I'm not on anyone's side here- I'm simply trying to clarify the definition of Nigerianness as outlined in this thread.

I completely understand, I personally don't have any bars set for “Naijaness” either but my post about Nene1 being not a “full blooded Nigerian” was to highlight the fact that anybody can set standards for something arbitrary. The standard I “set” was designed strictly for ironic purposes and in no way, shape or form: reflections of my own opinions.

There are other threads where Nigerians and AAs are having a go at it, with various people giving their views on each other. Difference of opinion is nothing new especially on NL.

I'm glad that there is such public discourse. However nene1's “opinions” aren't a form of “intellectual” discourse. It is based on an irrational hatred and prejudice for others. We needn't respect her opinions because we would never respect the opinions of someone who thought all black people were “evil”. We respect “reasons” because reasons are the only things that matter. Her reasons are simply inefficient and laughter worthy at best.

Nene1 is an attention LovePeddler. This wasn't a thread or topic about her ignorance. I'm out of here.

ummm let me see,  i will graduate from college at the end of this month to go to med school so that one i will go back to practice in africa. that's something we need. doctors, not people who will make half-caste children.

Graduate from college and go to medical school? B*tch you couldn't even make it into grammar school. If you are the type of slowpoke that is going to enlist into Nigeria's health care system then I see no future for our health care. We need less people like you with knives, patients, in foreign schools and more people like you serving in our nearest Mc Donald's.

by the way, what does this have to do with the topic? it's not as if you are doing anything meaningful for africa. but then you're not african, you're a half-caste.

The supreme IRONY of that statement. The Hausa people have had Arabic connections and Arabic blood flowing through their veins for centuries, the Ethiopians, the Somalians, and so many others have had multiple ethnicities including Jewish, Portuguese and other Europeans flowing through their veins. What you are claiming is that over 45 million people who have tended the lands, ploughed the fields, opened their shops, paid their taxes, raised their children, maintained their house holds, provided services, inherited property, survived the holocaust of colonialism and slavery, honoured their ancestors and heritage, won their independence are LESS African than YOU?

You an Americanized snob, living off the charity of the very white people you have the balls to insult,  You are so low on the radar of any Nigerian man. You epitomize what is wrong with the world. You are an intellectual midget not good enough to even be my house girl. I hope to the stars that you get "help".

We are all Nigerian women and last time I checked, people are allowed to have differences of opinion.

We are indeed allowed to have different opinions however those opinions can also be challenged. Even if we were playing by the rules you suggest nene1 has already decided to break them by hurling abuse at all mixed race people and all "black men" who decide to date, marry or have children with non-blacks.

So generalizing that all Nigerian women share nene1's views is completely off point.

I never did that, if you read all of my posts you'll know that I have not accused or generalized that all Nigerian women share nene1's views, stupidity, paranoia etc. I said that she is a rare exception and a cancer to our 21st civilization. She's just some Americanized slowpoke throwing out Americanisms like "Crabs in a bucket", "whitey lover", "colonial mentality" etc. She doesn't know any of us, she only knows that most of us do not agree with her rancid, pathetic, primitive opinions.

Trust me: she does not deserve you to be on her side, her side is an outdated, narcissistic, prejudice, miserable side, full of miserable people whom are hypocrites.

Nene1 you're only half Nigerian by blood and most of all completely Americanized. I could be using that as the reason for your stupidity however I'm not going to stoop to your level. You're not defending Nigerian women because NOBODY is insulting NIGERIAN women.

ONLY YOU have insulted Nigerian MEN by exclaiming that the ones who decide to date, marry, or have children with foreigners are some sort of "sell outs, or "garbage". Quite ironic because if I were to use that logic your own mother is a sell-out and piece of garbage. You think your daddies black foreign ass is enough to avoid the label? Simply put anybody can set ridiculous bars like you have. Luckily the world isn't based on how some Americanized tramp feels.

Nobody is here cursing black women, Nigerian women or even African women. However there are a list of morons with you as their leader who disgrace Nigerians. I suggest you all seek therapy or at least get hysterectomy's.

You keep saying what I'm saying is like "reading a book", and yet all it does is testify to how weak your own arguments are and own inability to retaliate without stupid statements like that. You absolutely have nothing “useful” to say, all you do is sling insults at mixed-race people like your ugly moronic, militant ass was crafted by God himself. You really do need to get the f**k off that pedestal because lowly Americanized bitches like you really aren't that high up on the list of social competence. I have no idea what kind of short books you've been reading but I know they supply those books to kids who ride on the "short yellow bus" to school.

I'll repeat: NOBODY on this thread has insulted Nigerian women. he only person who has insulted Nigerian women is your mother, because she felt the need to have a retard like you disgrace Nigerian women's names and honour due to lack of education, intelligence and logic. You are the only disgrace I see to Nigerian women, the only person I am ashamed of being linked to.

[quote="tpiah"]you're contradicting yourself.[/quote]

Please don't join nene1's team of retards. I suggest you read the topic thoroughly before striking again. You completely missed na2days point. I'll summarize it for you because I promote literacy so please also go do so for yourself (thoroughly) before you retort again.

The irony is that nene1 has set up several STRAWMEN arguments,

1) Nobody has insulted Nigerian women. The topic was about one Nigerian professing his like for white women, come on, who cares right?

2) Then nene1 comes in here and accuses those that do not share her sense of paranoia and stupidity as being sell outs when in fact she's just making very fallacious, pathetic arguments.

3) She starts to make it seem like we're some kind of "whitey" lovers because we don't want to curse at white people like she does. Well I'm sorry nene1 but I'm a little too mature to be slinging insults at a group of people I don't really know.

4) She's accusing the mixed race people of not being Nigerian enough and yet she's only half NIGERIAN herself and completely Americanized unlike SOME of the mixed race people she's insulting.

5) Some other idiots are acting like being with a white person is selling out, when in fact there are more factors that come into it than that.

6) She makes the fallacious assumption that mixed-race people have "less" intelligence and "pride" in their people than she does, when in fact all she's managed to do is drag every Nigerian woman down to a level (via association). I suggest the smart women distance themselves from her. She really is an idiot.

[quote="nene1"]ike i care what you think.[/quote]

Your emotional investment means nothing to me. Wow though, this must be the best you got. Poor grammar, childish retorts,  I guess all three of your brain cells must be in overdrive today.

[quote="nene1"]this post wasn't even to you.[/quote]

Doesn't matter, you have soiled the foundations of Nairaland and make me feel ashamed to share a heritage with you. You are a travesty, a slowpoke, a blight on what could be a nation of intellectual giants and at least those who are eager to learn. You are everything that has helped cripple us, prejudice, ignorance, misinformation, poor understanding and no willingness to change. I hope you really do contemplate a hysterectomy.

[quote="nene1"]i am happy that you are spending so much time and energy just responding to my post. damn you almost worte a book.[/quote]

You must read some really short books. I would gamble that you were in pre-school but something tells me you're just amazingly stupid.

[quote="nene1"]if you don't care what i think, why are you getting so heated b/c what a nobody like me said.[/quote]

Who told you that I'm angry? Another one of those oh-so-common nene1 assumptions eh? You "assume" too much and that's exactly what led me to roasting your dumb ass in the first place. At first I tried being patient and letting you express yourself with more class, tact, intelligence and (lord forbid) evidence for your reasons. However you didn't do any of that and instead started acting like a doting victim. The biggest emotion I get from you is sadness, sadness that somewhere in the world there's going to be a man who's actually going to breed with you and your kids will have YOU as an "intellectual" superior for 4 years before surpassing you. A lot can happen in 4 years,

[quote="nene1"]get some anger management.[/quote]

As soon as you get some therapy, a basic education in sociology and maybe a hysterectomy.

[quote="nene1"]are you a half-caste? maybe that is why you are so angry b/c it hit so close to home.[/quote]

Nope I'm not mixed-race at all, however you're a half-wit. I've known many a mixed race person and to see a scum-sucking, slowpoke, who should really know better talk crap about them is saddening at worst and funny at best (given the irony). You've been in America too long it seems, you're displaying the neurosis of some neurotic ghetto inhabitant who has had no access to opportunities or higher school of thought. I weep for you.

