Kumbe falsafa ni rahisi hivi?

Eric Cartman said:

Unakoelekea ni mbali sana from the original ideas of the debate you started on post #1 , kinachoendelea kwa sasa nadhani ni hili mradi uandike vitu somewhat gibberish pertaining to ur initial inquiry.

Hivi maswali yasingezuka kuhusu Richmond huyo Mwakyembe ata angeteuliwa kwenye kamati ya kuchunguza? Kama una amini unaweza kujifunza kutoka kwa wanyama sishangai pia kuja na statement ambazo evidence zipo site as if the site can talk.

This is why people do investigation kama kazi aliyokuwa nayo Mwakyembe mantiki ni kufanya tathmini ya casual origins; haya wewe tuambie Lowassa alifungwa vipi mikono au mpaka leo anafungwa vipi mikono asijitete hadharani. Free advice kasome kuhusu justice in philosophy uelewe dhana ya 'equality of outcome' kitu alichokifanya mwakyembe na chances alizonazo Lowassa as opposed to confusing to it with 'equality of opportunity' in your explanations.

Swala sio kuwa mwanafalsafa or not tunaishi kwenye age of information sidhani kama kuna kitu ukitaka kukijua kitakushinda kiasi kwamba ya wewe kukaa mezani na kujibizana na Phd holder with confidence (minus laboratory sciences). Tatizo lako ni perception ya kudhani unaweza kuongelea philosophy through your 'sense impression' and your argument to have any meaning; you dont make sense at all.

Ndio maana hata pale unaopelezwa dhana ya moral duty through his past experience ya mtu, swala la ethical dilemma and choosing based on utility bado tu unaendelea ujaona; kikubwa kwako hoja zake azijakufurahisha wewe na itimisho lake sio lako tatizo ni kwamba bado auna hoja zenye kupinga sababu zake zaidi ya kujaribu kuleta mifano ambayo aina uhusiano wowote.

Au inaweza kuwa sababu ya kujitokeza kwenye media ni part of challenging the veil of ignorance which has permeated the public kuhusu lowassa kwa hivyo anachofanya anawakumbusha tu as moral duty kuhusu mtu mwenyewe.

This is all you know' sophistry arguments.

Hivi umeona wapi mwanasheria wa serikari ushahidi wake unapopwaya anamlaumu mshitakiwa kwa kukosa kufanya kitu fulani ili argument yake iwe rahisi mahakani. Uwezi ku-accuse watu halafu utegemee wa kulete ushahidi ni jukumu lako wewe.


haki ya mungu you are amazing

Tukuulize wewe labda unaejua zaidi; mimi nimesikiliza hoja za Dr.Slaa nimezielewa sasa wewe mwenzetu kama unadhani kuna ya zaidi kwanini usimwambie huyo Lowassa aje ajitete surely na yeye atakuwa na copy ya hiyo ripoti.

Bora uache kama ulikuwa na mpango wa kutunga uongo hawa-jamaa wanaweza kuanza na wewe hivi hivi.

Click to expand...

Egnecious said:

Mtu mzuri ndani ya mfumo mbovu ana uwezo wa kuurekebisha mfumo na hatimaye kuwa mzuri zaidi. lakini kuwa na mtu mbovu ndani ya mfumo unaodhaniwa kuwa ni mzuri ni sawa na kuwa na timu nzuri lakini golikipa wake ni kipofu.

hatumchagui huyo mtu wenu, kura zetu zote ni kwa Magufuli[/QUOTE]


Hatumchagui Makguful wenu kura zetu zote ni kwa EDO LOWASA

Click to expand...

yakowazi said:

Egnecious said:

Mtu mzuri ndani ya mfumo mbovu ana uwezo wa kuurekebisha mfumo na hatimaye kuwa mzuri zaidi. lakini kuwa na mtu mbovu ndani ya mfumo unaodhaniwa kuwa ni mzuri ni sawa na kuwa na timu nzuri lakini golikipa wake ni kipofu.

hatumchagui huyo mtu wenu, kura zetu zote ni kwa Magufuli[/QUOTE]


Hatumchagui Makguful wenu kura zetu zote ni kwa EDO LOWASA

Click to expand...

waeleze

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

unapojibu nusu nusu unajikosesha mtiririko. kitendo cha kugawa hoja yangu ni sawa na kushika mstari mmoja wa biblia kisha kuamini umefahamu biblia yote. unajichanganya maana sijatoka nje ya mada. tukubaliane kutokukubaliana ili kila mmoja adumu na imani yake. wewe ndio unaleta ushindani kwa kupractise nadharia zako.

