Zuma calls for moral revival

Zuma calling for a moral revival is like:

A mass murder calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty
A Prostitute promoting abstinence
A Catholic Priest saying it is bad to have s3x with young boys
 
Zuma was ‘blue-light bully’
•Thu, 12 Apr 2007

By Witness Reporter

THE “blue-light” convoy that has angered local motorists has
been identified as belonging to former deputy president Jacob
Zuma.

The Witness was yesterday flooded with telephone calls from
motorists who said they were also pushed off the N3 on Sunday by
a blue-light convoy.

These claims followed a report in The Witness yesterday that
Pietermaritzburg man Faizel Mooideen had a rifle pointed at him
and his family by VIP security officers who attempted to push
them out of the right-hand Durban-bound lane of the N3, in which
they were travelling, at about 4.30 pm.

This was seemingly backed up by a statement from a woman who
asked not to be identified for fear of victimisation, who told
The Witness that she was sitting at the Engen One-Stop, a
freeway service station on the N3 between Pietermaritzburg and
Durban, when a convoy flashing blue lights and sirens entered
the parking area just after 4.30 pm.

The woman described the convoy of vehicles as two black BMW X5s
and a blue Range Rover, apparently the same convoy that
threatened Faizel Mooideen and his family.

She said a group of guards left the first vehicle and did a
security check of the area, aggressively pushing a little girl
and several other patrons out of their way, before moving on to
check the male toilet facilities.

She then confirmed that Zuma, with security accompanying him,
got out of the second vehicle and made his way to the toilets,
while his guards continued to shove patrons out of the way to
clear a path for him.
Click to expand...

And more. Witness, today. Moral revival se moer.
 
used my blue lights purchased at the oriental plaza in traffic yesterday, and damn! they are the business. Cruized the emergency lane at 80 to breeze past all the other lowly taxpayers (one or two metro cops too) and was home in 20 minutes instead of the usual hour and a half.
 
Syndyre said:
This is ridiculous considering Zuma no longer holds an official government post.
Click to expand...

But it was an emergency... he had to get to the shuz at the engen in a hurry or he would have pssd himself.

(doesn't the clap do that to you??:) )
 
Family’s blue-light trauma

Convoy guard points rifle at PMB family on N3


A PIETERMARITZBURG family were threatened with a rifle in a run-in with a blue light-flashing convoy on the N3 at the weekend.

Faizel Mooideen (37) and his family were travelling towards Durban in the right-hand lane when a convoy came up behind them, signalling that they should move over.

Mooideen told The Witness yesterday that he assumed the convoy — three vehicles guarding another vehicle — was escorting a politician. The escort vehicles flashed blue lights and sounded sirens.

He moved over into the left-hand lane, but as the vehicles passed him, someone in the lead vehicle, a BMW X5, wound down a window and made derogatory hand signs to Mooideen.

He said that when he read the man’s lips, he realised that he was being told to “voertsek”.

The vehicle being escorted then passed him, followed by a navy blue Range Rover and another black BMW X5.

“A guard sitting on the left rear side of the second BMW X5 wound down his window and pointed a rifle at me and my wife and two children,” said Mooideen.

“I was disgusted by what had just happened and continued my journey,” said Mooideen. “I then stopped at the Mkondeni RTI offices as I was desperate for someone to do something.”

Mooideen could get no help at Mkondeni, but while driving on towards Durban, he stopped to report the matter to traffic officers conducting speed checks near Camperdown.

They advised him to go to the SAPS to report the matter.

Mooideen said the officers confirmed that a convoy had passed them.

Back in Pietermaritzburg, he reported the incident at the Alexandra Road Police Station, where a detective told him it would be no use laying a charge against VIP protection unit members.

Mooideen said the detective told him the “file will go undetected” and that he “will be victimised”, so he decided not to lay a charge.

Mooideen’s wife, Nafisa, said her children were traumatised after seeing the rifle pointed at them, and her 12-year-old daughter was in such severe shock, believing that the man was going to kill them, that she began to vomit.

The black BMW X5 had the registration number NXH 599 GP, which The Witness was told by traffic authorities is non-existent.

KZN Transport MEC Bheki Cele refused to comment on the “blue light” vehicle issue and said he is currently working on a legal opinion with regard to this matter.

Premier S’bu Ndebele’s spokesman Logan Maistry was not available to comment.

The issue of high-speed convoys has been in the news since a motorist claimed he was forced off the road by Ndebele’s convoy on the way to slain historian David Rattray’s funeral, and after MEC Lydia Johnson’s escort was involved in a crash while taking her to the opening of the KZN Legislature soon after that.
Click to expand...
 
Zuma is going for the "man of the people" image. He should really look at himself honestly for a change. He is the last person that should speak about morals.

Maybe people should ask him what his definition of morals are?
 
Nod said:
Zuma is going for the "man of the people" image. He should really look at himself honestly for a change. He is the last person that should speak about morals.

Maybe people should ask him what his definition of morals are?
Click to expand...
Maybe we can also ask you why you think he is immoral? It might happen that the two of you have different sets of morals.:D :D I know I do, that is why I cannot judge anyone based on my own moral value system.
 
