ThothHermes:
JessicaRabbit, I'm in the mood for an argument, I want to see you defend this in the name of love and freedom.

Ahhh...You don go call horror

She go drag u till u run away

I wish u well

I don laugh tire wahlai

Calitoscassius:
This is a public forum! It is everyone's space, if i come to your house to dielsturb you about Jesus, shoot me! But as long as you don't own this space, we are not interested in your bloody Jesus and folktales. Keep that shit to yourself! here is not church it is a public forum where every opinions are made, you may not like it but people have different views to yours.
i am not trying to force feed you anything, i just said, Jesus ain't coming no where you don't have to agree, but to tell me to keep my believes to myself whie you come on here to yap about yours sounds hypocritical of you

And i repeat! Jesus ain't coming no where! there are no such thing as Jesus! It doesn't exist! call me whatever you want i don't give two shits!

No! You maintain your lane!!

Granted this is a public forum, granted you can air (or rather type) your views. No restrictions to expressing your opinion.

BUT DON'T MENTION ME WHEN TYPING YOUR GIBBERISH Believe what you will but don't mention me. Did I quote you? Nope. It's a public forum so if you choose to mention me and offer an annoyingly different opinion, then be prepared for whatever response I give to you. I don't give a rats ass whether you believe in Jesus or not. You either believe it by choice or the devil will chew his awareness into you by FORCE. Take your pick. Your beliefs or not doesn't make him less omnipotent. You are not a factor for His existence. My point is that: stop using my mention to propagate your obviously weird non existent atheistic hallucinations. Else I will respond to you in a way I deem fit... With your level of exposure, This should hit home. I hope it's crystal clear to you now. 😎

naijapikin2:

Granted this is a public forum, granted you can air (or rather type) your views. No restrictions to expressing your opinion.

BUT DON'T MENTION ME WHEN TYPING YOUR GIBBERISH Believe what you will but don't mention me. Did I quote you? Nope. It's a public forum so if you choose to mention me and offer an annoyingly different opinion, then be prepared for whatever response I give to you. I don't give a rats ass whether you believe in Jesus or not. You either believe it by choice or the devil will chew his awareness into you by FORCE. Take your pick. Your beliefs or not doesn't make him less omnipotent. You are not a factor for His existence. My point is that: stop using my mention to propagate your obviously weird non existent atheistic hallucinations. Else I will respond to you in a way I deem fit... With your level of exposure, This should hit home. I hope it's crystal clear to you now. 😎

Good, i am quite happy for you to respond to my comment how ever you want. It doesn't bother me, but don't go all emotional when i respond to yours how i want or lecture me to keep my believes to myself.

I am the Devil! that is if the guy you call Devil even exits. I am not an Atheist, i don't even know what that shit mean and i don't give a shit!


Meanwhile tell your bloody Jesus that i give no shit! who she is.


Jesus is just an imaginations in hopeless, mentally ill people's heads. Jesus is coming!, Jesus is coming! i have been hearing the same crap from schizophrenic delusional assholes like you since my grand father was born yet Jesus is still on her way coming, i mean, how hard could it be for Jesus to get here in 24hours? With all her so called mights, greatness and miraclous capabilities.

Jesus should consider taking an UBER taxi it would get her here quicker. i will Pay her fare personally.

ThothHermes:
Jessica.Rabbit, I'm in the mood for an argument, I want to see you defend this in the name of love and freedom.

Lol. My old friend. Doesn't it exhaust you constantly trying to dictate how others experience or express their own identity?

CyrusVI:


Ahhh...You don go call horror

She go drag u till u run away

I wish u well

Hi there

I know there's no obligation for you to respond, but I'm still curious to see your demonstration of how the DNA's complexity evidences intelligent design. Thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/8148371/dna-test-results-lies-there/1#131225246

Mrcork spec.
😃

JessicaRabbit:


Hi there

I know there's no obligation for you to respond, but I'm still curious to see your demonstration of how the DNA's complexity evidences intelligent design. Thanks.

https://www.nairaland.com/8148371/dna-test-results-lies-there/1#131225246

Omg! I'm afraid of you now

How do you find it so easy to recognize me even when i use other monikers

I have only tagged you once with this username and I'm surprised you recognize who I am

Same way u did when i used EmperorC and DevilsE

Please, do you track peoples IP or what

I'm actually worried o

And as for that DNA stuff, I didnt respond yet cause you've not been really stable here. I no wan dey wait for your reply every 3weeks. It kills the vibes and energy. Before now, you havent been around for like 3weeks. Thats too much of a wait

And the bolded, I'm actually under obligation to respond cause I'm not just debating for the sake of it but to win you and I mean it. My education is a waste if a person that doesnt major in any science field can defeat me in a science-based argument with their Socratic method of argument that uses multiple questions to shred peoples points into scattered pieces

God Forbid!!!

Angel Gabriel blow the trumphet NOW

CyrusVI:


Omg! I'm afraid of you now

How do you find it so easy to recognize me even when i use other monikers

I have only tagged you once with this username and I'm surprised you recognize who I am

Same way u did when i used EmperorC and DevilsE

Please, do you track peoples IP or what

I'm actually worried o

And as for that DNA stuff, I didnt respond yet cause you've not been really stable here. I no wan dey wait for your reply every 3weeks. It kills the vibes and energy. Before now, you havent been around for like 3weeks. Thats too much of a wait

And the bolded, I'm actually under obligation to respond cause I'm not just debating for the sake of it but to win you and I mean it. My education is a waste if a person that doesnt major in any science field can defeat me in a science-based argument with their Socratic method of argument that uses multiple questions to shred peoples points into scattered pieces

God Forbid!!!

It's good you didn't try to deny it. You could have fooled anyone here but definitely not me.

To answer your first question -- No, I don't track people's IP addresses. I guess I'm just good at recognizing the aroma of pseudo-intelligence and stale excuses. It's not hard to detect when someone like you posts in this forum with the way you make snide remarks in a thread before scampering off like a child playing truancy. I have tried countless times to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your constant episodes of dishonest evasions and petty side comments have led me to believe that you're just a rabble rouser trying to start a fight with me for no reason other than the fact that you clearly feel threatened by me, and I can't help but wonder why.

And your excuse for not providing evidence is laughable. I mean, you're the one creating multiple usernames to avoid accountability. My sporadic presence here is not the fantastic excuse you think it is for you to dodge my questions continually, especially since you've had ample time to craft a substantive response. If you can't handle the wait, then maybe you should reconsider engaging in discussions that require intellectual honesty and rigor, instead of you to keep making excuses in a thinly veiled attempt to mask your inability to provide a coherent argument.

As for your "degree", maybe you can give me a very solid reason for why I should care? How does your education obligate you to respond to me? Is it a requirement to salvage your wounded ego? You sound too desperate here, like someone really struggling to save face.

Look, if you're not going to address the simple questions you've been asked, but keep up with your unnecessary and childish antics instead, then you've only confirmed what I've suspected about you all along. You're a fraud who has confused himself with an enlightened individual, and who boosts his ego by making surface level references to academic materials he doesn't understand. In that case, you can just spare us both the time and find something better to do.

His life is his life.

JessicaRabbit:


Lol. My old friend. Doesn't it exhaust you constantly trying to dictate how others experience or express their own identity?

Are you not tired of being an advocate of perversion under the guise of personal liberties advocacy.
Are you a pervert yourself

ThothHermes:
Are you not tired of being an advocate of perversion under the guise of personal liberties advocacy.
Are you a pervert yourself

This might come as a surprise to you, but nature, as we know it, is in a constant state of flux. It is THE very definition of change. So your suggestion that my advocacy for personal liberties is "perverted" is to imply that progress itself is a deviation.

Perversion and unfamiliarity. There's a clear distinction between those two terms which you seem not to be aware of. I presume you'd prefer to remain in a cave, clutching your precious pearls and constantly living in fear of the unknown.

JessicaRabbit:


This might come as a surprise to you, but nature, as we know it, is in a constant state of flux. It is THE very definition of change. So your suggestion that my advocacy for personal liberties is "perverted" is to imply that progress itself is a deviation.

Perversion and unfamiliarity. There's a clear distinction between those two terms which you seem not to be aware of. I presume you'd prefer to remain in a cave, clutching your precious pearls and constantly living in fear of the unknown.

What would be considered perverse in your opinion, or is anything under the sun acceptable provided it can be explained as "change"?

JessicaRabbit:


It's good you didn't try to deny it. You could have fooled anyone here but definitely not me.

To answer your first question -- No, I don't track people's IP addresses. I guess I'm just good at recognizing the aroma of pseudo-intelligence and stale excuses. It's not hard to detect when someone like you posts in this forum with the way you make snide remarks in a thread before scampering off like a child playing truancy. I have tried countless times to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your constant episodes of dishonest evasions and petty side comments have led me to believe that you're just a rabble rouser trying to start a fight with me for no reason other than the fact that you clearly feel threatened by me, and I can't help but wonder why.

And your excuse for not providing evidence is laughable. I mean, you're the one creating multiple usernames to avoid accountability. My sporadic presence here is not the fantastic excuse you think it is for you to dodge my questions continually, especially since you've had ample time to craft a substantive response. If you can't handle the wait, then maybe you should reconsider engaging in discussions that require intellectual honesty and rigor, instead of you to keep making excuses in a thinly veiled attempt to mask your inability to provide a coherent argument.