[quote="nene1"]you don't care yet you took the time to analyze every SINGLE sentence i wrote.[/quote]

I care about Nigeria's people and to a slightly lesser extent: Nigeria's image. People like you are a cancer to both Nigeria's image and its people. Either fix up or begone.

[quote="nene1"]or maybe you didn't bother to respond b/c u couldn't justify your statement. oh and please you know you were serious when you said that so don't try to play reverse psychology here.[/quote]

What a fallacious statement, is paranoia a reflexive action for you or are you REALLY psychic?

[quote="nene1"]you that's how u really feel.[/quote]

WRONG. You THINK you know how she feels and you're incorrectly assuming your own opinion is infallible. However what is obvious is that you're a slowpoke with a poor argument, poor grammar and an even poorer understanding of your opponent. You're a f**king embarrassment.

[quote="nene1"]i don't expect a half-caste to understand me.[/quote]

You use half cast as a swear word and it really is offensive I do wonder whether you'd be comfortable if I were to get a couple of white people to sit on their high-horse and call you a "n*gger bitch" and question your already low intelligence level due to the fact that you have dark skin. You wouldn't like that would you? So how dare you be a moronic hypocrite in plain sight of everyone. You're the type of slowpoke Nigeria & nairaland can do without. The kind of illiterate head-case who's spewing their race-hating, inferiority complexes all over the world. Do us all a favour and kill yourself ASAP. Or get a hysterectomy because the last thing the Planet Earth needs is for a dumb bitch like yourself to breed.

[quote="nene1"]i can't control who others marry, but all i know is i won't marry a white guy[/quote]

Who the f**k cares who you'd marry? Who the f**k would be stupid enough to want you anyway? I feel sorry for the poor blind guy who ends up with you because he'll be needing his seeing-eye dog to find him the nearest gun to shoot you with.

[quote="nene1"]and bring in confused half-castes like you in this world.[/quote]

The only thing your kids would be confused about is why their mother is such a silly bitch.

[quote="nene1"]i don't see the point of going so far an wide when there are so many african men to choose from.[/quote]

I repeat: Who the f**k cares about what you think? You don't need to go far indeed, obviously your parents didn't go far because look how their inbred daughter turned out. That's the only real explanation to why you're honestly as dumb as you are either that or you were abused or isolated your entire life. Must be quite a simple life for you given how xenophobic and mentally inept you are.

[quote="nene1"]oh and feel free to say whatever you want to say to my post. i am not going to spend any more time arguing with ur biracial ass and rachel or any african who is still stuck in colonial mentality (promotes idea that white is better).[/quote]

YOU'RE the one stuck with colonial mentality, look how xenophobic, racist, prejudice and ignorant you are. You harbour the same level of intelligence most people did in the 1500s and that frankly is embarrassing given that we are in the 21st century with almost the entire world at our finger tips or a flight away. People like you are the single worst problem with the world. Afraid to MOVE the f**k on with their lives and are too busy judging everybody than being of actual use. You didn't give a single bit of factual info just paranoia and lowly opinions based on prejudice,

I ain't the first person to say this but you definitely need therapy.

[quote="nene1"]k. whatever. like i said that is hoe i FEEL. i am not trying to force my opinions on anyone, but if u don't agree i couldn't care less.[/quote]

Well that solves nothing, all that tells me is that you FEEL as stupid as you sound,  (figuratively) FEEL less THINK more. Opinions are the byproducts of reasons. When I reverse engineer your FEELINGS all that I am left with is stupid REASONS that have led to stupid FEELINGS. Go "fix" yourself before trumpeting your feelings and broadcasting them to the whole world to see. I said earlier that you should THINK before you talk, obviously you never ONCE did. I can quite frankly tell you that not many black men would want someone as bitter and twisted as you and I do love my black women, however you're a shining example of a black woman that we do not need and do not want.

nene1 your posts absolutely stink of ignorance, misconceptions, misinformation, and generalizations. Almost everything you've said is fallacious and/or is based upon NO evidence but all prejudice.

It's quite embarrassing to read them, they are intellectually bankrupt as well as factually bankrupt. I suggest you"think" before you talk in the future.

Should have shown him an ostrich,  Nothing more vestigial than a bird with wings that cannot fly. Or you should have shown him an appendix, nothing more vestigial than an dietry organ that is irrelevant to our diet. It hasn't been phased out because natural selection is all but a distant memory in regards to humans.

He's a slowpoke, look at how he tries to back slide his words yet he was the one who put forward the proposition that mutations aren't beneficial and are in fact only harmful. I never once argued against the evidence that all cancers are the result of mutations either in proteins or DNA. I never really spoke on the subject at all. I was too busy wondering what my insurance premium was and seeing if I could get a second opinion from www.insurancexpert.co.uk/.

I dunno though, Daviddylan.com seems like the only place when you want advice on how to fake a claim. With advice like that you could be pulling off Eddie Guerro insurance fraud and not even know it.

What you fool also failed to make CLEAR is that NONE of you proponents of the gods of science has EVER at any point convincingly told us WHY it is that you have distinct phenotypic differences with a gorilla when you share 99% of your DNA with it.

I could tell you, but you wouldn't be convinced. Who's fault is that? At one end of the spectrum you could be considered the most gullible tool in the universe for believing in Christianity with the pitiful evidence (if any) for it & at the other end you reject evidence that runs counter to your asserted beliefs despite the despite the amount of evidence for them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't MAKE it drink after all. Now I wasn't here for whatever you and Huxley have had in the past however your reluctance to accept information is a testament to the futility of actually providing you with information. You don't even acknowledge when someone has provided it, confirmation bias.

So let's just all go our separate ways, you don't have to bark at us because you have a religious claim to up hold and you can carry on giving insurance advic,   I mean training in molecular Biology.

MODS delete posts?

Hey there Huxley, well I don't really know if he is David Dylan JR. However he's marketting a website in every email he sent to me as an attachment (most likely from a company email).

It says (as followed: , see what's new on my blog, http://www.davidylan.com/, 
, Lord, I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be just like me
I want to be a holy example
For his innocent eyes to see
Help me be a living Bible, Lord
That my little boy can read
I want to be just like You
'Cause he wants to be like me


I'm not going to debate biology with DavidDylan, our resident Kent Hovind, he's so full of shit. At the end of the day he's (most likely) some punk insurance sales man who has a small grasp on biology but ultimately hasn't gotten much further besides wikipedia and a few laughable sources. His newest attempt is to make the already disproven case that mutations are only harmful, I guess he doesn't know much about how antibiotics work. As a micro-biologist he should already know several bacteria that have evolved abilities that far exceed their cousins to eat nylon yet Nylon is a sythentic material only invented in 1935 the bacteria didn't just poof into existence. They evolved from another species (lenty of evidence for that). However I wouldn't expect an insurance salesman to know such tings. That's just one example of a mutation granting abilities and benefits, he need only google the bacteria to find out I don't want to be here schooling people older than me. If he wants to disprove evolution (if it's possible to "disprove something) all he need do is find a bird with nipples.


Anyway: Silence David, when I want car insurance I'll consult you,fr everything else there's master card.

This is futile, it's like arguing with a third world child, as I said in my initial response to you. You're a creationist, and are going to argue in circles, when posed questions you'll deflect (which you have) when met with evidence you merely scoff at it without providing a single counter argument unless it's in the form of butchering the actual process. Just like your use of cancer as mutation in general (which is so flawed in its reasoning and accuracy that to point out where you've gone wrong would be insulting to YOUR intelligence.

David you're a lost cause, do not email me again, do not ever, ever go behind my back and then shift the onus of your deceit on to me. A message to anybody here. David is no Biologist, the only thing you need go to him is for Insurance advice.

http://www.davidylan.com/index.php

I never gave you permission to post my words here. The reason while I'll expose it because I originally gave the offer to someone else, YOU instead answered the offer and I told you why I wouldn't be interested, you then made a false assumption and accused me of being a coward. You're a dishonest prick and I want everybody on this website to know it before this is over.

[quote="DavidDylan"]There is a reason “evolution” is still being referred to as a THEORY even within the scientific circle. If it were a “fact of life” like you fraudulently claim (WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE), do you think even scientists would still be referring to it as a “theory”? [/quote]

The theory of Gravity is called a theory, germ theory is also called a theory, the theory of relativity, atomic theory etc etc. These things are called theories because theories in science are a body of facts. The word theory in colloquial usage is a misuse of the word and is more akin to hypothesis than a body of objective facts. So David strike #1 for your utter stupidity and ignorance.