Hoja zangu ni hizi. Slaa hakuwa na ushahidi wa kutosha. slaa alikuwa na hasira. alichozungumza slaa angeweza kuzungumza mtu yeyote. sio kwamba alikuwa sahihi. falsafa ni maisha haya ya kawaida tu. nyie ndio mnaofanya mtindo wa kuyapa lugha tofauti maisha. na habari mpya ni kuwa slaa akishinikizwa hadi kufikia kusnzisha tena hoja ya richmond. so when nothing is not held constant, objective discudsion fills the vaccuum. Tatizo lako ni kung'ang'ania hoja moja na kuishi katika nadharia

Click to expand...

Eric Cartman said:

Dont take it personal hiyo ndiyo misingi ya kutokubaliana kifalsa kuanzia kwenye ancient debate za kina Socrates waliokuwa wanakutana milimani na awakuwahi kuandika maandishi yao, mpaka majibizano ya kina Hume and Locke kwenye vitabu (heck the beginning of satire was due to philosophical argument replies).

Unapombishia mtu lazima ujibu kwa principle na evidence to justify. Ndio maana umeona kuna 'au', 'ujathibitisha' 'self judgement' na kadhalika. Tatizo ni kwamba hoja zako hazina justification ni mawazo tu yasiyo na ushahidi; lengo ilikuwa ni wewe kuweka reasons kwanini unaamini hivyo (kwenye choice za Dr.Slaa nyingine ndio nafuu kwako).

Si lazima mimi au wewe tuwe sahihi its about tying evidence, making sense of action or giving justified reasons to the external world.

Siku njema.

Click to expand...

Eric Cartman said:

Ni hivi alichoongea Dr.Slaa ungeweza kukianzishia mjadala mwingine wa kisiasa kama thread nyingi zilizofanya humu JF, lakini ukitaka ufafanuzi wa hoja zake kwa namna ya philosophy lazima ujibu kwa nadharia za filosofia pia sio kuanza na mambo ya sijui siitaji kujua hiki au kile kinadharia if anything kwanini sasa ulisema Dr.Slaa hitimisho lake sio lazima liwe sahihi kwa hoja alizojenga iwapo wewe mwenyewe ujakanusha alichosema hili tupime ukweli mwingine kwa kile kilichoongelewa.
This is just a sophistry argument aina ukweli na kile kilichojengewa hoja uliyosema yanaweza kuangalia vingine. Hapa unachofanya wewe ni kuongezea tu argument kutaka kukosoa hoja za awali vitu ambavyo avikugusiwa katika itimisho la Dr.Slaa such argument are invalid in counter arguments.

Si unaona sasa unavyopotoka wewe ndio awali uliosema kwenye philosophy aina maana itimisho la mtu ndio ukweli pekee, the alternative could be right too. On that note why would you at the same time believe your fallibility is the other truth without any attempt to give us the contingent explanation on what was said? Kwanini na mimi nisiamini wewe unapotoka au umetumwa na UKAWA kumponda Dr.Slaa maana hoja zako azina base. Well labda ndio maana badala ya watu kudhania wanajua tu vitu wanaamua pia kusoma ili waweze jitendea haki kwa kile wanachobishia sasa wewe mwenzetu una amini auna sababu ya kujifunza nadharia za philosophy wakati kila unapoandika unazidi kuwa mbali na philosophical reasoning and justification.

Again that is just part of your sophistry kwenye kutaka kumchafua tena yenye misingi ya illusion tu na sio ukweli. Kwanza kwa historia yake tu Dr.Slaa alikuwa ni padre sasa tunajua padre anaishi na anafundisha kutokana na church dogmas/tenets ambazo anajifunza therefore those introjection values ata asipokuwa padre zitabaki. Kwanini usiseme na yeye pia kujitokeza kwake kutokana na maelezo ya natural law ni kwa sababu determinism principles kama moral duty aliyokuwa nayo awali kama kiongozi wa kanisa, political struggles ya kupambana na mafisadi ndio msukumo uliomfanya kumnanga Lowassa at least that has philosophical reasoning kuliko ulichosema wewe.


Mbona motive pia hiko wazi si yeye mwenyewe pia alikiri yakuwa ni binadamu kuna kitu kinaitwa causality effects, kama ulivyoelezea the other side of the outcome ni kwamba asinge enguliwa kwenye nafasi yake ya kugombea pia asingeyasema hayo maswala (that just the principles of cause and effect).