As for your "degree", maybe you can give me a very solid reason for why I should care? How does your education obligate you to respond to me? Is it a requirement to salvage your wounded ego? You sound too desperate here, like someone really struggling to save face.

Look, if you're not going to address the simple questions you've been asked, but keep up with your unnecessary and childish antics instead, then you've only confirmed what I've suspected about you all along. You're a fraud who has confused himself with an enlightened individual, and who boosts his ego by making surface level references to academic materials he doesn't understand. In that case, you can just spare us both the time and find something better to do.

Firstly, The absence of evidence supporting the theory of evolution is evident in the fact that no one has ever witnessed it occurring.. If it was a true process, evolution would still be happening and there should plenty of "transitional" forms for us to see. Instead, of course we see a diversity of "kinds" or plants and animals with variations within each kind... . With distinct and seemingly overwhelming differences, among each categories. That is, we have a lot of different breeds of dogs and lots more of cats and nothing like an intermediate or transitional form from say, one with a characteristic combination dog and cat before eventually becoming dog. Neither now in 2Ist century, nor at any point in our history was any discovered via Fossil records .



In fact, Scientifically, using Laboratory techniques, the only attempts of evolutionary scientists to show how Cells evolve from a simple organism to a much more complex one is the "Stan Miller experiment of gaseous mixture in test tubes" and I would assume you know how it ended. Its even more funny that that experiment didnt give the needed result and neither has the experiment progressed any further than where Miller's ended. A dead end

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates and the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.


It's fascinating to think about how an invertebrate creature, in the ocean transitioned into the first vertebrate. The initial fish. With its internal hard parts as opposed to external ones.

The evolution from bodied invertebrates to the earliest vertebrate fishes remains a puzzling enigma, with various theories circulating widely.
There are plenty of spaces with no clear sequence of transitions, in sight. Instead, things remain the same way they have been from how they were being described in the earliest book ever written by men, either in historical books like the Epic of Gilgamesh or in those early biological books by philosophers like Theophrastus and Aristotle's books on zoology.

Its not too smart to use Evolution that was rumoured to have occured years before the earliest men started writing books as the origin of human existence. When there arent live witnesses to these things and even earlier description of animals is still same now in 2024 as it was in 500BCE(Approximately 3500+ years when you add the description of animals in the Epic of Gilgamesh to it). How is diff from the religious gibberish that asked people to exercise faith and believe what they also dont see?


I will delve into DNA complexities in the next response.





Now, to your entire comment
Uche, You are the most manipulative human i know, you're a Narcissist too, a Dominatrix, humiliatrix,a Bully and also a control freak.

This is the first time in my entire life that i would be reading an online comment directed at me and i was moved to tears. I'm not trying to compete with you intellectually, so I see no reason why you should question my intellectual level... You'd feel bad if I did same


I changed moniker cause the other two were banned on other sections and not to "dodge accountability" and you're not the reason for that in anyway
Also, why would i feel threatened by you? Are you my God? Are you the one I worship? Dont overrate yourself please

I cant deny the fact that I'm always scared to read your comments when i bump into them but its not like i generally look for your comment or even follow you. I dont even open that Religious section and thats why all our arguments have been here in the Romance section

I would have wanted to respond to you the way you did to me but if i dare to do that, you'll start accusing me of being insulting and uncivil, which makes me wonder how you couldnt see anything insulting in all your name-calling and personal attacks on me.

I know you'd wanna call your comment a fair assessment but even Gemini sees this as an insult(I asked Gemini a with a balanced prompt cause i wanted to be sure those are insults and not what u want me to believe it is). You'd attack people and still wanna brainwash them into believing its a fair assessment and nothing personal. Dont destroy my self-esteem. I'm not as worthless as you painted me.

Two confused people. Hope he gets his monthly periods.

If you don't mind, I've split your response into two separate threads. I feel like the first half of your riposte is simply an extension of our discussion in the DNA thread, and extending that part of our correspondence to this thread will practically be derailing this thread. So I'm only going to address the second half of your response here:

CyrusVI:
Now, to your entire comment
Uche, You are the most manipulative human i know, you're a Narcissist too, a Dominatrix, humiliatrix,a Bully and also a control freak.

Have you ever heard of Gloria Steinem? She was a popular journalist and social activist in the 1970s. There's a famous quote she's very well known for, which just happens to be the title of one of her books. The quote reads: "the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!". Your desperate name-calling and accusations towards me don't bother me one bit because I can tell that you're just being emotional over the fact that I've got you cornered since Day 1. So go ahead and let it all out. If you can't handle a little scrutiny, that's not my problem. But if you're willing to have an honest conversation and clear the air, I'm here for it.

This is the first time in my entire life that i would be reading an online comment directed at me and i was moved to tears. I'm not trying to compete with you intellectually, so I see no reason why you should question my intellectual level... You'd feel bad if I did same

So you claim you're not trying to compete with me intellectually, yet you've been shadowboxing with me for months, always landing jabs but never a solid punch. You challenged me to debate you, posturing like someone wanting to engage with me in good faith, but you never followed through when I accepted. If you're not here to engage with me, then why do you keep popping up like a jack-in-the-box in every thread I'm in, making rude and dishonest remarks about me and scurrying away before the discussion gets too taxing for your fragile ego? Obviously you have some kind of problem with me. If you think you can take me down a peg, then by all means, try. As for me, I'm not here to win a popularity contest or massage your wounded ego.

I changed moniker cause the other two were banned on other sections and not to "dodge accountability" and you're not the reason for that in anyway
Also, why would i feel threatened by you? Are you my God? Are you the one I worship? Dont overrate yourself please

I'm sorry, but your actions betray your words. If you weren't threatened by me for some weird reason, you wouldn't be going through the trouble of using new monikers that I've never engaged with to make petty remarks about me. In said comments, you don't even quote me directly. Can you finally understand why I insist that you're a dishonest individual?

I cant deny the fact that I'm always scared to read your comments when i bump into them but its not like i generally look for your comment or even follow you. I dont even open that Religious section and thats why all our arguments have been here in the Romance section

Coming from someone who's been shadowing me across threads, this is hilarious. If you're not interested in engaging with me, then why do you keep showing up in my orbit? If you're not looking for my comments, then why do you always seem to find them? And why do you always feel compelled to respond with snide remarks and excuses instead of engaging in a genuine discussion? Can you give an honest answer?

I would have wanted to respond to you the way you did to me but if i dare to do that, you'll start accusing me of being insulting and uncivil, which makes me wonder how you couldnt see anything insulting in all your name-calling and personal attacks on me.

Lol. Please spare me the faux outrage and the pretentious concern for civility. Have you ever observed peer review sessions within the scientific community? Normally, I'd ask you to look up the meaning of ad hominem and understand the difference between unprovoked personal attacks and harsh, but critical examinations of an argument or presentation, but you probably wouldn't understand anyway and falsely accuse me of trying to manipulate you, so I'm not going to waste my time there. The only thing I'll tell you is this: If you can't handle the heat, then perhaps you should refrain from playing with fire. And if you're still unsure about how to engage in a substantive discussion, I can offer you some pointers - or better yet, a mirror, so you can examine your own intellectual dishonesty.

I know you'd wanna call your comment a fair assessment but even Gemini sees this as an insult(I asked Gemini a with a balanced prompt cause i wanted to be sure those are insults and not what u want me to believe it is). You'd attack people and still wanna brainwash them into believing its a fair assessment and nothing personal. Dont destroy my self-esteem. I'm not as worthless as you painted me.

I'm not sure what Gemini AI's opinion on insults has to do with anything. If you're incapable of distinguishing between a scathing critique and a personal attack on your own, then that's not my problem. A fair assessment is not about sugarcoating the truth, it's about calling out BS when you see it, and your constant evasions, excuses, and lack of intellectual honesty are all BS. I'm not here to coddle your fragile ego or make you feel good about yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, then prove to me that you're serious and that you're not trying to waste my time. Don't go behind my back, casting aspersions on my character and making unfounded accusations about me. I'm not obligated to treat such behavior with kid gloves.

ThothHermes:
What would be considered perverse in your opinion, or is anything under the sun acceptable provided it can be explained as "change"?

Well, I don't believe in an absolute moral framework or an arbitrary notion of what is considered perverted or not. On the contrary, I subscribe to the idea that our understanding of what is accepted should be guided by the prevailing conditions surrounding said event including basic things like the context, as well as the involvement of consent and harm. Just because I embrace change doesn't mean I'm a moral relativist. I believe in a framework of ethics that prioritizes empathy, reason, and individual rights. So, from the way I see it, not everything under the sun is acceptable, but in the same vein, I'm not afraid to question traditional norms and challenge the status quo if it means creating a society that benefits everyone positively in the spirit of humanism.

JessicaRabbit:
If you don't mind, I've split your response into two separate threads. I feel like the first half of your riposte is simply an extension of our discussion in the DNA thread, and extending that part of our correspondence to this thread will practically be derailing this thread. So I'm only going to address the second half of your response here:



Have you ever heard of Gloria Steinem? She was a popular journalist and social activist in the 1970s. There's a famous quote she's very well known for, which just happens to be the title of one of her books. The quote reads: "the truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!". Your desperate name-calling and accusations towards me don't bother me one bit because I can tell that you're just being emotional over the fact that I've got you cornered since Day 1. So go ahead and let it all out. If you can't handle a little scrutiny, that's not my problem. But if you're willing to have an honest conversation and clear the air, I'm here for it.