[quote="DavidDylan"]More retarded garbage. Dude, I work as a molecular biologist in training and unlike you do not have to depend on atheist websites and google to back up wishy washy claims. I don’t talk about genes, proteins and cells as abstract terms, I talk about them as tangible material that I work with on a daily basis. Isaac Newton was a creationist, he had more grey matter in his smallest toe than you will ever have in your entire head. [/quote]

A molecular biologist? I don't believe you for a second, unless google search engines are handing out diplomas. Your knowledge of rudimentary biology, terminology and the scientific consensus is a testament to the fact that you wouldn't even qualify for a receptionist at the Discovery institute of Creationism. You are in training on what google? Your utter ignorance on the subject of scientific facts and terminology show that you are either an extremely shit scientist or a fraudulent liar. I'm going to go with the latter. I won't strike you out for this, but I have to admit you might want to sue your university (diploma mill) because they f&*kedup your education big time. Isaac Newton only invoked God when he reached his intellectual limits. He knew God wasn't behind gravity or calculus but the minute he got stumped with a question that was too advanced for his current level of scientific knowledge and capabilities showed up, he started bringing up a crude form of creationism because of it. It's funny though, because as science expands your “God” concept is being pushed to smaller and smaller places. I also find it funny that you'd make an appeal to authority like the fallacious little bitch that you are to try and “win” a debate. LoL you're a joke.

[quote="DavidDylan"]Now Mr:
1. Evolution IS A THEORY, which in essence makes it a BELIEF AND NOT A FACT. Check any biology textbook. [/quote]

I know evolution is a theory, it's a Pedagogical definition. Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific “theory”. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Scientific_theories) And that's just from Wiktionary, there are a plethora of websites and text books that explain this very thing and yet you a "molecular biologist" was ignorant to day 1 scientific terminology. You're a failure in the making man.

[quote="DavidDylan"]
1 It is a FACT that genomes mutate, it is however a clear FRAUD to claim that random mutation and adaptation are the same as evolution. If this is so one would have expected man to have “evolved” into a more highly intelligent organism by now. Why have we remained largely the same for thousands of yrs? Why have dragon flies FAILED to “evolve” in over 400 million yrs even though their genome has undergone rare mutations?[/quote]

Random mutation and adapatation are part of the mechanism that is called evolution. Genies mutate by what appears to be at "random" although proteins cvan cause genomes to mutate also. If you don't know the actual theory why create an actual thread dedicated to it? Ironically I'm not the only member of Naija land to have said this. Your share ignorance on it is baffling to me. It's like watching a man who was born blind describe the colour “blue”. F**king hilarious.

[quote="DavidDylan"]This above further confirms the fact that you noise makers are simply a bunch of ignorant buffoons with absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what you pretend to debate. That you don’t even understand what I mean by the term “single cell” is an amazing shame. Do you know how many processes are required to generate one mole of ATP from the mitochondrion which is less than 0.5 micrometer in size? Do you know how tightly the cell regulates the simple process of protein degradation?
You mean to tell me that all these simply appeared by random mutations?[/quote]

You've spent most of your time insulting your opposition than actually addressing anything. Is that how creationism works? There are billions of “single” cells, be more specific with which one you're talking about, we're not talking about the atomic structure of matter we're talking about biological single cells and I asked for more clarification into what single cell you're talking about, bacteria, a human single cell? How can you go off and be so flippant and down right rude when all I have asked for is clarification? I don't need the trivia lesson, despite how much “awe” you have at what can only be described as “modern” cells doesn't pose enough information to “doubt” evolution. Evolution accounts for rising complexity and I'm sorry your disbelief doesn't allow you to let your bullshit go. However I can smell your bullshit a mile a way. If you want to bring out the irreducible complexity argument be my guest. However I think it's best I let you make it first before I counter argue (just in case you're not that stupid).

[quote="DavidDylan"]Did you EVER take statistics in class? [/quote]

Did you? Are you retarded? Because it seems you don't understand the difference between improbability and impossibility. You've used them interchangeably and because of this I can only envy your student loans company,, because they''re going to have a perpetual customer in you.

[quote="DavidDylan"]That you need to “pick up children’s books” to show evidence of “intermediate fossils” should ordinarily tell you THEY DON’T EXIST. If they did they would be all over the internet by now. [/quote]

They ARE ALL OVER THE INTERNET. I directed you to childrens books because of how much exposure they have. The internet is brimming with them. Her'es a plethora of websites that deal with this very thing since you seem to be completely ignorant of this kind of thing:

http://www.answersincreation.org/transitional_fossils.htm
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/evolution/transitional-fossils/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/photo4.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVaCmASYLDg&feature=related

[quote="DavidDylan"]You “got no time” because you really can’t find them dude. ‘fess up![/quote]

See this is why I don't like to debate creationists, because they are like you David. Ignorant, arrogant, rude, liars and plain boring.

[quote="DavidDylan"]There is a gap in the fossil record for crabs, shrimps, horses, goats, sheep, chicken, maple leaves, ferns, snails, dogs, wolves, lions, tigers, leopards, sharks, lizards, kangaroos . . . duh! [/quote]

There is gaps in everything, but just because there is a gap doesn't refute it. You're a creationist, you're working with nothing at all (that's slightly larger than a gap), you're just a “scientific” skeptic who uses science to be a skeptic about fields of science that don't fit your bronze age mythology.

[quote="DavidDylan"]The question is WHY? Why is it that the only organisms “that haven’t really had to evolve much” are those for which there is overwhelming evidence from fossil records that they NEVER changed for the last 400 million yrs? [/quote]

Because the fossil record is doing its job, if it wasn't it would show a different picture now wouldnt it? DUH!!!!. They were near enough apex predators, that could survive a multitude of environmental changes, had nearly uninterrupted breeding cycles and had what it took to survive the 500 million year changes. Insects in general have gone through fewer changes than reptiles or mammals you should KNOW that. Asking WHY isn't refuting something, jeez, what are you a 6 year old? The only way you're going to find all the clues is through genuine science, creationism isn't genuine science it is anti science let alone pseudo science and thus will not contribute towards answering those questions.
[quote="DavidDylan"]
Here is how science and its clueless worshippers mislead the public. First he starts out with “we even know” then ends with “evidence supports this HYPOTHESIS”! Where is the “evidence” and how can you "know" when you are merely speculating? He won’t show us of course.
Note the careful use of the words “considered”, a clear indication that there is no CLEAR EVIDENCE to support these bogus claims being pushed forward by those stumped by the fact that fossil records are proving them wrong. [/quote]

The evidence that doesn't exist: I was being kind before because I KNOW there is a current debate amongst the scientific consensus as to whether which suborders are monophyletic and which are paraphyletic. Which fossil groups are "ancestral to" or closely related to which modern suborders? Please do not confuse this with their being a “poor” fossil record, or a poor documented, or loose grasping at straws. Like MOST fossils and information on a species, there is an over abundance of it and now they are having to file them in what is the most likely the correct order. I chose my words carefully because science doesn't deal with absolutes it deals with repetition and is always falsifiable so I say that we know: I mean “what we currently know”. When I say hypothesis I mean scientific hypothesis that is based upon observable data, when I say scientific theory I mean what is demonstrable. However, how dare you accuse me of dishonesty when YOU without my permission posted my private conversation with you on the board. You are a dishonest piece of sh!t David, and I regret even giving you the slightest minute of my time. For those whom are interested here's some information on dragonflies and their history: http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Odonata&contgroup=Pterygota

[quote="DavidDylan"]
It cant because then they’d be faced with the problem of eternity and faith. They dare not consider it. [/quote]

Whatever it takes to make you sleep easier at night, you elitist piece of shit.

[quote="DavidDylan"]So that is where you go to find your talking points? What a shame, and here I was thinking all these was coming from your puny brain. [/quote]

That's rich, coming from a dim wit like you, I go there for social networking just like I was planning to do with Naijaland but people like you (Bigots, liars, conmen, ignorant, barbarians) have put me off this website almost entirely. I didn't even need to post here, everybody else is eating you alive anyway, You should have just kept it to emails, I don't know why you wanted to plaster this every where without permission.

