Intellect over emotions or emotions over intellect?

Linyakalumbi · Nov 3, 2019

introvert said:
The text states just that and this is what I am trying to explain here, that the use of the word shall is as good as using must, if all other factors stand.

This is why I asked if "shall" and "may" are one and the same in the eyes of the law, still unanswered but I see you have used "shall/must" in your text which now gives me hope.

The eligibility in the text is with respect to the term in office, such that the CAG must be re-appointed again for the next 5 years BUT if she/he has already served 10 years, then she/he is not eligible for re-appointment.

True, only if the CAG is ineligible.

False, if the CAG is eligible.

It is as good as a must, should all other factors remain valid. 2 + 2 and 4 are one and the same. It should be interpreted as it is and not as you would want it to be.

Now please answer my question: is the use of "shall" and "may" one and the same in the eyes of the law with respect to our argument here? If not, then there is no point of us debating, it's over.

Hapa issue ya mjadala nilivyouelewa sio "shall" na "may" Bali ni ELIGIBLE! na Ndio maana Shall ya fixed five years hakuna aliyebisha as a result hata Spika aliuchuna kwenye ile saga maana five years zilikuwa bado. Sasa amejaa kwenye 18 penati box. Eligibility iko within discretion ya Muongezaji. Eligibility ni hiari upate au usipate sio lazima. Ilitakiwa waseme shall be reappointed if not yet at age of 60, lakini kusema shall be eligible, what if he is not eligible as forcefully condition not set as long five years zake kamaliza? Tukutane kazini. Ila OP, kwanini "Mzee king'ang'anizi sana" siauchune tu akale pension. Tatizo jamaa anajiona bora sana.

Kilele9 · Nov 3, 2019

Nyani Ngabu said:
Duh!!

Sasa kama ni hivyo kwa nini asitumikie tu kwa miaka 10 kabisa? Ya nini kuweka miaka mitano?

Tatizo kama hili lipo katika muda wa rais wa JMT kuwa madarakani. Wakati umefika sasa tubadili katiba

DiasporaUSA · Nov 3, 2019

Stuxnet said:
Vyovyote itakavuokuwa whether amevunja katiba au la ila alichooifanya wazi wazi ni kutengeneza mazingira ya "plunder with impunity".

Huhutaji kuwa Mganga wa kienyeji au msoma nyota kujua kuwa Magufuri ana operate na watu wanaojua kulinda ufisadi wake.

Kwani Magu nae ni fisadi ?

The Monk · Nov 3, 2019

Hercule Poirot said:
Ndio, kwa ajili ya awamu ya pili, bila kuathiri vifungu vingine vya Sheria/Katiba.

Hebu fikiria, kama ingekuwa ni maamuzi ya Presida kumuongeza muda CAG au la si mtu angejikomba kwa mkuu ili apate awamu nyingine.

Sasa hivyo vifungu vingine ndio vilioelekea waweke mihula miwili ya miaka mitano mitano. Sifikirii wanaweza andika kitu kwenye katiba bila sababu.

murongo munene · Nov 3, 2019

introvert said:
The text states just that and this is what I am trying to explain here, that the use of the word shall is as good as using must, if all other factors stand.

This is why I asked if "shall" and "may" are one and the same in the eyes of the law, still unanswered but I see you have used "shall/must" in your text which now gives me hope.

The eligibility in the text is with respect to the term in office, such that the CAG must be re-appointed again for the next 5 years BUT if she/he has already served 10 years, then she/he is not eligible for re-appointment.

True, only if the CAG is ineligible.

False, if the CAG is eligible.

It is as good as a must, should all other factors remain valid. 2 + 2 and 4 are one and the same. It should be interpreted as it is and not as you would want it to be.

Now please answer my question: is the use of "shall" and "may" one and the same in the eyes of the law with respect to our argument here? If not, then there is no point of us debating, it's over.

Gracias brother as this nyani ngabu is turning into a praise and worship team period

nyabhingi · Nov 3, 2019

Jahmercy said:
Mkuu kasome vizuri katiba. Hiyo ibara inasema atakua eligible kuteuliwa tena, yana atakua anafaa/ anavigezo/ anastahili. Lakini haisemi ni lazima ateuliwe.

Since umeongelea kuhusu eligibility niambie katiba ilimaanisha nini hapo

Mbasembase1970 · Nov 3, 2019

nyabhingi said:
Kama akifikisha miaka 60 ndani ya kipindi cha pili atalazimika kustaafu na kuachia uCAG

Kwahiyo Magufuli hana haja ya kupigiwa kura mwakani. Na je kivipi mnaomchukia bado mnasema Membe achukue form wakati kipengele no 40 chavkatiba kina neno SHALL?