So you claim you're not trying to compete with me intellectually, yet you've been shadowboxing with me for months, always landing jabs but never a solid punch. You challenged me to debate you, posturing like someone wanting to engage with me in good faith, but you never followed through when I accepted. If you're not here to engage with me, then why do you keep popping up like a jack-in-the-box in every thread I'm in, making rude and dishonest remarks about me and scurrying away before the discussion gets too taxing for your fragile ego? Obviously you have some kind of problem with me. If you think you can take me down a peg, then by all means, try. As for me, I'm not here to win a popularity contest or massage your wounded ego.



I'm sorry, but your actions betray your words. If you weren't threatened by me for some weird reason, you wouldn't be going through the trouble of using new monikers that I've never engaged with to make petty remarks about me. In said comments, you don't even quote me directly. Can you finally understand why I insist that you're a dishonest individual?



Coming from someone who's been shadowing me across threads, this is hilarious. If you're not interested in engaging with me, then why do you keep showing up in my orbit? If you're not looking for my comments, then why do you always seem to find them? And why do you always feel compelled to respond with snide remarks and excuses instead of engaging in a genuine discussion? Can you give an honest answer?



Lol. Please spare me the faux outrage and the pretentious concern for civility. Have you ever observed peer review sessions within the scientific community? Normally, I'd ask you to look up the meaning of ad hominem and understand the difference between unprovoked personal attacks and harsh, but critical examinations of an argument or presentation, but you probably wouldn't understand anyway and falsely accuse me of trying to manipulate you, so I'm not going to waste my time there. The only thing I'll tell you is this: If you can't handle the heat, then perhaps you should refrain from playing with fire. And if you're still unsure about how to engage in a substantive discussion, I can offer you some pointers - or better yet, a mirror, so you can examine your own intellectual dishonesty.



I'm not sure what Gemini AI's opinion on insults has to do with anything. If you're incapable of distinguishing between a scathing critique and a personal attack on your own, then that's not my problem. A fair assessment is not about sugarcoating the truth, it's about calling out BS when you see it, and your constant evasions, excuses, and lack of intellectual honesty are all BS. I'm not here to coddle your fragile ego or make you feel good about yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, then prove to me that you're serious and that you're not trying to waste my time. Don't go behind my back, casting aspersions on my character and making unfounded accusations about me. I'm not obligated to treat such behavior with kid gloves.

I have a thicker skin now and your words don't move me anymore...You can say anything you want and trust me, how you also feel about my socalled "snide remarks" is irrelevant to me. And next time you you hit me that hard...my response could send u outta Nairaland

What you refer to as "Name-calling" is nothing but my "fair assessment" of who you are.

Saying you're manipulative and Domineering are traits you've always exhibited...they aren't some sort of personal attacks


As for your repetitive accusations of my popping up on your threads section, the only time I ever did that was when I tagged Dtruth in the other thread. The second and last time I said anything about you is in this thread, and its not likr followed you here, I already commented on this thread and you haven't, so I didnt follow you here.

Again, I didn't "keep popping up your face and running away like a coward or whatever". It happened just once, you weren't even in the second thread

Also, tagging you with a new moniker was because my two other accounts were banned and this is the only one I can use for now....the only wrong thing I did here was that i should have signalled to you that it's me(that would have buried off this "dishonest" tag u gave me. And also, I should have tagged u directly, as for the remarks, they were neither rude nor were they some sort of attack...I carefully selected my words


I deliberately explain this in details cause I want u to stop saying I feel threatened by you and I keep following you around...none of this is true and I stopped replying you since February until that Dtruth incidence. I have nothing against you please and I'm not a coward



You called me a:
rabble-rouser

A fraud that confused himself to be an enlightened individual

One with Pseudo-intelligence


And you really said these aren't personal attacks? The funny thing here is how you don't see anything wrong in all these yet you're quick to call tags like "Control-freak" a personal attack



It's either you are saying this for argumentative sake or you're just a dishonest person like me(fair assessment)


You have justifications for your verbal attacks while you expect the other person to remain mute and not go all hard against you

CyrusVI:


I have a thicker skin now and your words don't move me anymore...You can say anything you want and trust me, how you also feel about my socalled "snide remarks" is irrelevant to me. And next time you you hit me that hard...my response could send u outta Nairaland

This is quite funny. If my words truly didn't move you, then you wouldn't feel the need to respond with this veiled threat. Read your response here very carefully. "I'm not hurt, but I'll hurt you back" -- that's exactly how you sound. The truth here, which you seem not to realize is that I'm actually not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm simply just trying to hold you strictly accountable for your actions and your arguments. I'm trying to correct you. You're the one who can't tell the difference. The things you say are often not consistent with the things you do, and I'll continue pointing that out until you level with me. As for your threat, I'm really not impressed. I've seen more convincing bluster from a child who's been told they can't have ice cream at a birthday party.

What you refer to as "Name-calling" is nothing but my "fair assessment" of who you are.

Saying you're manipulative and Domineering are traits you've always exhibited...they aren't some sort of personal attacks

Your "fair assessment" is about as fair as a rigged coin toss. Calling me manipulative and domineering is a cheap shot, especially coming from someone who enjoys crafting spurious narratives about me. You've been dodging my questions for months now. You've assumed various things about me, but you've never backed up your claims with any true evidence. I can perfectly articulate the reasons why I think you've been dishonest with me. I can also walk through the logic that led me to conclude that you're a time-waster and shadowboxer. Can you do the same and prove to me that I have manipulated you or "dominated" you anywhere? I'm even curious to know your definition of "manipulation". Is it when someone is trying to clarify things to you in a way you never understood before? Is it when you struggle to come up with a convincing response to a decent argument?

As for your repetitive accusations of my popping up on your threads section, the only time I ever did that was when I tagged Dtruth in the other thread. The second and last time I said anything about you is in this thread, and its not likr followed you here, I already commented on this thread and you haven't, so I didnt follow you here.

Again, I didn't "keep popping up your face and running away like a coward or whatever". It happened just once, you weren't even in the second thread

That's a lie. Stop trying to downplay your history of the backhanded comments and dishonest assumptions you've made about me by claiming that you only ever referred to me twice. Prior to these two events you've highlighted here, you once asserted that I subscribe to Epicureanism without providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. Then there's the thread where you name-dropped me out of nowhere to claim that I'm not a logical thinker simply because I'm an atheist, as if capacity for logical thinking was dependent on whether someone believes in God or not. You made these claims in threads where I hadn't even participated. You were the one who went out of your way to bring me up. Before all of this, we've only ever engaged in an argument once, where you claimed that atheism was illogical, and I kept asking you to use the knowledge you claimed you obtained from certain academic literature to support your argument. If I recall properly, you still weren't able to do so up until the end of the thread. You're trying to avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior and instead making me out to be the villain, but the facts speak for themselves. You have a history of making unsubstantiated claims and random assumptions about me, and it is well-documented here.

Also, tagging you with a new moniker was because my two other accounts were banned and this is the only one I can use for now....the only wrong thing I did here was that i should have signalled to you that it's me(that would have buried off this "dishonest" tag u gave me. And also, I should have tagged u directly, as for the remarks, they were neither rude nor were they some sort of attack...I carefully selected my words


I deliberately explain this in details cause I want u to stop saying I feel threatened by you and I keep following you around...none of this is true and I stopped replying you since February until that Dtruth incidence. I have nothing against you please and I'm not a coward

This argument has made me understand what your problem really is. You see, the problem with constantly making assumptions about a particular individual without caring to ask them is that you seem obsessive, first of all. Secondly, you risk looking like a fool when all your assumptions are wrong. It can also be perceived as rude and dishonest because you demonstrate that you do not care what they think, and that you'd rather make unjustified conclusions about them instead of trying to get the facts. I hold a nuanced view on Epicureanism, and I detest people trying to retrofit me into a particular box. My atheism has nothing to do with my capacity for logical thinking. If you really want to develop a proper understanding through conversations, you must ask questions instead of making assumptions. Ask me what I think, how I feel, or what I know. Don't assume you already know the answers, because chances are, you don't.