DeReloaded:

any reaosn why its only the Christian God you have a problem with?

I don't remember saying " only the Christian God was a problem". All assertions of the existence of deities are equally ridiculous to me.

May Zeus bless you too. May Poseidon be merciful and bless you with calm waters on your boat trip to and from Naija.

Sounds ridiculous eh? Well that's exactly what the Christian God sounds like to me.

ElRazur:

Othello.

I lived in the northern part of Nigeria when we first moved back to Nigeria, and it wasn't uncommon to hear of "Dan dawudu". It is basically, name giving to young men who engage in homosexual activity and sometime dresses up as women. The whole homo things is well known in Kano back in the 80s.

The point, am trying to make is that homosexuality is even more common than we think. What annoys me is the fact that, muslim and Christians can't even leave together, so I do pity anyone who is Gay - they will be fighting a hard battle.

I have total respect for the guy that stood up in front of the law makers to speak in Nigeria, Kudos to him.

We're on the same page, while I've never lived in the North I know what kind of irrational bigotry other people can be subjected to. I'm not saying homosexuality is right (I'm not the morality police) I can say that it is perfectly natural for it to happen within the populace. It doesn't matter how strict the government are on it, it appears because it (for some people) is unavoidable. Just by mathematics alone homosexuality within a civilization is BOUND to happen.

Humans are part of the natural world, the natural world has homosexuality in it, deal with it with non-violence and without subjugation. There are already enough people to socially ostracise them, they don't need to be crippled by the government on top of that, they are no physical threat and in the event they are there is a justice system for that. Nigeria really needs to evolve intellectually transcend. China is making some pretty good moves maybe Nigeria needs to take some lessons from them when it comes to politics and economical stipulations.

ElRazur:

God save us from people with tiny minds.

I'm sorry but from the onset, I knew this was going to be something like this hence why I am not even making much effort. I really cannot wait for his next reply. Perhaps he will blame the western world for corrupting the pengiuns.

LOL I can only imagine. Notice the nay-sayers haven't provided a single article in contrast to what we've showed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnMJU9RrNhQ

The thing that doesn't exist.

Please sir, shut up. I'm done with this topic.

All of these people are on my subscription list, I have to say it is refreshing to see another non-superstitious person on this site. Ever since I've come here it was like stepping into the dark ages. People jumping at their own shadows and invoking their solipsism as if the the whole world shares their delusions.

I frequently watch the atheist Experience on video google or listen to the pod cast "non prophets". Two very good shows.

LoL I think me and you are going to get on quite well huxley.

You should check out Aronras foundational falsehoods of creationism. Or CRaP debunked.

Donexodus2 is also very good.

[quote="daviddylan"]More convoluted and nebulous double speak. Can you CLEARLY enunciate your position?

Again you misuse the term "discrimination" . . . is it discrimination for churches to have a legitimate difference of opinion on social issues? Is the catholic church being "discriminatory" because it firmly opposes abortion? [/quote]

Look ass wipe, I've made myself perfectly clear. You reply with such speed it is obvious now that you don't actually READ what I write but rebuttal before actually processing it. It is discrimination when they refuse as you said to allow certain peoples “on their boards“ or refuse  them entry or to take part in the services they are offering because of opposing opinions or sexual orientation. Maybe you should go and re read what you actually wrote. I've made myself crystal clear, it's only a jackass like your self that seeks to reinterpret my words and then argue based on that reinterpretation which is making nebulous statements. This might have to be the last time I speak to you because it's getting very annoying.

[quote="daviddylan"]You dont seem to understand yourself at all . . . how can you claim not to be in favour of "forcing" churches YET in favour of punishing them for holding different opinions?[/quote]

Do you think you understand me more than myself? I've already pointed out that you've misunderstood me two times. However if you think you're more apt for arguing my point for me then do so without quoting me. I'm really surprised you have a hard time with this, is the government forcing you NOT to kill just because there is a punishment in the event that you do? LMFAO get real man,

[quote="daviddylan"]2. The church isnt discriminating . . . you are not forced to worship in a particular church. If you must there are churches that welcome homosexuals. You dont have a right to force a church to marry you as a homosexual against their moral consciences and then cry "violation of human rights".[/quote]

That's hilarious that you will turn around and “double” talk your way into obscurity like that. Barely an hour ago you  were saying: [quote="daviddylan"]Should churches now be forced to allow murderers, liars, idol-worshippers e.t.c. on their boards so as not to be seen as "discriminatory"? Why would a homosexual feel the right to force himself on the church?[/quote]

One minute you're giving justifications for churches discriminating against certain people the next minute you're arguing that churches aren't discriminating. LoL I wonder if it's cold up there in retards-ville. I'm not forcing churches to marry homosexuals, in fact I gave a pretty damn clear alternative in the form of a civil partnership service performed by the only actual legal authority (the government). Churches can keep their rituals, bigotry and discrimination, homosexuals should go right to the place that actually matters and fill out a civil partnership form and get all the legal privileges that should come with should the offer be available. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a human rights violation and I could give a flying f**k about the moral conscience of the bastard hypocrites that make up the pulpit of a church, if they discriminate based on sexual orientation they are by definition in violation of human rights.

[quote="daviddylan"]1. If religions are the most morally inferior institutions on earth then why are homosexuals up in arms against them? Why do homosexuals feel the need to force churches to accept them? Why not go get married under a mango tree and be done with it?[/quote]

How old are you, should you really be coming to me with all your questions? It's a mix of sociological factors as well as legal ones. Sociologically, it's a matter of recognition, some people have Stockholm syndrome and wish to please or be recognised by society even if that society is full of ass holes like yourself. They wish to even be recognised by institutions full to the brim with bigots, liars and swindlers why? Probably because of their up bringing actually IN the church. Then there's the aspirational qualities of having a church wedding church doesn't need to be the pinnacle of morality to perform its duties it's just got to be there.

Then there's the fact that there are a lot of people who don't know they can get married without the blessing of a church. There's also the fact that some people can't get married without the blessing of a church.

[quote="daviddylan"]2. Most secular governments are not against homosexuality but as long as the majority continually votes against redefining marriage to include homosexuality there is very little you can do besides whine.
[/quote]

Stating the obvious, what are you a 5 year old?

[quote="daviddylan"]3. So far ALL the evidence points to homosexuals wanting to foist their perversions on society. Homosexuals already have equal rights, in fact they have more rights than polygamists, paedophiles, consentual cohabiting couples, minorities, swingers e.t.c. [/quote]

If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. However congratulations for saying something so stupid that I'm going to actually remember it for future debates.

[quote="daviddylan"]Actually the problem is with you. You wannabe open-minded air heads think that you are more intelligent simply by regurgitating the nonsense your white masters foister on you . . . you have posted a very very long diatribe and there is frankly NO attempt at constructive arguments.[/quote]

Whoa, ad hominem to the max. Please continue to think so I love reading a fallacious statement. If that's the best a bigot like you can do to discredit your opposition then I have to say: bigotry really is on its last legs.

[quote="daviddylan"]1.In other words you are "forcing" them since they have to go against their moral inclinations to avoid penalties no? Is that so hard for you to wrap your puny brain around?[/quote]

That is such a straw man I can only laugh at your inanity. What they do is up to them, I am not (and will not) going to FORCE them to cooperate, they can act based on their “moral conscience” and be penalized with a public admonishment for their discrimination or they could not discriminate and avoid being publicly admonished. I'm not putting a gun to their head I am exposing their discrimination. I'm frankly no longer shocked that you can't understand this, you are now really appearing to be an idiot.

[quote="daviddylan"]2.What is "public admonishment"? Are you having a laugh or what? What kind of penalty is that? Who will administer or enforce it?[/quote]

I've given perfect examples of what public admonishment is. We're going around in circles and it's boring now, go do something else if you cannot understand what it is I am saying.

[quote="daviddylan"]Convoluted argument. If i refuse to serve you because you raped my daughter (God forbid), would that be "divisive"?
If i refused to open bank credit for you because you dont have good financial standing, would that be "divisive"?