Alikuwa anamnanga Lowassa kuhusu Richmond who else is more qualified to talk about it kama sio Mwakyembe sasa kama unataka kupata empirical evidence za Richmond amtafute Gwajima pia wakati huyo role yake ni kufanya fitna kwenye siasa. Kila mtu ana nafasi yake akitaka kujua kuhusu shoddy dealings za Lowassa mtu wa kumtafuta ni Rostam Aziz akiwa tayari kuongea thats just part of finding logical necessity ndio maana kukawa na tofauti pia ya hitimisho kati yako na Dr.Slaa wakati yeye anafanya vitu kisayansi na kuitimisha kisayansi wewe unajibunia tu kila kitu kutoka kwenye kichwa chako.

Ok this is just too much kuna mdudu aliyeandika kitabu vinginevyo wanasayansi awawezi kujifunza kwa wadudu wanachofanya ni observation ya animal behaviours tu at the end they have to hypothesize those findings na si kila kitu kinakubaliwa.

Click to expand...

anonymous x said:

Kumbehaikuwa makosa niliposoma science yaani DS yote hio kwa issue ndogo tu!!!!

Click to expand...

KiharoAbel said:

sina team yoyote ila ningeomba kufaham kwanini mzee lowassa hajajibu chochote

Click to expand...

Anko Sam said:

Dr. Slaa kwa jinsi anavyo mshambulia EL kama fisadi mkuu angenishawishi vizuri sana kama angetaja tuhuma angalau tatu kubwa alizonazo EL zinazoligharimu taifa hadi sasa. Lakini kang'ang'ania RICHMOND ambayo mpaka leo ipo kama SYMBION na hajaitaja kabisa!

Kwani hela inayolipwa SYMBION inaingia mfukoni mwa EL? Mbona hakutaja mmiliki wa hii kampuni anayoita hewa? Je, Dr. Slaa anaweza kutuambia kampuni hewa ilikuwaje kuwepo mpaka leo kama SYMBION na inaendelea kufanya biashara na serikali ya CCM?

Click to expand...

Eric Cartman said:

Hii ndio post yako ya kwanza kwenye hii thread sasa hayo maneno yako uliyasemea wapi.

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

Mkuu bila shaka anonymous x aliposoma maelezo yako alifanya recollection na kufanya uwiano wa ulichoandika na alichojifunza. Ndio msingi wa alichoandika

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

Dk Slaa kasema wao kama wanafalsafa wanapoletewa mambo mawili mabovu na kuambiwa kuchagua basi huchagua lile lililo nafuu ya ubovu na kuachana na lile lililo bovu kabisa.

Na mimi nisiye mwanafalsafa kama yeye/wao kwanza nitahoji sababu ya ubovu. Nikigundua ni mfumo halafu kile kilicho na ahueni bado kipo katika mfumo ule mbovu kabisa (chooni), na kile kibovu kabisa kipo katika mfumo ahueni (chumbani), na kuna uwezekano wa kuhuisha kile kibovu, basi nitachagua kile kibovu. Huo ndio uelewa wangu dhidi ya falsafa yao/yake

Click to expand...

Eric Cartman said:

Sina tatizo na hitimisho lake binafsi, lakini basi asitengeze sentensi yenye concrete implication za kuwa huko nyuma alisema hayo aliyo yaandika wakati hiyo ndio post yake ya kwanza kwenye mada yako.

Click to expand...

descarte said:

Nafikiri alicho kisema ndicho unachokubaliana nae
Sasa kwani tatizo lipo wapi

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

kwa ulivyonielewa ni kwamba mwenye ahueni ya ubovu ni mgombea wa ukawa au ccm?

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

recollection relates issues regardless of one's participation in a current or past activity. ni kama alikuwa anawaza kwa sauti.

Click to expand...

Raia Fulani said:

Dk Slaa kasema wao kama wanafalsafa wanapoletewa mambo mawili mabovu na kuambiwa kuchagua basi huchagua lile lililo nafuu ya ubovu na kuachana na lile lililo bovu kabisa.

Na mimi nisiye mwanafalsafa kama yeye/wao kwanza nitahoji sababu ya ubovu. Nikigundua ni mfumo halafu kile kilicho na ahueni bado kipo katika mfumo ule mbovu kabisa (chooni), na kile kibovu kabisa kipo katika mfumo ahueni (chumbani), na kuna uwezekano wa kuhuisha kile kibovu, basi nitachagua kile kibovu. Huo ndio uelewa wangu dhidi ya falsafa yao/yake

Click to expand...

Eric Cartman said:

Where then does the necessity to criticize my post as full of unnecessary info derive from considering I was replying to another post; if he was relating in private.

Huyo jamaa ni mkorofi tu.

Click to expand...