You called me a:
rabble-rouser

A fraud that confused himself to be an enlightened individual

One with Pseudo-intelligence


And you really said these aren't personal attacks? The funny thing here is how you don't see anything wrong in all these yet you're quick to call tags like "Control-freak" a personal attack



It's either you are saying this for argumentative sake or you're just a dishonest person like me(fair assessment)


You have justifications for your verbal attacks while you expect the other person to remain mute and not go all hard against you

I called you a rabble rouser because your behavior consistently aligns with the definition of a rabble-rouser: someone who stirs up trouble or discontent. Your constant trolling by trying to get a reaction from me by making backhanded comments without mentioning me, as well as avoidance of substantive debate up until just recently are all hallmarks of rabble-rousing behavior. Your superficial references to academic works and your inability to provide coherent arguments based on those works made me conclude that you're more interested in appearing intelligent than actually being intelligent -- which is the very definition of pseudo-intelligence. That's why I called you a fraud. Thankfully, you seem to have decided to finally brace up and do the heavy lifting in the other thread, so I'm willing to re-examine these accusations if you can prove me wrong. I called you those things because they accurately describe your behavior and the way you've been conducting yourself in these forums. If you're offended by the truth, then maybe that's a problem you need to address. I like to tell it how it is no matter how painful it sounds, and I like people that tell it how it is, so long as they can backup their claims with facts. For example, your accusation of me being a bully and control-freak doesn't add up when examined closely. Just because I enjoy discussing on clear terms and conditions to avoid the risk of logical fallacies or misinterpretation doesn't mean I like to control people. Also, all I have done before now is simply point out that you've been dodging my questions and avoiding substantive debate. That's not control-freak behavior. I have the right to call out someone I perceive is being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't make me a control freak, or manipulator, or the thousand and one other aspersions you cast on me.

JessicaRabbit:


This is quite funny. If my words truly didn't move you, then you wouldn't feel the need to respond with this veiled threat. Read your response here very carefully. "I'm not hurt, but I'll hurt you back" -- that's exactly how you sound. The truth here, which you seem not to realize is that I'm actually not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm simply just trying to hold you strictly accountable for your actions and your arguments. I'm trying to correct you. You're the one who can't tell the difference. The things you say are often not consistent with the things you do, and I'll continue pointing that out until you level with me. As for your threat, I'm really not impressed. I've seen more convincing bluster from a child who's been told they can't have ice cream at a birthday party.



Your "fair assessment" is about as fair as a rigged coin toss. Calling me manipulative and domineering is a cheap shot, especially coming from someone who enjoys crafting spurious narratives about me. You've been dodging my questions for months now. You've assumed various things about me, but you've never backed up your claims with any true evidence. I can perfectly articulate the reasons why I think you've been dishonest with me. I can also walk through the logic that led me to conclude that you're a time-waster and shadowboxer. Can you do the same and prove to me that I have manipulated you or "dominated" you anywhere? I'm even curious to know your definition of "manipulation". Is it when someone is trying to clarify things to you in a way you never understood before? Is it when you struggle to come up with a convincing response to a decent argument?



That's a lie. Stop trying to downplay your history of the backhanded comments and dishonest assumptions you've made about me by claiming that you only ever referred to me twice. Prior to these two events you've highlighted here, you once asserted that I subscribe to Epicureanism without providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. Then there's the thread where you name-dropped me out of nowhere to claim that I'm not a logical thinker simply because I'm an atheist, as if capacity for logical thinking was dependent on whether someone believes in God or not. You made these claims in threads where I hadn't even participated. You were the one who went out of your way to bring me up. Before all of this, we've only ever engaged in an argument once, where you claimed that atheism was illogical, and I kept asking you to use the knowledge you claimed you obtained from certain academic literature to support your argument. If I recall properly, you still weren't able to do so up until the end of the thread. You're trying to avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior and instead making me out to be the villain, but the facts speak for themselves. You have a history of making unsubstantiated claims and random assumptions about me, and it is well-documented here.



This argument has made me understand what your problem really is. You see, the problem with constantly making assumptions about a particular individual without caring to ask them is that you seem obsessive, first of all. Secondly, you risk looking like a fool when all your assumptions are wrong. It can also be perceived as rude and dishonest because you demonstrate that you do not care what they think, and that you'd rather make unjustified conclusions about them instead of trying to get the facts. I hold a nuanced view on Epicureanism, and I detest people trying to retrofit me into a particular box. My atheism has nothing to do with my capacity for logical thinking. If you really want to develop a proper understanding through conversations, you must ask questions instead of making assumptions. Ask me what I think, how I feel, or what I know. Don't assume you already know the answers, because chances are, you don't.



I called you a rabble rouser because your behavior consistently aligns with the definition of a rabble-rouser: someone who stirs up trouble or discontent. Your constant trolling by trying to get a reaction from me by making backhanded comments without mentioning me, as well as avoidance of substantive debate up until just recently are all hallmarks of rabble-rousing behavior. Your superficial references to academic works and your inability to provide coherent arguments based on those works made me conclude that you're more interested in appearing intelligent than actually being intelligent -- which is the very definition of pseudo-intelligence. That's why I called you a fraud. Thankfully, you seem to have decided to finally brace up and do the heavy lifting in the other thread, so I'm willing to re-examine these accusations if you can prove me wrong. I called you those things because they accurately describe your behavior and the way you've been conducting yourself in these forums. If you're offended by the truth, then maybe that's a problem you need to address. I like to tell it how it is no matter how painful it sounds, and I like people that tell it how it is, so long as they can backup their claims with facts. For example, your accusation of me being a bully and control-freak doesn't add up when examined closely. Just because I enjoy discussing on clear terms and conditions to avoid the risk of logical fallacies or misinterpretation doesn't mean I like to control people. Also, all I have done before now is simply point out that you've been dodging my questions and avoiding substantive debate. That's not control-freak behavior. I have the right to call out someone I perceive is being intellectually dishonest. It doesn't make me a control freak, or manipulator, or the thousand and one other aspersions you cast on me.

You are becoming softer than you were when it all started. Thanks for that. I now see you as human and not some monsters and I feel pleased

Thing is, I'm sorry if i ever appeared dishonest in any of my dealings with you, trust me, thats not who i am in anyway.




The reason why i called you "Manipulative" is because I feel you apply double-standard in every debate. When your insult others, you call it a fair assessment and even gaslight them into believing thats what they are by bringing up references and justifications but when they do same to you, you call it " fallacy ad hominem" and start saying they are doing that cause they feel threatened by you or because they couldnt match up with you intellectually and that they are sore losers. Thats manipulating na




My attempt to run away or dodge your questions stem from my own fears actually. I do not feel threatened by you tho and i dont follow you around but i just kinda have fears about some particular things and thats why i havent being too straightforward with you since

Kindly put those rude remarks aside, I would like to make some confessions first, I guess i've grown past the anger phase and I have to accept some things that i cant change for now, pending till my further reading

So,kindly assure me that u wont look down on me after making the confession. Dont overthink it tho, its not a biggie... Its still something related to this God/Atheism arguement. So can i?

CyrusVI:


You are becoming softer than you were when it all started. Thanks for that. I now see you as human and not some monsters and I feel pleased

Thing is, I'm sorry if i ever appeared dishonest in any of my dealings with you, trust me, thats not who i am in anyway.

This is not the first time you've apologized to me on this issue. You see, apologies are like a form of currency. They can be devalued by inflation, and in this case, the inflation was your consistent history of dishonesty and evasion. So, if you really want to make amends, it's not just a matter of saying you're sorry. You have to show a willingness to learn and to change your behavior. Be more honest. Be more self-aware, and stop playing the victim, especially when you know you've made glaring mistakes.

The reason why i called you "Manipulative" is because I feel you apply double-standard in every debate. When your insult others, you call it a fair assessment and even gaslight them into believing thats what they are by bringing up references and justifications but when they do same to you, you call it " fallacy ad hominem" and start saying they are doing that cause they feel threatened by you or because they couldnt match up with you intellectually and that they are sore losers. Thats manipulating na

You're just making me repeat myself. When I call out someone's behavior or arguments, I provide specific examples and explanations to support my claims. I don't simply throw around harsh words without basis. That's not a double standard. We call that "substantiation". Now contrast this with yourself where nearly all the claims you've made about me have been unfounded and assumptive. And you really need to learn what constitutes an ad hominem attack. "Sore loser" is not an ad hominem attack when used to describe someone who can't handle being corrected or challenged. It's a descriptive phrase for someone who can't take the heat and uses desperate tactics to deflect from the point whenever he has no more convincing arguments to make.

My attempt to run away or dodge your questions stem from my own fears actually. I do not feel threatened by you tho and i dont follow you around but i just kinda have fears about some particular things and thats why i havent being too straightforward with you since

Kindly put those rude remarks aside, I would like to make some confessions first, I guess i've grown past the anger phase and I have to accept some things that i cant change for now, pending till my further reading

So,kindly assure me that u wont look down on me after making the confession. Dont overthink it tho, its not a biggie... Its still something related to this God/Atheism arguement. So can i?

What did you want to tell me?

JessicaRabbit:


This is not the first time you've apologized to me on this issue. You see, apologies are like a form of currency. They can be devalued by inflation, and in this case, the inflation was your consistent history of dishonesty and evasion. So, if you really want to make amends, it's not just a matter of saying you're sorry. You have to show a willingness to learn and to change your behavior. Be more honest. Be more self-aware, and stop playing the victim, especially when you know you've made glaring mistakes.



You're just making me repeat myself. When I call out someone's behavior or arguments, I provide specific examples and explanations to support my claims. I don't simply throw around harsh words without basis. That's not a double standard. We call that "substantiation". Now contrast this with yourself where nearly all the claims you've made about me have been unfounded and assumptive. And you really need to learn what constitutes an ad hominem attack. "Sore loser" is not an ad hominem attack when used to describe someone who can't handle being corrected or challenged. It's a descriptive phrase for someone who can't take the heat and uses desperate tactics to deflect from the point whenever he has no more convincing arguments to make.