When did churches lose the right to decide for themselves? Its not like you people just realised the stance of the church to homosexuality last week no?[/quote]

Are you purposely being retarded? Yes you would be divisive, now you're just stupidly arguing whether your choice to be divisive is "justified". AFAIC churches do not have enough ample justification, however I never said churches have LOST the right to decide for themselves I have told you that I don't respect their choice of discrimination, it doesn't however mean I'm taking it from them. In your efforts to want to be right you've misunderstood me twice now. Maybe if you'd shut up and THINK we wouldn't be having this lapse in communication.

[quote="daviddylan"]Speaking from both sides of the mouth:

- we shouldnt force churches to do what they personally feel is wrong . . .
- but we shld punish them for refusing to do what they personally feel is wrong . . .

How do you reconcile the above? And what is a "public admonition"?[/quote]

Twice you've accused me of being disingenuous. I didn't say we should punish them I said and I quote:  I wouldn't want to force churches into doing a service however they should receive some sort of penalties for it. The penalty I put forth was public admonishment. How is that speaking out both sides of my mouth? Obviously you're abusing axioms and implementing them improperly. Public admonishment AFAIK is warning the public that certain churches practice discrimination and refuse services to certain peoples. It's like the free will argument Christians always bitch about: You're free to do as you like, however there are consequences, even if you didn't like those consequences you were still free to do as you like, nobody is forcing you to do a specific thing. It is a human rights violation to discriminate based on sexual orientation (that much is a given), churches that violate human rights should face public admonishment. I haven't come to a conclusion of what should be legally enforced. So I shall not speak or suggest enforcing anything for now.

[quote="daviddylan"]Rather its the price religion has to pay for being the last bastion against the moral destruction of society. There are millions of secular governments and peoples who are morally against homosexuality so this has pretty little to do with the church. It is simply because the gay lobby realises that one of the greatest keys to forcing homosexuality on us is to get the church to view it as acceptable.[/quote]

Whatever, your opinion on this matter is irrelevant to me, religions are the most inferior moral institutions in existence as far as I am concerned. Moral destruction of society? What the hell are you talking about? There isn't a secular government in the world that is against homosexuality, there are people whom assume the moral high ground based on a fear and irrationality (or a religious claim to up hold) whom demand intolerance from their government by having a high ranking position within that government or having numbers on their side. Nobody is forcing homosexuality on you, (your delusions of paranoia are leaking out dude)  Nobody wants you david, so far all the evidence points to homosexuals wanting equal rights within society.

[quote="daviddylan"]i.e. you wish churches would simply help you legalise your perversion.
Churches by definition are not secular so that is impossible[/quote].

My perversion? You don't know me, I think I spoke quite adequately for myself: I wished for the impossible. I wish you'd stop ranting though, you seem to be locked in some paranoid delusion and it's getting quite boring.

[quote="daviddylan"]Again the same hypocrisy . . . you are not "forcing" anyone but you are firmly asking that they be punished for making a concious choice to refuse what they deem as wrong. You cant have it both ways . . . churches have a right to continue to be tax exempt even if they refuse to endorse your own private sexual agenda.[/quote]

Did I say punished? YOU SAID PUNISHED you're making a straw man argument. Some moral high ground you hold eh,  So I'll repeat myself since you seem to be a bit slow: I wouldn't want to force churches into doing a service however they should receive some sort of penalties for it (this is in reference to their active discrimination and human rights violation). The penalty I put forth was public admonishment. I never asked for it both ways, so kindly shut the f*ck up.

[quote="DavidDylan"]It seems we no longer have a right to personal opinions . . . what do you mean by "discrimination"? Should churches now be forced to allow murderers, liars, idol-worshippers e.t.c. on their boards so as not to be seen as "discriminatory"? Why would a homosexual feel the right to force himself on the church?[/quote]

Sir, you misunderstand me and over exaggerate your claims. You can have personal opinions, mines also was a personal opinion. I personally feel that refusing a service based on ones personal opinion especially a religious one is the kind of thing that is divisive. Last time I checked, churches accept sinners in the hopes of repentance, murderers, paedophiles, you name it. To argue that they cannot and should not accept homosexuals would be to argue something incorrect.

[quote="DavidDylan"]This is disingenuous. You don't want to "force" churches into doing a service they have a legitimate right to refuse but want they punished for exercising their rights to refuse? How then are you not forcing them to NOT refuse homosexuals,[/quote]

Do not question me in such a manner. I did not call for punishments I said penalties, I didn't state what penalties. I personally would do so in the form of public admonishment. A Church that discriminates aainst people based on sexual orientation should be publically admonished. Hardly disingenuous. It's not forcing them to do anything my words are hardly the words of a God.

[quote="DavidDylan"]Does that include the freedom for the religious right to refuse homosexual marriages within their private sanctuaries?[/quote]

Unfortunately it does. They however should get no tax exemption status nor be funded by the government. The price of setting up a religious institution within a secular nation.

[quote="DavidDylan"]What kind of "service"? Forcing churches to play secular roles too?[/quote]

I wish Churches could play secular roles however it's impossible.

[quote="DavidDylan"]We live in a democracy not a dictatorship. Until the people vote to change the constitution government does not have that right. You cant push the rights of the majority aside when it suits you.[/quote]

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything, I am just not endorsing them either. Tax money shouldn't go to fund your religious institutions and they shouldn't have tax exemption status because they receive an unprecedented amount of  money.

Depends on what your definition of miracle is.

Supernaturalism, Well there's no evidence for any of those claims (no good evidence anyway) but if miracles are just highly unlikely but POSSIBLE phenomenons like planet formation, lottery winning etc then yeah sure.

Those things however have nothing to do with supernaturality.

Well Atheism in popular vernacular is just a lack of belief.

I don't like the term Atheism because it labels me of what I am NOT rather than what I am.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

Are civil partnerships available in Nigeria? If it is and it enables the same civil liberties as marriage then I think there's no reason to argue in the first place.

Churches shouldn't receive government funding or get tax exemption since they discriminate actively. I wouldn't want to force churches into doing a service however they should receive some sort of penalties for it. Freedom of religion and expression are important for a progressive society however government should play a secular role and offer a service to every citizen under its jurisdiction. The government could make this a reality with a simple change of the constitution or an addition. It infringes on the rights of nobody and promotes the same civil liberties for everybody without forcing the religious institutions to put away their bigotry.

Win - Win.

~Sauron~:

Let em keep shagging one another BUT they should stop distrubing our already 'disturbed' lawmakers.
On the list of things Naija needs to face as a nation, giving rights to a bunch of poofs shouldn't even be on it.
The masses are hungry, homeless, naked, abject poverty, epileptic power supply and the next thing on agenda is the right of homos??

JESUS WEPT!!!

To a certain extent I agree, there are far more important things. It's the idea of making this so important that they should be "stoned" to death which is ridiculous.

Dede1:

@othello

Besides you deluded world and ultra-confused life style, is there any tangible thing you could have alluded that Canada has given to mankind other than the idiocy of studying farm animal to prove the normalcy of homosexuality? I do not perceive the fact that you are an engineer, even if a poster has deduced that you are trained as one, because you do not philosophize like a person milled for that profession.

It is a crass irresponsibility on your person to flood the forum with lazy articles you claimed to have been written by one lazy farmer impersonating as a tutor at the university situated in one lazy country.  

Please be on notice that it does not take simpleton to realize that competitive nature of mating in animal kingdom is sometimes a matter of death. Even within the circle of domesticated farm animals, the lure to mate with the females often leaves scare wounds on rival males. Even the male offspring of the dominate male is not left without stern warming or even driven away when it appears the young male is becoming of age.

I do not give a fig or rat-ass what these societal deviants do with themselves but would be irked when the homosexuals would demand the manner in which the society would react towards their weird lifestyle.  

Forgive me, I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand the message you're trying to get across.

Canada and Canadians have been the inventors of some of the most important technologies of the western civilization. Examples of this are:

The Anti-Gravity Suit
The Bone Marrow Compatibility Test
The Electric Car Heater
& the Electron Microscope. dede1 please be silent, you would only embarrass yourself further if you were to speak any more. I am not deluded, I am knowledgeable and very educated. I am not confused, I myself am a heterosexual but I don't have it in me to be such a bigot that I would cast life changing judgement on to another person who is of no immediate or latent threat to myself. I'm sorry you haven't done your homework or even made sense when addressing me but whatever. I have given several different articles that are peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific consensus. They aren't "lazy" and they aren't written from one lazy farmer (whatever that means).