The Monk · Nov 3, 2019

nyabhingi said:
Huyo monkey anadhani yeye ni gorilla
Hakuna analojua kwenye hii ishu
Anasukumwa na usukuma tu
Akalale au aende kibaruani kama yupo Atlanta,Georgia

Huyo ni rais wetu wabeba box mkuu. Katiba yetu ipo wazi, imempatia urais wa kudumu.

nyabhingi · Nov 3, 2019

Mbase1970 said:
Kwahiyo Magufuli hana haja ya kupigiwa kura mwakani. Na je kivipi mnaomchukia bado mnasema Membe achukue form wakati kipengele no 40 chavkatiba kina neno SHALL?

Tofautisha post za kisiasa na za kiutendaji
Najua una usingizi,kesho utakuja na akili timamu

Click to expand...

state agent · Nov 3, 2019

Zitto alishindwa kila kitu akiwa chadema leo anakuja na act sio ndio sawa na kicheleee

State agent

technically said:
Tatizo sio kuondolewa ila tatizo kuleta mtu Kilaza ambaye alishindwa kazi TRA aje aweze kazi kwenye ofisi nyeti ya umma kama hii?

Mbasembase1970 · Nov 3, 2019

Unahamisha goli siyo.

nyabhingi · Nov 3, 2019

Tofautisha utumishi wa kisiasa na utumishi wa kiutendaji

nyabhingi · Nov 3, 2019

Mbase1970 said:
Unahamisha goli siyo.

Unajua tofauti ya utumishi wa kiutendaji/kitaalamu na kisiasa?
Wanasiasa hawanaga ukomo wa umri wa kustaafu

mrangi · Nov 3, 2019

Tena tungependelea zaidi nafasi hiyo
Angempa Rc king wa dar......
Angechapa Kazi sana

Ova

nyabhingi · Nov 3, 2019

This is a joke right!!??

mrangi said:
Tena tungependelea zaidi nafasi hiyo
Angempa Rc king wa dar......
Angechapa Kazi sana

Ova

The Professor · Nov 4, 2019

Politics and love are the main source of conflicts in any society ..watu mnatoleana mapovu humu na kushindana vingereza vyenu wakati pesa wanakula wemgine kudadadeq..

Upuuzi mtupu

Nyani Ngabu · Nov 4, 2019

Naona mmeishia kupiga makelele tu,

Hakuna katiba iliyovunjwa hapo.

Kama hamtaki, nendeni mahakamani.

Nyani Ngabu · Nov 4, 2019

introvert said:
The text states just that and this is what I am trying to explain here, that the use of the word shall is as good as using must, if all other factors stand.

This is why I asked if "shall" and "may" are one and the same in the eyes of the law, still unanswered but I see you have used "shall/must" in your text which now gives me hope.

The eligibility in the text is with respect to the term in office, such that the CAG must be re-appointed again for the next 5 years BUT if she/he has already served 10 years, then she/he is not eligible for re-appointment.

True, only if the CAG is ineligible.

False, if the CAG is eligible.

It is as good as a must, should all other factors remain valid. 2 + 2 and 4 are one and the same. It should be interpreted as it is and not as you would want it to be.

Now please answer my question: is the use of "shall" and "may" one and the same in the eyes of the law with respect to our argument here? If not, then there is no point of us debating, it's over.

I’ll be back....

Nyani Ngabu · Nov 4, 2019

Kilele9 said:
Tatizo kama hili lipo katika muda wa rais wa JMT kuwa madarakani. Wakati umefika sasa tubadili katiba

How?

Nyani Ngabu · Nov 4, 2019

introvert said:
The text states just that and this is what I am trying to explain here, that the use of the word shall is as good as using must, if all other factors stand.

Context is everything.

So, if ‘shall’ is interchangeable with ‘must’, what does that mean?

This is why I asked if "shall" and "may" are one and the same in the eyes of the law, still unanswered but I see you have used "shall/must" in your text which now gives me hope.

You want me to school you in modal verbs and all their forms?

Shall and may are not in dispute here, I think.

But we’ll see.

The eligibility in the text is with respect to the term in office, such that the CAG must be re-appointed again for the next 5 years BUT if she/he has already served 10 years, then she/he is not eligible for re-appointment.

Where does it say the “CAG must be re-appointed again for the next 5 years”?

Show me, please. And don’t play hopscotch.

Just show me where it says that.

True, only if the CAG is ineligible.

False, if the CAG is eligible.

Neither here nor there.

It is as good as a must, should all other factors remain valid. 2 + 2 and 4 are one and the same. It should be interpreted as it is and not as you would want it to be.

Context is everything. I made that clear from the gate.

You don’t seem to have a grasp of that!

Now please answer my question: is the use of "shall" and "may" one and the same in the eyes of the law with respect to our argument here? If not, then there is no point of us debating, it's over.

For you to even have the unmitigated gall to ask that, only speaks to your ignorance.

Those two modal verbs express two different situations.

I thought that should’ve been understood before we even started this....

Intellect over emotions or emotions over intellect?

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

Platinum Member

Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

Platinum Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

JF-Expert Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Platinum Member

Similar Discussions