This exactly is why i called you those earlier names, I wont call you those again because you said they sounded disrespectful

You have a logical justification for everything and its worrying. Name-calling is wrong from whatever angle you use choose to look at it.
Your are really lucky that this argument is done via texting and i really dint have the strength to drag you that much, if not, I would have keep justifying every single name i called you with screenshot of multiple instances where it occured

You are also lucky this argument is taking place on a topic I have never debated/discussed with anyone before now and thats the reason why I feel overwhelmed most of the times

If it was my area of specialty, this whole thing would have been done since as i would have battered every single thing u throw at me

Its funny how i much of a monster i am elsewhere, only to get overpowered every single time I'm debating with you on your turf.


Stop justifying your wrongs. Some of us are too morally conscious to go all the way with you in doing same

What did you want to tell me?

I would like to have a proper conversation with you. I want to ask you questions and stop making random assumptions about you
The questions is sure gonna be just about these debates and diff topics I have seen you discussed in the past, Not personal

Like, my logical reasoning have so much developed in the last few days, To be honest, When I'm debating with people in other sections, Its now looking like I emulate your writing and debating technique(not grammatically o, just logically and I mean "its now hard for anyone to corner me in debates". Its like some dusts of your qualities are rubbing off on me and its just three days of consecutive back and forth

So can i ask the questions,ma

cococandy:

What a Riveting response

If we are being fair, is this fair ?

CyrusVI:
This exactly is why i called you those earlier names, I wont call you those again because you said they sounded disrespectful

Are you even listening to yourself? Do tell, what exactly is wrong with having a logical justification for everything? Never heard of critical thinking before? If you find it worrying that I prefer to understand and clarify things in a way that is logical and precise, then maybe you should take a step back and assess why you're so uncomfortable with someone who values reason and evidence.

You have a logical justification for everything and its worrying. Name-calling is wrong from whatever angle you use choose to look at it. Your are really lucky that this argument is done via texting and i really dint have the strength to drag you that much, if not, I would have keep justifying every single name i called you with screenshot of multiple instances where it occured

Serious question: are you telling me that you cannot tell the simple difference between descriptive phrases for a behavior, and an unjustified attack on character?

You are also lucky this argument is taking place on a topic I have never debated/discussed with anyone before now and thats the reason why I feel overwhelmed most of the times

Oh poor you! You're overwhelmed because you're actually having to think critically for the first time ever? How ever will you manage to handle this unprecedented level of intellectual stimulation? Do you need a safe space to recover from the trauma of being challenged?

If it was my area of specialty, this whole thing would have been done since as i would have battered every single thing u throw at me

Well, I'm sure your area of specialty is very impressive. I'm particularly impressed by your ability to batter things without actually accomplishing anything. It's a truly unique talent. Maybe you should consider opening a bakery, or perhaps a battering ram rental service. I'm sure you'd be a huge success.

Its funny how i much of a monster i am elsewhere, only to get overpowered every single time I'm debating with you on your turf.

Maybe it's because your own turf is more like a puddle of insecurity, where even the most timid housefly would come out swinging. For as long as I've known you, you only seem to talk about semantics and grammar and other frivolous distractions. All you do is whinge and complain about your feelings like anybody is actually supposed to care.

Stop justifying your wrongs. Some of us are too morally conscious to go all the way with you in doing same

The moral high ground is always a convenient place to retreat to when your arguments crumble. Well done.

I would like to have a proper conversation with you. I want to ask you questions and stop making random assumptions about you
The questions is sure gonna be just about these debates and diff topics I have seen you discussed in the past, Not personal

Like, my logical reasoning have so much developed in the last few days, To be honest, When I'm debating with people in other sections, Its now looking like I emulate your writing and debating technique(not grammatically o, just logically and I mean "its now hard for anyone to corner me in debates". Its like some dusts of your qualities are rubbing off on me and its just three days of consecutive back and forth

So can i ask the questions,ma

Shoot.

I have read this response for three days now yet i dont even know how to reply.

My Cyrus Moniker was banned again and I will have to use this one. I do wish tho, that It got banned for showing you pepper but then, other weaklings got hit by the spear and they had to cry to the Mod. I cant wait to punish you so bad that you'll have to run to them too

JessicaRabbit:


Are you even listening to yourself? Do tell, what exactly is wrong with having a logical justification for everything? Never heard of critical thinking before? If you find it worrying that I prefer to understand and clarify things in a way that is logical and precise, then maybe you should take a step back and assess why you're so uncomfortable with someone who values reason and evidence.



Serious question: are you telling me that you cannot tell the simple difference between descriptive phrases for a behavior, and an unjustified attack on character?

I have apologized multiple times during the cause of the lil argument and thats because for everytime i called you out, you've cunningly been able turn the whole accusations on its head and make it seem like they were personal attacks, yet for every single time i tried to also point out your ad hominem attacks, you would never apologize but instead give it some palatable names like "Fair assessment" and "descriptive phrase". Whats more worse is the fact that you dont see this as manipulations and even tried to attach it with being "Logically precise"

Oh poor you! You're overwhelmed because you're actually having to think critically for the first time ever? How ever will you manage to handle this unprecedented level of intellectual stimulation? Do you need a safe space to recover from the trauma of being challenged?

I have always thought critically and it has nothing to do with you. My being overwhelmed comes from the fact that you asking too many questions, throw up too many false assumptions and very many accusations that i have really hard to debunk one after the other[/quote]

Well, I'm sure your area of specialty is very impressive. I'm particularly impressed by your ability to batter things without actually accomplishing anything. It's a truly unique talent. Maybe you should consider opening a bakery, or perhaps a battering ram rental service. I'm sure you'd be a huge success.

Batter and Batter(in Baking, like Cake Batter). I like that

Thats Poetic. Word Play and Punchline that even Lil Wayne would be proud of

Maybe it's because your own turf is more like a puddle of insecurity, where even the most timid housefly would come out swinging. For as long as I've known you, you only seem to talk about semantics and grammar and other frivolous distractions. All you do is whinge and complain about your feelings like anybody is actually supposed to care.

This one na grammar. E fit sure for you, make we leave religion matter enter my main field. Then you will understand my current feeling and why most footballers struggle when played in the wrong/unfamiliar position

The moral high ground is always a convenient place to retreat to when your arguments crumble. Well done.

I guess the major reason why you keep going harder to say belittling things is because i encouraged it with my soft approach to you and that has to stop now.
Well for me, I thought it takes greater courage to show vulnerability like i used to do(the one you call"being emotional or complaining", but i guess i was wrong. From now on, I'm never doing that again

I will start hitting you like i hit those minnows that got me banned. We all can be aggressive without being insulting.

Shoot.

I ran through all our arguements and realized somethings

1)In my bid to corner you, I shot myself in the foot. You are more comfortable in debating with Theists on those topics I took to you and all you did was to use your past argument, past articles and others to tackle me. Maybe I would have fared better if i debated with Philosophy and History. It really pained me


2) You are an excellent debater. Most of your points arent even solid, still based on probabilities and assumptions that was brought forward to fill in the gaps and lapses of evolution and it all made it look like a script from Sci-Fi. The only that stood you out is your argumentative skills.

I noticed that even if we swapped places(If you argued for God and I do same for Atheism), you'd still have a upper hand and even win effortlessly. A good debater, like a Lawyer, would defend even a murder case and the accused would get vindicated. Being a good debater made it easy for you to take control of any discussion(This one is your biggest weapon).I ran through your past discussions and i saw you've never played a Second fiddle in any argument before.

You dont have enough points to argue Gods existence, you are just very skilled in attacking, defending, and taking control of any debate, regardless of what topic is being discussed.


Lastly, I would like to be your Nairaland Friend, I have 10000 questions to ask about the educational/academic aspect of you.

EmperorCaesar:
I have read this response for three days now yet i dont even know how to reply.

Actually, it's very easy to explain why you're having this difficulty. The truth is you're out of ideas, but you've refused to concede. It's a common condition where one's ego outweighs their arguments. At this point, you're just trying to squeeze water from a stone, which means you're probably just going to end up with a handful of nothing. But don't let me stop you. Watching you get emotional and melodramatic about a random stranger online supposedly having better arguments than you is entertaining to watch for the meantime, until I get bored at least. Obviously your self-esteem is tied to these arguments.

My Cyrus Moniker was banned again and I will have to use this one. I do wish tho, that It got banned for showing you pepper but then, other weaklings got hit by the spear and they had to cry to the Mod. I cant wait to punish you so bad that you'll have to run to them too

First of all, let's even address your "punishment" fantasies. Your threats are as laughable as your arguments. Let me guess, your "punishment" involves yet another fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts and ideas? Or yet another run-of-the-mill apologetics argument without evidence? Or maybe even resorting to outright insults because you've completely run out of tangible points to make? Perhaps you'll even try to outsmart me with a particularly profound observation about the weather? Surely you don't believe you're fooling anyone here with your tough-guy act? If you want to lash out with petty insults, please go ahead. You'll be doing me a huge favor honestly because it means that my previous comments about you are completely justified. You can't handle the heat of a critical debate, you just expect people to take your arguments at face value and agree with you because you don't want your feelings hurt. In your mind, you share the same identity with your arguments and that's why every form of criticism feels like an insult to you. Listen, if you reeaaally want to "punish" me, please try coming up with solid empirical evidence to prove your points for once, instead of relying on guesses and resigned speculation. You're the one trying to prove things to me. I'm the one examining your claims. Do you understand how the burden of proof works? You're the one mandated to prove your case, so you better piss or get off the pot. Come up with something that doesn't involve childish, entitled behavior and delusional threats. Don't be a keyboard warrior.