Anyway I'm OK if you do not perceive me as an engineer, you don't know much about me so how could you perceive anything more than a rival voice on an internet website. My engineering background has nothing to do with the subject. I have no idea why simpletons like yourself would factor it in. I am however a scientist so I make it my duty to keep as updated with the current hypothesis and scientific theories.

Your talk about what SOME animals do is irrelevant, I'm sure even a person like yourself could see that.

Good bye sir.

@Sauron:

You misrepresent me sir I 'm not saying homosexuality is RIGHT, I have never said that and I am not saying that. I am saying it happens in the animal kingdom and since humans are a part of that animal kingdom and we are part of the natural world there will be a small percentage of us that will become homosexual simply because it is possible. Things that ARE possible happen. I am only refuting the assertion that homosexuality is unnatural, there is no such thing as unnatural, there maybe a thing as "uncommon" but unnatural doesn't make any sense.

I personally couldn't stomach the idea of homosexual sex so I don't think about it however injustice is injustice, I wouldn't hurt anybody if they weren't an immediate threat to me or my posessions.

Well all though I can only take the bible qith a grain of salt Jesus was "documented2 to have felt anger towards people (physically assaulting them even) wasn't Jesus the same a**hole who said if you feel anger towards someone you have murdered them in your heart?

Meh I may remember incorrectly but he also showed a great deal of contempt for his parents efforts in locating him when he was 12 years old. As far as I'm concerned Jesus is not only capable of sin but stupidity too.

Geography disproves Noah's Ark.

Bastage:

@ mantraa.

A global flood would have left a signature. There is none.

What is known for sure is that there were regular floodings in the Euphrates valley - home of the Babylonian civilisation and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The story is based on an original localised flood. There are many signatures found in the local geology that back this up.
As I've said on the previous page: the Hebrews merely took the older myth and gave it a moral twist thus necessitating that the flood in their story be global.

Quoted for truth. All though I'm inclined to the taggering amounts of evidence that it was just another Hebrew lie such as the flight from Egypt.

[quote="sagamite"]Me I can't stand the dumb arguments open-wannabe-minded people are putting forward.
[/quote]

You're a bigot, bigots usually can't stand open minded people putting forward arguments they can't agree with, so they rely on ad-hominems, slippery slopes and the generic fallacious arguments that have very little academic stopping power or credibility. I don't know your background I won't pretend to either however what I do know is that your biology and knowledge of the natural world is of a very low standard or you've chosen to intentionally intellectually cripple yourself.

[quote="sagamite"]I am very open-minded but that does not mean I will not filter what goes into my mind especially because the "superior" white race have given it a stamp of approval.
[/quote]

No, no you're not. Not by any rudimentary standards of the country you're currently living in. Open minded people wouldn't deny the OBVIOUS and multiple examples of homosexuality within the animal kingdom with such flippancy that they could be questioned whether they even watched, read or researched even a rudimentary amount. Open minded people do not make claims and then demand people debunk their claims for them.  Open minded people do not filter what goes into their mind based on bigotry, open minded people do not resort to such foolhardy accusations of race trading because of a stance they do not share. Open minded people do not to an iota of what you have done Sagamite. Open minded people aren't intolerant of & do not take offence to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. However you do and thus: You are a bigot by definition.

[quote="sagamite"]I have a set of rigorous tests that the homosexual arguments have to go through before I accept it. I emphasis the word rigorous because lame a*s dumbos like Engineer Othello can not comprehend this approach.[/quote]

Your tests aren't rigorous, they are fallacious. You won't accept opposing arguments because a bigot never does, you suffer from what is most likely a massive dose of solipsism, you think that YOU are right and everybody else who opposes your narrow world view is wrong and although people like yourself shouldn't ever be humoured I find myself intrigued to see whether your fallacious test can survive.

[quote="sagamite"]The first of the tests is the proof of naturalism, as if gays and their supporters are claiming they are born that way, then it must be natural.[/quote]

Funny you should say that because: Gay men may be born and not made, new research indicates. A study of 1,000 heterosexual and homosexual men in Canada has found that the single most important factor that can be linked with male homosexuality is the number of elder brothers a man has in his family.
Although this has been known for some years, the latest study demonstrates that the link appears to have nothing to do with whether a man is brought up with his elder brothers, and is therefore psychologically influenced by them. The increased chance of being gay seems to be the result of whether or not the mother had already given birth to boys - in other words, a biological link from the womb rather than psychological links from childhood. But it is still a mystery why for every elder brother a boy has, his chances of growing up gay increase by about a third.
Anthony Bogaert, of Brock University in Ontario, who helped to discover the link between homosexuality and elder male siblings, looked at gay men who had not been raised with their elder brothers, but still found that there was a link between homosexuality and the number of elder male siblings they had.
One explanation could be the "maternal immunisation" hypothesis, which suggests that mothers may produce antibodies against a male foetus's Y chromosome while in the womb, and that these antibodies have an accumulative effect on subsequent pregnancies, which could affect the sexuality of boys. (Rest of the article read:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/antibodies-in-womb-create-gay-men-405672.html
Corroborating scientific articles feel free to purchase the PDF or look at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGC-45B5PPP-5&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3aa45776bdeb1402059023e5fe6a367a

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/4/251
So in essence research indicates that you can literally be born gay or at least born with a higher percentage to become gay. Nothing that CAN happen in the Universe is UNNATURAL. Everything that CAN happen is natural even if it is taboo or frowned upon by societies so your first test was quite a joke to begin with but anyway let's carry on.

[quote="sagamite"]Despite request for evidence from (1)gay-supporters I keep on getting directed to some lame, inconclusive, subjective view-points to read or see which does not show homosexuality in animals but "CLAIMS" to prove that homosexuality exists in animals.[/quote]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos

Here's some more evidence for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Osw05HGe5I&feature=related

[quote="sagamite"]Unfortunately, some people are happy to accept a "claim" as the godspell truth as long as it is coming from one member of their so-called "progressive", "liberal", "open-minded" and "tolerant" masters.[/quote]

I'm a scientist, I weigh evidence and probabilities, the probabilities of an ignoramus like you being right are extremely low, you barely know what homosexuality is let alone what it is synonymous with. However the researchers and articles as well as scientific literature and the scientific community have no doubt that homosexuality isn't JUST a nurture topic. I'm sorry if your tiny brain can't understand that.

[quote="sagamite"]I believe their are some abnormal births that are natural and homosexuality is not one of them (I am open-minded to proof otherwise).[/quote]

You're a joke, your “beliefs” aren't even a factor of this conversation. You MOST likely believe in the biblical accounts or one of the Abrahamic faiths so as far as I'm concerned acceptance of propositions from someone such as yourself are as fundamental to this conversation as whether Santa Claus approves of Toys R' Us. However let's go through your “examples” shall we?

[quote="sagamite"]Examples of these births are deformity and albinoism. And as a well developed and educated person that did not attend Othello's university for engineering, I back up my claims with these examples:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQXDdfwVr3Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkmVxxw5kaw

Now, these tell me that when we see a deformed or albino person, they are not some freaks but actually they are natural and born that way.[/quote]

This is the best STRAWMAN argument I've ever seen. You're operating based on a presupposition and actually asking your opposition to argue based on your lack of knowledge, incredible. Did you go to school? I don't even know how to reply to such stupidity it's a complete Non sequitur and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[quote="sagamite"]But when I see some freak that is a man but yet wants to prance around, dance, dress, apply make-up and be shagged like a woman, or vice-versa, then I know that person is a perverted, sick f**k.[/quote]

Well given that there is conclusive evidence between the correlation between homosexuality and how many children that have preceded him how can you look at him as a freak when he himself had absolutely no part in the prior activities of his parents? EVEN if the topic were conclusively attributed to his nurture, how is that any more his fault than a child raised by parents whom tell him to kill as many n!ggers as possible? You're about as open minded as Hitler was to Jews and non Germans,  You are a hypocrite whom can't even follow the rules or definitions you put forth. Your education must have been at the same place Kent Hovind was educated,  Some back ally diploma mill. Quite frankly your lack of intellectualism is quite entertaining, with every passing sentence you type you  make the case for colonialism that much more convincing. You seem to completely ascribe homosexuality to physicality,  monument to your own ignorance and bigotry. The bigotry that comes spilling forth from your mouth like the odious effluence that it is, is bothersome because it is a marginalization of what homosexuality actually is. You are clearly making no real attempt to accept evidence to the contrary. However what makes me sick is your blatant dishonesty, so Please, go back to Nigeria, your presence in Waterloo station is as upsetting to me as it is to you when your voyeuristic tendencies were enjoying the eye candy of two men kissing.

