aren't religious. You can type your davidylan mostly because roughly 900 years ago some curious mind was able to come up with the printing press, from which point on books, and thereby knowledge, became a hell of a lot more accessible. Those who wanted to question rather than turn every single "I don't know" into "god did it", your very favorite pass time oh great scientist, now had better tools to investigate. They stopped turning to god for all the answers, even if inadvertently, and started taking care of $hit with their own power.

Our inventor might have even been commissioned by the church itself, but that doesn't matter. What matters is it gave the curious the tools with which to find solutions and question dogma and illogic, and indeed the church's doctrine was one of the first things immediately put under the radar. Enter protestants


You're not enjoying todays freedoms because of the efforts of religious inquisitors to burn anyone guilty of heresy at the stake. Inquisitors that were following religious doctrine, of course. Or because of authorities that arrested people who dared to suggest the earth was not the centre of the universe. Or because real scientists turned "I don't know" into "god did it". You're enjoying all these because of secular values and the scientific method. These have rather little to do with religion, in fact they tell religion to go 4k itself all the time. So, how does religion aid progress? It aids free enquiry, how? Like I've said, by burning people at the stake?

Religion may not be the only factor, but it's definitely a huge part of the problem. There's a reason the more successful societies keep relegating religion to the sidelines more and more

It's disingenuous to claim religion is faultless here, especially of the sort still practiced in africa. Same as it is for muslims to claim they're religion does not encourage violence.

davidylan: it doesnt appear atheism has been any better at improving Africa.

And atheism tried, when?

Glad to see you finally figured out what the topic is. Op did indulge you though, a noob mistake we all make. It took a while, but he learned within a thread, which is admirable.

musKeeto: Lolz... Notice how most of the religious were more concerned about the Op's religious views than the main topic? Hope no dey o...

Mocking em is yielding no fruit. At this rate, if we built some sort of time machine to take us back to Biblical times, these people won't return to the future with us...

Such ambitions... Good lucking, I certainly don't have your back ....

In a scenario that drastic, xtians would probably return despite their talk. Their leaders would find some verse which justifies their actions and they're societies would welcome them back with open arms. Not all sects of course, but most would.

Muslims on the other hand? Not so much. Even if one returned he'd be labeled a coward and all the other good stuff, basically ostracized. Muslims are the sheeple to put the rest to shame.

But yes, it was rather silly with how they refused to face the issue. Very much so.