I have apologized multiple times during the cause of the lil argument and thats because for everytime i called you out, you've cunningly been able turn the whole accusations on its head and make it seem like they were personal attacks, yet for every single time i tried to also point out your ad hominem attacks, you would never apologize but instead give it some palatable names like "Fair assessment" and "descriptive phrase". Whats more worse is the fact that you dont see this as manipulations and even tried to attach it with being "Logically precise"

You're wrong. I've been very consistent with my judgements here, and I've been trying to explain to you that you're having misapprehensions about what I've been saying, but at this point, it appears you've chosen to play deaf. My goal has always been to address the core issues of our disagreement, and I've tried to do so in a strictly logical manner. There's a common axiom in the science community that "bad ideas exist to be destroyed". I believe that if we should seek to establish actual undeniable facts, feelings should have no place in the discussion because they can result in bias and making up lies. If you choose to take my words personally, that's your problem. You either admit to your own faults or explain to me why I'm wrong, using convincing logic. You've made your own judgements and criticisms about my character and person. You didn't see me whinge about it, instead I used logic to show why your judgements about me were wrong and pointed out any fallacies you committed in your assertions. I've always maintained that my statements have been descriptive, not personal. You've mentioned that I don't see this as manipulation. Maybe you're right, but I believe that my approach is based on a commitment to clear thinking and honest dialogue. I don't add salt or sugar to my words. I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?

I have always thought critically and it has nothing to do with you. My being overwhelmed comes from the fact that you asking too many questions, throw up too many false assumptions and very many accusations that i have really hard to debunk one after the other

Interesting. So if I'm the one throwing up "false assumptions and accusations", then why do you seem so desperately defensive, yet struggle to make a convincing counter-argument to prove me wrong? You're obviously articulate enough and can at least put up a decent argument, so why can't you seem to convincingly destroy my "false assumptions"? Have you considered that it's because you know, deep down, that I'm hitting the nail right on the head? Or maybe you're just not as critical as you think you are? Either way, it's clear that you're not very good at handling the truth. Do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance. I believe you'll have a better understanding of what's truly going on here if you honestly and diligently study what it means. And by the way, I'm not sure how you expect to handle the complexities of the real world if you're easily overwhelmed by a few pertinent questions.

Batter and Batter(in Baking, like Cake Batter). I like that

Thats Poetic. Word Play and Punchline that even Lil Wayne would be proud of

Whatever you say.

This one na grammar. E fit sure for you, make we leave religion matter enter my main field. Then you will understand my current feeling and why most footballers struggle when played in the wrong/unfamiliar position

I find it interesting that you're suggesting we switch fields to prove intellectual superiority. It's as if you believe expertise in one area automatically translates to authority in all others, when in reality, intellectual discourse requires more than just specialized knowledge. It demands critical thinking, logical reasoning, and effective communication -- skills that aren't limited to a single domain. I have to say though: this desperate obsession to prove your intellectual superiority to me is strengthening my belief that you feel insecure about your ability to hold a meaningful conversation without resorting to pedantry. Or maybe you're just trying to compensate for something else. Perhaps you're afraid of being wrong, or maybe you simply enjoy hearing the sound of your own voice. Whatever the reason, it's clear that you're more interested in winning arguments than in actually understanding or connecting with others. Can you not see a problem with this? Or have you just finally decided to fully sacrifice integrity and authenticity at the altar of self-validation and egoism?

I guess the major reason why you keep going harder to say belittling things is because i encouraged it with my soft approach to you and that has to stop now.
Well for me, I thought it takes greater courage to show vulnerability like i used to do(the one you call"being emotional or complaining", but i guess i was wrong. From now on, I'm never doing that again

I will start hitting you like i hit those minnows that got me banned. We all can be aggressive without being insulting.

Vulnerability is about being honest and open, not whinging and complaining. But whatever the case, it's fine. I definitely won't miss the waterworks. And please, by all means, "hit me" with your best shot. I'm not looking for insults, I'm looking for substance. I'm looking for objective, rational thought, devoid of emotions. If you can manage to land a solid critical argument without resorting to petty jabs, I promise I'll be very impressed.

I ran through all our arguements and realized somethings

1)In my bid to corner you, I shot myself in the foot. You are more comfortable in debating with Theists on those topics I took to you and all you did was to use your past argument, past articles and others to tackle me. Maybe I would have fared better if i debated with Philosophy and History. It really pained me

Evidence doesn't care about your feelings or your preferred fields of discourse. It's not about being "comfortable" debating with theists; it's about being grounded in reality. I didn't need to reinvent the wheel to counter your tired arguments because the truth doesn't change just to accommodate your fragile ego.

2) You are an excellent debater. Most of your points arent even solid, still based on probabilities and assumptions that was brought forward to fill in the gaps and lapses of evolution and it all made it look like a script from Sci-Fi. The only that stood you out is your argumentative skills.

Probabilities and assumptions are simply characteristics of science. Like I said earlier, it is a constant process of refining our understanding based on evidence. Unlike certain belief systems, I don't need to rely on ancient texts or divine revelations to fill in the gaps. I simply point out the flaws in your arguments and let the facts speak for itself. After all, the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. My arguments were based on the lack of evidence for your supernatural claims. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary assertions, not on those pointing out the holes in their logic.

I noticed that even if we swapped places(If you argued for God and I do same for Atheism), you'd still have a upper hand and even win effortlessly. A good debater, like a Lawyer, would defend even a murder case and the accused would get vindicated. Being a good debater made it easy for you to take control of any discussion(This one is your biggest weapon).I ran through your past discussions and i saw you've never played a Second fiddle in any argument before.

You dont have enough points to argue Gods existence, you are just very skilled in attacking, defending, and taking control of any debate, regardless of what topic is being discussed.

I'm flattered that you think I'm skilled, but let's not forget: I'm not obligated to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. My role is to poke holes in your arguments, which I believe, and even you yourself admitted here, I have done successfully. And you're right. I could defend any topic with ease, not because I'm biased, but because I rely on reason and evidence. If your arguments were solid, they'd withstand scrutiny. Instead, you try to paint me being a skilled debater, as if it detracts from the substance of what I'm saying. I'm not here to "win" or convince you of my non-belief. I'm here to challenge your claims and encourage critical thinking. If you struggle to accept that, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your beliefs. I don't need "enough points" to argue against God's existence. I simply need you to provide convincing evidence, which, so far, has been lacking. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions and expose the flaws in your arguments. That's how debates work.

Lastly, I would like to be your Nairaland Friend, I have 10000 questions to ask about the educational/academic aspect of you.

As it says on my profile page, I'm not looking for friends here. If you have a question you're dying to ask, you can go ahead and ask. If I feel the need to answer, I will. If I consider the question too personal for my taste, I'll decline.

First of all, let's even address your "punishment" fantasies. Your threats are as laughable as your arguments. Let me guess, your "punishment" involves yet another fundamental misunderstanding of basic facts and ideas? Or yet another run-of-the-mill apologetics argument without evidence? Or maybe even resorting to outright insults because you've completely run out of tangible points to make? Perhaps you'll even try to outsmart me with a particularly profound observation about the weather? Surely you don't believe you're fooling anyone here with your tough-guy act? If you want to lash out with petty insults, please go ahead. You'll be doing me a huge favor honestly because it means that my previous comments about you are completely justified. You can't handle the heat of a critical debate, you just expect people to take your arguments at face value and agree with you because you don't want your feelings hurt. In your mind, you share the same identity with your arguments and that's why every form of criticism feels like an insult to you. Listen, if you reeaaally want to "punish" me, please try coming up with solid empirical evidence to prove your points for once, instead of relying on guesses and resigned speculation. You're the one trying to prove things to me. I'm the one examining your claims. Do you understand how the burden of proof works? You're the one mandated to prove your case, so you better piss or get off the pot. Come up with something that doesn't involve childish, entitled behavior and delusional threats. Don't be a keyboard warrior.




You're wrong. I've been very consistent with my judgements here, and I've been trying to explain to you that you're having misapprehensions about what I've been saying, but at this point, it appears you've chosen to play deaf. My goal has always been to address the core issues of our disagreement, and I've tried to do so in a strictly logical manner. There's a common axiom in the science community that "bad ideas exist to be destroyed". I believe that if we should seek to establish actual undeniable facts, feelings should have no place in the discussion because they can result in bias and making up lies. If you choose to take my words personally, that's your problem. You either admit to your own faults or explain to me why I'm wrong, using convincing logic. You've made your own judgements and criticisms about my character and person. You didn't see me whinge about it, instead I used logic to show why your judgements about me were wrong and pointed out any fallacies you committed in your assertions. I've always maintained that my statements have been descriptive, not personal. You've mentioned that I don't see this as manipulation. Maybe you're right, but I believe that my approach is based on a commitment to clear thinking and honest dialogue. I don't add salt or sugar to my words. I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?