[quote="sagamite"]Something must definitely be wrong with that person. Just as something is wrong with a paedophile that wants to shag a child that is not naturally developed, even animals wait for offsprings to reach maturity before attempting to have intercourse.[/quote]

There is absolutely no synonymity between paedophiles and homosexuals. Paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and popular vernacular. However in every definition documented it is a non consensual act that is based on an offence against another person. It is on the same grounds as rape not consensual sex. Homosexuality has more synonymous with incest although I am not personally arguing that it is directly synonymous with it. For instance let us go through the terms and definitions of paedophilia since a lot of Nigerians here are too uneducated to do so by themselves (cough-sagamite)

paedophilia erotica
The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only. This interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair.
The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only and does not include teenagers.
The sexual interest remains over time.

Adults sexually attracted to pre-pubescent youths were placed into three categories by Krafft-Ebing: a.) paedophile
b.) surrogate (that is, the pre-pubescent youths are regarded as a substitute object for a preferred, non-available adult object)
c.) sadistic
Diagnosis
. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviours involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Homosexuality refers to sexual behaviour or attraction between people of the same sex or to homosexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "having sexual and romantic attraction primarily or exclusively to members of one’s own sex"; "it also refers to an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviours expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them.
Heterosexuality refers to sexual behaviour with, or attraction to, people of the opposite gender, or to a heterosexual orientation. As a sexual orientation, heterosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions primarily to "persons of the opposite sex"; it also refers to "an individual’s sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviours expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."
If one were to draw similarities between homosexuality and paedophilia then one is also able to draw the same conclusion between paedophilia and heterosexuality as stated.

[quote="sagamite"]Now at that, let me focus on the comparisons because I have seen some lame comparisons of gay rights to civil rights which I find offensive and moronic. [/quote]

Offensive and moronic eh? I hope you aren't the pinnacle of modernity and open mindedness otherwise Nigeria is going to hell in a hand basket quicker than red riding hood smuggling dildos into Saudi Arabia. I personally have no faith in your ability to draw accurate comparisons, after all I have gone through your impressive amount of stupidity thus far and you haven't gotten a single assertion right yet.

[quote="sagamite"]But I guess most of the people that are proposing this comparison are only regurgitating the sob-excuse that the (2)gay campaigners put across to gain cheap credibility and shut an average guilty-feeling whiteman up. [/quote]

Would you please get to the point? What's with the emotional diatribes, who are you under there, Bill O' Reily?

[quote="sagamite"]I must say it has worked effectively because most people are not intelligent enough to raise the right challenges and don't want to be labelled bigots.[/quote]

You're right: most people are not intelligent enough to raise the right challenges, you fall neatly under that heading sagamite. However I am shocked and appalled that you'd even hint at being intelligent enough to raise a “right challenge”. You're barely smart enough to be labelled a pseudo-intellectual.


[quote="sagamite"]Now let me categorise it the way an educated individual that did not do engineering in Othello's university will do.[/quote]

That is impressive, bravo, it takes extra genetics to be able to contort ones spine in just the right way to kiss ones own ass the way you do. Why do you give me the feeling that every word you utter, you want to mention your affiliation to Oxford or Harvard? Your appeal to authority shouldn't be your ONLY means of debating, let your words stand on their own and if they have the strength to do so then so be it. However so far I've read what you've wrote and I am disappointed.

GROUP A: Discrimination based on perceived superiority
This is based on the fact that one member of a distinct group claims superiority over another individual not in the group on the generally believed perception, that is usually wrong, that a certain strength is more predominant or exclusive to a group.
Such perception is found in:
Racism
Sexism
Ethnicism
Ageism
Caste System
(You forgot to include Homophobia)
etc

Your specific brand of homophobia falls neatly into Group A.


[quote="sagamite"]GROUP B: Discrimination based on perversion
This is based on the fact that an individual exhibits a desire/behaviour/attribute that is not natural/convensional, [/quote]

And there's the fallacy in your statement. These things are based on fallacies and assertions that are interchangeable with TIME and the general Zeitgeist of the populous. For instance Racism was and is based entirely on “the fact an individual/individuals or a group of people exhibit a desire/behaviour/attribute that is not natural/conventional (you spelled conventional wrong Sagamite) to those that demand to be recognized as the majority. You must have nose dived during sociology class because that s*it is like DAY ONE secondary school sociology. How old are you late 30's?! Damn,

--and is generally found offensive/disgusting (by those that want to be perceived as the majority within a society). And this is a desire/behaviour/attribute that the individual is expected to suppress and if done adequately, it will be difficult (if not impossible) to know if that the person possesses that desire/behaviour/attribute. Such desire/behaviour/attribute includes:
Homosexuality
Paedophilia
Necrophilism
Bestiality
Incest
Transvestites
Transgender

Spoken like a true 70's baby Sagamite. All you've really managed to do is help prove that homosexuals are in a very similar boat that other minorities are in terms of majority/\minority discrimination. Your attempt at justifying that repression was to use examples that were, supposed to generate guilt via association. a pretty outdated technique don't you think? You damn sure wouldn't make it in current debate classes I assure you. Let's go through them shall we?

Homosexuality as an act requires consent, (otherwise it is rape by definition and no longer homosexuality), homosexual feelings however are no different to heterosexual feelings of the opposite sex whether they are appropriate is irrelevant, I will not assume the mantel of the thought police. Paedophilia is without consent, the entertaining of these thoughts are one thing however to act on them is another. It is a crime within the civilized world due to the social implications on the victim and the family of the victims. There are also statutory rape laws in all civilized societies which paedophilia doesn't adhere to. There is no way you can argue in favour of paedophilia even by the most liberal standards. Acts based on Necrophilia are blatantly without consent and the correlation between it and other behaviours are well documented, as negative to society. I personally don't know much about necrophilia however I'd like to see someone argue in its favour to their detriment. Bestiality is again without consent, there is whether you like it or not an inability to communicate with other species. Just look at the Chimp attack in America recently (there was no bestiality however the point still stands of the lack of ability to communicate) a relationship. There are also social implications
Incest is slightly different because it can be consensual, however there are genetic detriments to this and given that the state may be held accountable for this kind of thing should a baby be born this should be frowned upon. I personally don't want my tax money going to a brother and sister who knew what would happen should they conceive a child. I don't want them to be “locked up” or "denied rights", I just don't want them to be funded by my tax money. Transvestism is a non issue,  I don't give a f**k how you dress as long as my tax money isn't funding it and you are adequately covered when in public (no sexual organs should be visible). Transgender, yet again I don't care what you do or how you feel as long as my tax money isn't funding your cosmetic surgery. 

[quote="sagamite"]If one looks at it closely, by and large, Group B are banned in most society and rightfully so.[/quote]

"Rightfully" is entirely your opinion, however the social implications of these things are documented within psychology and sociology. You haven't put forth a single piece of research or empirical evidence to back your claims up.

[quote="sagamite"]To me, it is absolutely ridiculous for anyone in Group B or their supporters to make a comparison of their plight with those on the oppressed hand of the stick in Group A. [/quote]

Key words in your little diatribe: “to me”. Nobody should give a Bleep about how you feel as long as the person poses no adequate physical or psychological threat to you or your property. If their very presence is causing you psychological problems then white people have every right to oust you from checking tickets at Waterloo station.