I laughed widely while reading this. You sound funny and harsh. Unreal and amusing combination

Like you said in your reply to Negroid01 on his thread, You said "Speaking for myself, I enjoy arguing with people who I believe are clearly bent on winning by any means necessary, even through sheer duplicity, because I want to give their ego a run for its money. In my experience, these kind of people can't deal with someone who's willing to go back and forth with them for lengthy periods,... ",


Now, thats the situation we currently have here. Not like i run out of points, but your replies are usually so full and with many questions that i get really overwhelmed and do not know how to start the defense and If it wasnt for this " I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?", I would have stopped replying long ago, just like i ran away in February

This bolded is my sole Motivation in this argument. I debate with you because those harsh words from you really makes me high not neccessarily because of the God Argument, I deliberately resume the debate after seeing what you did to Dtruth (The bashing was heavenly and I wish those comments were for me. i envied him). I have screenshots of most of your attacks at me and I read them whenever I'm less busy, just to feel good.

And yea, when i complain, its not because i dont want it, Its actually because I know that the complains would subsconsciously send the message to you that I'm vulnerable and that would make you double the attack....And yea, you've always done that Thanks a lot and I expect to read more humiliating comments from you.

I hope this continues tho and dont run away. Topics full ground to discuss and sure, I have cogent points to use in any debate

Interesting. So if I'm the one throwing up "false assumptions and accusations", then why do you seem so desperately defensive, yet struggle to make a convincing counter-argument to prove me wrong? You're obviously articulate enough and can at least put up a decent argument, so why can't you seem to convincingly destroy my "false assumptions"? Have you considered that it's because you know, deep down, that I'm hitting the nail right on the head? Or maybe you're just not as critical as you think you are? Either way, it's clear that you're not very good at handling the truth. Do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance. I believe you'll have a better understanding of what's truly going on here if you honestly and diligently study what it means.[b] And by the way, I'm not sure how you expect to handle the complexities of the real world if you're easily overwhelmed by a few pertinent questions.[b]

The most interesting thing about you is how you go over a particulars person's argument with few reasonable points thats are relatable in the world of Physical Science and still manage to say that they dont have a decent argument

Stop talking down my argument abeg. And you're even lucky that I'm really quick to skip arguments and jump to other points cause if i actually took out time to reply most of your counter-Argument, you will get tired of your almighty science concepts and that too is because I have too many points to debate with. Had i have just one or two, you for hear am


As for the bolded, if it was that easy, the last time i threw numerous questions about 'instinctive animals behaviours' at you, you would have highlighted them one after the other and start responding to all, Instead, you lump them all together and assigned a variable to them. Natural selection.

I find it interesting that you're suggesting we switch fields to prove intellectual superiority. It's as if you believe expertise in one area automatically translates to authority in all others, when in reality, intellectual discourse requires more than just specialized knowledge. It demands critical thinking, logical reasoning, and effective communication -- skills that aren't limited to a single domain. I have to say though: this desperate obsession to prove your intellectual superiority to me is strengthening my belief [/b]that you feel insecure about your ability to hold a meaningful conversation without resorting to pedantry. Or maybe you're just trying to compensate for something else. Perhaps you're afraid of being wrong, or maybe you simply enjoy hearing the sound of your own voice. Whatever the reason, it's clear that you're more interested in winning arguments than in actually understanding or connecting with others. Can you not see a problem with this? Or have you just finally decided to fully sacrifice integrity and authenticity at the altar of self-validation and egoism?

At the bolded, thats exactly who you are. You are just tryna project your own weakness on me.

You may not neccessarily be in this to win a debate but, but every other thing you said here describes you. You said it then that "I understand your concerns, but don't fret. For someone of his cognitive level, It really doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to dismantle any pathetic argument he tries to present, so it's no skin of my nose.". You size up peoples intellectual level after their first two replies to you and if you notice they arent as high as you think, you go straight into asserting dominance in the argument, while constantly questioning my intellectual level

You've done it to every single person you've debated with and you once told me that "Knowing who i am, you wouldnt expect me to pull out some kinda argument you feel were for intellectually higher people". Now, how does this action not relate with trying to prove intellectual superiority. Again, Most of your comments are the true definition of who you are. Read them up again and see the true and unbias you


On this NL, you are the only one thats questioned my intellectual level multiple times and still go away with it without getting attacked,have yours questioned or even getting battered heavily for it and I have my reasons.


So me no dey follow you drag Einstein brain, and Ye, you're right, I badly wanna win the argument and I will. A loss to you would shatter many things in me.

Vulnerability is about being honest and open, not whinging and complaining. But whatever the case, it's fine. I definitely won't miss the waterworks. And please, by all means, "hit me" with your best shot. I'm not looking for insults, I'm looking for substance. I'm looking for objective, rational thought, devoid of emotions. If you can manage to land a solid critical argument without resorting to petty jabs, I promise I'll be very impressed.

Nothing impresses you, so forget this. You act like a robot, like you only scan through arguments and like you dont read them at all

I tried to Impress u in March and i almost ran mad. Now, I'm bigger than that and i dont have to keep showboating to prove one irrelevant point to a random stranger online. I just drop my points and expect the usually "Your argument is baseless and devoid of logic" review from you.


Evidence doesn't care about your feelings or your preferred fields of discourse. It's not about being "comfortable" debating with theists; it's about being grounded in reality. I didn't need to reinvent the wheel to counter your tired arguments because the truth doesn't change just to accommodate your fragile ego.

Probabilities and assumptions are simply characteristics of science. Like I said earlier, it is a constant process of refining our understanding based on evidence. Unlike certain belief systems, I don't need to rely on ancient texts or divine revelations to fill in the gaps. I simply point out the flaws in your arguments and let the facts speak for itself. After all, the burden of proof isn't on me to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place. My arguments were based on the lack of evidence for your supernatural claims. The burden of proof is on those making extraordinary assertions, not on those pointing out the holes in their logic.



I'm flattered that you think I'm skilled, but let's not forget: I'm not obligated to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist. My role is to poke holes in your arguments, which I believe, and even you yourself admitted here, I have done successfully. And you're right. I could defend any topic with ease, not because I'm biased, but because I rely on reason and evidence. If your arguments were solid, they'd withstand scrutiny. Instead, you try to paint me being a skilled debater, as if it detracts from the substance of what I'm saying. I'm not here to "win" or convince you of my non-belief. I'm here to challenge your claims and encourage critical thinking. If you struggle to accept that, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your beliefs. I don't need "enough points" to argue against God's existence. I simply need you to provide convincing evidence, which, so far, has been lacking. Until then, I'll continue to ask questions and expose the flaws in your arguments. That's how debates work.

Dont misunderstand me. I didnt admit to anything. You just know how to use plenty words and good English to sweep home your points and thats why I said you could easily argue for God's existence and still win vs some Atheists

I guess this is one skill you took your time to learn and you keep improving on it while praying for days like this to come and thats why you vould easily call out any Theist to test out your skills on them

As it says on my profile page, I'm not looking for friends here. If you have a question you're dying to ask, you can go ahead and ask. If I feel the need to answer, I will. If I consider the question too personal for my taste, I'll decline.

I mean just a Nairaland Friend and thats all. And you must accept that o. I like reading your comments, Its usually filled with idioms, figurative expressions and excellent grammars. I could read your comments 24/7 and not get tired. You dont have to be friendly, be your Soldier sef and me go just dey follow you dey chat normally.
Sometimes, I wonder how you conjure your thoughts before passing them out here cause your comments seem too serious. I just want to see you loosen up a bit, at least, text in either Pidgin or in any local Language. Wanna feel the human part of you. This version is too rigid and emotionless

JessicaRabbit:


Actually, it's very easy to explain why you're having this difficulty. The truth is you're out of ideas, but you've refused to concede. It's a common condition where one's ego outweighs their arguments. At this point, you're just trying to squeeze water from a stone, which means you're probably just going to end up with a handful of nothing. But don't let me stop you. Watching you get emotional and melodramatic about a random stranger online supposedly having better arguments than you is entertaining to watch for the meantime, until I get bored at least. Obviously your self-esteem is tied to these arguments.

The bolded is condescending, objectifying and dehumanizing.
You said Dtruth was like 'Your target practice' and now I'm a circus show for your entertainment. Dont let me vex,put you in your place abeg

Same argument I'm putting my all is what you refer to as an "Entertainment till you are bored" to you. Thats disrespectful?
And please, If you really mean it that you are using me to pass time, lemme know now, so i can disengage already, cause its gonna make me feel dumb if you suddenly pull out just because you are "bored".

A whole human is what you see as source of entertainment . So, when u call us out, You only see us as Punching bag and circus show till you are bored. Who do you even think you are? You overrate yourself and its annoying.

I've been sitting on this response for close to a week now. It's been an eventful week for me, and there'll probably be more ahead given my schedule. So don't expect a quick response after this.

EmperorCaesar:


I laughed widely while reading this. You sound funny and harsh. Unreal and amusing combination

Like you said in your reply to Negroid01 on his thread, You said "Speaking for myself, I enjoy arguing with people who I believe are clearly bent on winning by any means necessary, even through sheer duplicity, because I want to give their ego a run for its money. In my experience, these kind of people can't deal with someone who's willing to go back and forth with them for lengthy periods,... ",


Now, thats the situation we currently have here. Not like i run out of points, but your replies are usually so full and with many questions that i get really overwhelmed and do not know how to start the defense and If it wasnt for this " I call it the way I see it, and if you don't like it then maybe you should stop talking to me for the sake of your mental health. Besides, you're not being consistent with your own words. You said you're a masochist, didn't you? So why the incessant complaints? By your own admission, you enjoy your arguments being exposed and shot down without mercy, or did I misunderstand you?", I would have stopped replying long ago, just like i ran away in February

This bolded is my sole Motivation in this argument. I debate with you because those harsh words from you really makes me high not neccessarily because of the God Argument, I deliberately resume the debate after seeing what you did to Dtruth (The bashing was heavenly and I wish those comments were for me. i envied him). I have screenshots of most of your attacks at me and I read them whenever I'm less busy, just to feel good.

And yea, when i complain, its not because i dont want it, Its actually because I know that the complains would subsconsciously send the message to you that I'm vulnerable and that would make you double the attack....And yea, you've always done that Thanks a lot and I expect to read more humiliating comments from you.

I hope this continues tho and dont run away. Topics full ground to discuss and sure, I have cogent points to use in any debate

Please read this part of your response very closely and see how pathetic and disturbed you really sound. Being a perpetual star victim is not something I'd imagine any mentally stable person would wilfully admit to. Although it's a remarkable feat of mental gymnastics -- convincing yourself that you are powerless while actively seeking out anguish. I wonder what the ultimate goal of this grand exercise in self-destruction is. You just sound like an obsessive attention seeker here, and it's really not the flex you unfortunately seem to think it is. Not only do you dishonestly insist that my comments are insults even after I have taken the time to explain what I'm saying, you still refer to them as statements that placate your weird and disturbing fetishes. You're just a scared hypocrite that can't own up to genuine criticisms. Please cultivate some genuine self-esteem, and for the love of all that is sane, stop embarrassing yourself. Only reason I still bother responding to you is for the sake of the debate we are having about intelligent design. Going forward, I will desist from responding to any more comments from you indulging in emotional self-immolation. Your twisted performance has reached its curtain call with me.

The most interesting thing about you is how you go over a particulars person's argument with few reasonable points thats are relatable in the world of Physical Science and still manage to say that they dont have a decent argument

The reason you keep tripping over yourself in these conversations is because you can't understand subtle differences between concepts. Having "reasonable points" is not the same thing as presenting a convincing counter argument. What you're calling reasonable points are just individual statements that may hold merit in isolation. But any merit those points may have do not count if they can't be cohesive, relevant, and effective enough to address an opposing viewpoint. It's very possible to make reasonable points that lack contextual relevance, depth, and persuasive power. I'll try to give an example here. Imagine I'm a doctor and you're a patient coming to me for a diagnosis. I might make several reasonable statements about the symptoms you've told me, but if my observations can not culminate in, and/or provide an accurate diagnosis or effective treatment plan, they're of limited value. You keep asserting that you have reasonable points, yet you can't properly demonstrate how they collectively strength your argument. So the way I see it, the substance of my critique remains unchallenged.

Stop talking down my argument abeg. And you're even lucky that I'm really quick to skip arguments and jump to other points cause if i actually took out time to reply most of your counter-Argument, you will get tired of your almighty science concepts and that too is because I have too many points to debate with. Had i have just one or two, you for hear am

I already knew this for quite some time, but it's funny to see you finally admitting that you're skipping over the parts of my argument where I'm actually making a case. Another duplicitous tactic used by those who can't adequately defend their positions. It's sad that you'll sacrifice everything within you, including your integrity, just because you want to "beat me" in an argument. You're really going out sad here, you have no idea.

As for the bolded, if it was that easy, the last time i threw numerous questions about 'instinctive animals behaviours' at you, you would have highlighted them one after the other and start responding to all, Instead, you lump them all together and assigned a variable to them. Natural selection.

I did address the topic of instinctive animal behaviors by pointing out that natural selection is a well-established mechanism explaining many of these phenomena. You're not entitled to a lengthy, point-by-point response when a single, well-established concept can elegantly address multiple related queries. Ever heard of parsimony? Insisting on elaborate responses to what essentially boils down to the same question demonstrates your lack of understanding of the principle of parsimony. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why natural selection doesn't adequately explain the phenomena you questioned.

At the bolded, thats exactly who you are. You are just tryna project your own weakness on me.

You may not neccessarily be in this to win a debate but, but every other thing you said here describes you. You said it then that "I understand your concerns, but don't fret. For someone of his cognitive level, It really doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to dismantle any pathetic argument he tries to present, so it's no skin of my nose.". You size up peoples intellectual level after their first two replies to you and if you notice they arent as high as you think, you go straight into asserting dominance in the argument, while constantly questioning my intellectual level

You've done it to every single person you've debated with and you once told me that "Knowing who i am, you wouldnt expect me to pull out some kinda argument you feel were for intellectually higher people". Now, how does this action not relate with trying to prove intellectual superiority. Again, Most of your comments are the true definition of who you are. Read them up again and see the true and unbias you

Are you sure you really understand what projection means? Take a good and careful squint at your post above. Your response is practically a verbatim recitation of my own criticisms, only with the pronouns reversed. It's almost as if you're holding up a mirror, but instead of merely gazing into it, you're merely reflecting your own intellectual laziness. If you're going to accuse me of pedantry, at least have the intellectual courage to define what that means in this context. You must be having a laugh trying to equate my assessments of people's argumentative style and competence to me trying to win a debate. It's a hilarious non-sequitur that proves you're utterly clueless here, throwing every single unfounded and/or unsupported accusation you can think of towards me, and hoping it sticks.

On this NL, you are the only one thats questioned my intellectual level multiple times and still go away with it without getting attacked,have yours questioned or even getting battered heavily for it and I have my reasons.

So me no dey follow you drag Einstein brain, and Ye, you're right, I badly wanna win the argument and I will. A loss to you would shatter many things in me.

Lol. I'm sure keen readers with a good sense of humour will appreciate the irony of you claiming that you're not "dragging Einstein's brain with me" and still admitting a weird obsession with "winning" me and proving a point, rather than engaging in an honest and meaningful exchange of ideas.

Nothing impresses you, so forget this. You act like a robot, like you only scan through arguments and like you dont read them at all

I tried to Impress u in March and i almost ran mad. Now, I'm bigger than that and i dont have to keep showboating to prove one irrelevant point to a random stranger online. I just drop my points and expect the usually "Your argument is baseless and devoid of logic" review from you.

It's okay. I'm very familiar with the scent of sour grapes. Instead of getting defensive, may I suggest actually getting better with providing substantive arguments? I definitely do not just "scan through" your posts, and if you really think I do, then maybe you're the one projecting your own lack of attention to detail because my responses have been poignant criticisms of your views, which you either don't address adequately, or don't even address at all.

Dont misunderstand me. I didnt admit to anything. You just know how to use plenty words and good English to sweep home your points and thats why I said you could easily argue for God's existence and still win vs some Atheists

I guess this is one skill you took your time to learn and you keep improving on it while praying for days like this to come and thats why you vould easily call out any Theist to test out your skills on them

If my arguments are merely "sweeping" due to vocabulary, then I'm curious why you've been having so much difficulty countering with facts, as opposed to assertions about my language skills. After all, sound reasoning and evidence shouldn't be intimidated by grammar or syntax. I love the backhanded compliment, by the way -- implying I could convincingly argue for God's existence. That's precisely the point: in a debate, one must address the arguments, not the person's perceived skills or biases, using them as a springboard to support your own position.

The bolded is condescending, objectifying and dehumanizing.
You said Dtruth was like 'Your target practice' and now I'm a circus show for your entertainment. Dont let me vex,put you in your place abeg

Same argument I'm putting my all is what you refer to as an "Entertainment till you are bored" to you. Thats disrespectful?
And please, If you really mean it that you are using me to pass time, lemme know now, so i can disengage already, cause its gonna make me feel dumb if you suddenly pull out just because you are "bored".

A whole human is what you see as source of entertainment . So, when u call us out, You only see us as Punching bag and circus show till you are bored. Who do you even think you are? You overrate yourself and its annoying.

Once again the context of my response eludes you. I wasn't even talking of the debate, I was specifically referring to your constant whinging about me always having a counter and having good argumentative skills as if it's a bad thing. At this point, I think it's safe to say that your fragile ego has been thoroughly exposed over the past month by your own very self. It's funny how it didn't take very long for the veil of intellectual pretension to lift, revealing the emotional instability beneath your facade. And yes, your responses have been weirdly entertaining to an extent. The outrage, the needless offense-taking, the appeals to emotional validity... it's all so hilarious when you take a step back to really observe. Anyways, I actually don't "overrate" myself. In fact, I don't consider myself very smart. I'm just someone who values truth, facts and evidence. My knowledge is not original. Everything I've said here are basic criticisms made to basic arguments from Christian apologists. It's nothing new for me. If you feel like a "punching bag," that's because your positions are weak, not because I'm exceptionally skilled.
If you're really that upset about what I said, then you can take your ball and go home. I promise you I won't be "bored" -- As amusing as it was, I'll just be relieved of the pity of watching you flail. Your dignity will survive, I assure you.