[quote="sagamite"]You can't take one from Group A and place it amongst Group B, or vice versa, without it standing out like an eyesore. So any comaprison is ABSOLUTELY BULLOCKS! Please apply Common Sense, even though it is not common.[/quote]

I just did. However your “common sense” judgement is by far the most asinine thing I have ever read. Whose common sense should we implement? Yours? Or what about the common sense of the people who said N!ggers are damaging to the very AIR that the white man breaths? How n!iggers corrupt the very ground the white man walks, How n!ggers corrupt the very morals and values of western civilization? How the n!ggers very skin, looks, traditions, rituals, morals and values are a perversion and they need to be either converted, subjugated or annihilated. Common sense gave Europeans hundreds of years in the Dark ages and that same common sense judgement is the very reason most of Africa can't ascend into even a low standard industrial nation like China. “Common sense” needs to be replaced with reason, rationalism, critical thought and logic not cowardice based on an irrational fear.


[quote="sagamite"] Comparisons should be made within the group, not across the group as the platforms are non-mutual and it is cheap comparisons. You can compare the plight of women to blacks, or the plight of the Kurds to Aboriginies, but to compare the plight of (3)gays to palestinians is CLASSIC MORONITY.[/quote]

I agree. If you are an IDIOT, a COWARD, a BIGOT do exactly what sagamite has asked you to do. You'll be getting your badge of conformity ASAP however if you're none of those things discuss these matters with maturity, dignity, reason and rationality not just within your tight closed minded societies but other people too.

[quote="sagamite"]Now coming to (4) gays in Nigerian society, I have been aware these freaks exist in Nigeria right from time but did not have such strong emotions towards them as they kept it down low. It was when I came to the UK and it was shoved in my face with complementary tags that if you don't accept it then you are "closed-minded" and a "bigot" that puts the feeling of catterpillars in my stomach especially when the argumentation is extremely weak.[/quote]

Shoved it in your face? I see that exact same arguments from white people who are up in arms whenever black people point out the racism in one of their favourite TV shows or video games. They always accuse us of ascribing negative labels to them even when those labels are justified. You make this far too easy Sagamite. It's only now that I can sit back and recognise the deep hypocrisy within our communities. Do us all a favour and go back to Nigeria and stay your bigot ass there with the rest of the self proclaimed “morally superior” like minded hypocrites and bigots.

[quote="sagamite"]Now they want to take the deviant acceptance to my home country, absolutely not.[/quote]

Lord forbid Nigeria join the rest of the civilized world, what's next? 24 hour electricity? Civil rights? Maybe even actual democracy!? Noway, I demand my rights to mob violence and bigotry.

[quote="sagamite"]Ban it through the use of legislation, not only banning the marriage but also the practice and LOCK UP any proven (keyword) (5)gay, if the United Gay Kingdom wants to give them asylum, fan-muda-f**king-tastic. The benefit left to any gay is that, if you don't do it in public then no one can prove you have done it.[/quote]

If the UK were to give only gay Nigerians Asylum I can near enough guarantee that Nigeria would suddenly become the gayest place on Earth. Jokes aside: A couple of rants ago you claimed that you were open minded and yet you've frequently referred to gay people as gays 5 times already. I can guarantee that you wouldn't have the balls to say that to a gay man's face where ever you work. Even in your halcyon days as a tipster in the toilet of the many night clubs in Soho I bet you would never EVER call a gay man a gay while on duty. You talk a good one on-line but like you did with the gay dudes in Waterloo you'd just think quietly and menacingly to yourself. You know there might be evidence to the contrary and yet already you've harped on about a legislation for imprisonment for homosexuality. I wonder whether an “educated” person like yourself would understand the human rights violation that you're invoking. I wonder whether an “educated” man like yourself understands the horrible, agonizing witch hunt it would most likely turn out to be. I wonder whether you for a second had an “educated” thought about what you are supporting, the messages you are broadcasting and the memes of tyranny and suppression you are incubating in the minds of the ignorant and stupid. Do you know what thoughts like yours have led to, and what misery they can and will cause if implemented!? I doubt it, you're too busy being the voice of “common sense” instead of the voice of rationality, critical thinking and intelligence. You sir are a disgrace and you're the kind of bastard that the British government should actually be deporting.

[quote="sagamite"]It does not take a genius to know that the request for the right to be recognised is just the first step of a journey. [/quote]

Oh it doesn't, you're about to prove that with a slippery slope argument. You're going to go from social to political issues repeatedly ad nausea. You're also going to fashion it as if it was a bad thing.

[quote="sagamite"]Next they will ask for positive-only representation in media especially soap operas (this is the standard and classic commencement of brainwashing).[/quote]

Did white people have to go through "sensitivity" training? YEP!!! However even on gay TV shows or shows directed and script written by gay people the representations vary wide enough for some semblance of 3 dimensionality. For every “Will” there's a “Jack”. A standard brain washing technique is to create a moral panic (the one you have been doing for the greater some of 5 pages).

[quote="sagamite"]--then they want employment protection laws, then representation in law-setting, then right to marriage, then education of our kids about the values and the acceptance of homosexuality, then right to adopt kids, then artificial insemination/surrogacy/IVF etc. Only a slowpoke will not be able to see these secondary and tetiary implications and think all we need to do and all they want is recognition/acknowledgement of existence.[/quote]

Everything you said was utterly and completely for recognition/acknowledgement of existence. To say otherwise would be moronic.


[quote="sagamite"]I am not an individual with a follow-follow and herd mentality. I question everything.[/quote]

Who are you trying to convince here? You definitely are part of a herd mentality, you said nothing original, you regurgitated the same tired, bigoted arguments that have transcended race, ethnicity, gender and even nationality. Most Nigerians (you said it yourself) feel the way you do,  You definitely aren't solus. You've adopted your ideas from somewhere, you're not inventing any of your terrible arguments. You're a copy and paste nightmare. You question everything apart from your own ability to be WRONG and bigoted. Maybe you should go to Peckham to see the gravity of your unoriginal ranting.

[quote="sagamite"]I guess most people have accepted homosexuality not because they approve of it but because they feel helpless in stopping the aggressive advocators in demanding rights and don't want to be labelled racist (funnily this is the more effective derivation that (6) gays try to ruse up through lame association).[/quote]

It depends on what you mean by “accept”. I can tolerate my neighbours being homosexual because I have complete and utter apathy toward them. They are no immediate or latent threat to me and my possessions. If they happen to be on TV and I didn't want to watch it I'd just change the channel, if they were having a march for equal rights I'd walk past and get my shopping and go to my own home. If they were being locked up by bastards like you, I'd defend them though, I know an injustice when I see one and your wants for them is an injustice.

[quote="sagamite"]The fear I am having is that the Obama presidency or powerful political "so-called-liberal" and pink-supporting elites in the West might bribe our legislators to prevent passing this law or threaten Yaradull. How I wish this thing was sped up and executed during Bush's reign. [/quote]

Yeah because your legislators were at the pinnacle of morality,  Your fears are irrational. You are irrational, you need education and lots of it. I know you'll most likely give some piss poor rebuttal but I am inclined to see how piss poor, don't disappoint me.

Ok family I'm back, long day. I hope you're all rested and are doing ok.

Anyway my apologies, I haven't exactly backtracked through the pages after I left but I do remember hearing that Bruce Bagemihl is "nothing" but a Linguist. I guess you guys are types whom only take your answers from authority. Ok then.

Bruce Bagemihl
Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Occupation: Scientist

Nationality: Canada
Executive summary: Biological Exuberance

Bruce Bagemihl is a biologist, linguist, and author. Best known for his critically acclaimed book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, he has published widely on subjects ranging from zoology to cognitive ethnomusicology to queer theory. Previously on the faculty of the University of British Columbia and a consultant to Microsoft, he currently lives in Seattle.

Science is repeatable, scientific observation is part of that. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is a scientifically observable fact that is well documented. I am sorry if you do not accept the proposition but the entire western hemispheres scientific community does and although I hate making arguments based on numbers or authority I can here if I wanted to. I myself have witnessed homosexuality in many species of animals. From mice = chimps and even dogs. Richard Dawkins (a man I have spoken to on his forums) ackowledeges this within his book entitled the Selfish gene. A plethora of biologists (even Christian ones) such as Ken Miller, etc all recognize it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZWqQNRAoKY&feature=channel_page

Here's a video from one of youtubes most popular Christian biologists. I said earlier that biology isn't my field of expertise but I've known and had access to the knowledge for ages now. If you still want to block your ears and shout "lalalala I ca't hear you". Then fine do so, but please don't annoy me when doing so. David if you want to repost your questions or answers then please feel free to do so.