Last edited:
Bageloo said:
Maybe we can also ask you why you think he is immoral? It might happen that the two of you have different sets of morals.:D :D I know I do, that is why I cannot judge anyone based on my own moral value system.
Click to expand...
There is only one human moral system: sanctity of life, truth, forbearance.

If you follow any other you are not human: simple really.
 
kilo39 said:
There is only one human moral system: sanctity of life, truth, forbearance.

If you follow any other you are not human: simple really.
Click to expand...
That's very vague and hardly says anything to anybody.
Let me take them one at a time
1. Forbearance. Where, when, why you exercise your forbearance depends pretty much on who you are, where you live etc.
What's morally wrong in one place can be quite acceptable in another. What is frowned upon in one culture/community is actually encouraged in another.
Oh, and these are all human societies.

2. Sanctity of life. How do you call for a death penalty amidst moral calls to sanctity of life? Again depending on where and when on planet earth you live, the interpretations vary very much

3. Truth. When is it acceptable to lie. Are the rules the same for all human kind?
 
Last edited:
From the pulpit: bah.

Bageloo said:
That's very vague and hardly says anything to anybody.
Click to expand...
Perfectly clear (those 3 encompass all things.)
Let me take them one at a time
1. Forbearance. Where, when, why you exercise your forbearance depends pretty much on who you are, where you live etc.
What's morally wrong in one place can be quite acceptable in another. What is frowned upon in one culture/community is actually encouraged in another.
Oh, and these are all human societies.
Click to expand...

for·bear·ance
–noun
1. the act of forbearing; a refraining from something.
2. forbearing conduct or quality; patient endurance; self-control.
3. an abstaining from the enforcement of a right.
4. a creditor's giving of indulgence after the day originally fixed for payment.

"We bear with the world as it bears with us" Tolerance accepts no wrong as truth bears testimony. We tolerate but we do not excuse. Forbearance is truth and only truth is right, bearing in mind the sanctity of life, the equality of all beings and the frailty of the human condition. If we can follow these things there will be peace and love and forbearance; other than this it is all simply scum. Sign up for the human condition or STFU! :D

"What's morally wrong in one place can be quite acceptable in another. What is frowned upon in one culture/community is actually encouraged in another."

No, there is no moral wrong if you sign up for the 3. Beheading (or the death penalty) is not signing up for the sanctity of life; it is 2007 (when are we going to stop following the law of the stone age: eye for an eye, did Jesus not walk amongst us, or has there been no enlightenment on this earth?)

2. Sanctity of life. How do you call for a death penalty amidst moral calls to sanctity of life? Again depending on where on planet earth you live, the interpretations vary very much
Click to expand...

Re: one above. (In terms of our local condition I cannot take life no matter how despicable; there is no forbearance there, there is only lack of direction from the top and clearcut justice, quickly.)

3. Truth. When is it acceptable to lie. Are the rules the same for all human kind?
Click to expand...
In truth it is never acceptable to lie but sometimes we lie to save pain that is not ours to give. We do not excuse, we forbear. We live our lives in truth, people instinctively know truth even if we lie, and that is our message, no other.

Yes the rules are the same for all people; what of those people who behead, or take life (supposedly by their book,) well got to say: their truth is not my truth, their lives are not my life. If they wish to impact on my life then they will meet the full measure of my tolerance; if they cannot meet that then they are not following the way and are no longer worth my time. If they wish to fight about it then I will bring them war or dialogue whichever they desire.

We cannot preach sanctity while perpetrating the same crimes we accuse others of: therefore those who do are bigots, hypocrites, usually liars and thieves. The worst kind. They may live over there (and I will live over here.) But do not try impact my world as I follow the way and it is right. Update yourselves, maybe we can talk about it, until then our worlds are separate (you follow one religion, I follow another.) Mine is "sanctity of life, truth, forbearance," if you can handle that then maybe we can have a conversation.

Until then you may be right in your way but it is an old way and it does not lead to peace. Show me the happiness of your people: educated, well fed and nourished in all things. Until then I reserve judgement (let them make the call.)

Each to their own unless otherwise directed by "sanctity of life, truth, forbearance." Until then I will watch with a hawks eye, counting the atrocities, counting the deaths, skriving the number; there is only one right and it is not might. Until we all see this the world will be hell, it is written in the big book, not that one: the new one, the updated version.

Does that sufficiently answer your question (is it logically sound?)

Until then.
 
@ Kilo and NOD. I think we might have reached the point where we need to take this debate to the philosophy section. At this moment I'm pressed for time (Friday deadlines) but would have liked to endulge you further. So far we haven't even touched on how moral relativism and emotivism, philosophies that maintain the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, contrast with moral absolutism, moral realism, and moral naturalism, which all maintain the existence of moral facts.
In addition you get also moral pluralism, which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs get violated.
The pertinent question then is, "Can you make a moral judgement as to which is right/correct without applying any of these contrasting philosophies"?
What does the Bible (old testament, "new" testament), Quran or Torah say about jugding others? Is it all morally relevant today as it was centuries ago? Are there not perhaps contradictions between those books's teachings? Well I know for sure that there's a lot of contradiction between the old testament and the "new". I suppose it's been 2000 years since the "new" testament was written and it might be time we got a new version of the "new" testament.
 
I don't keep much of an eye on the philosophy section (and dislike preaching.)

Yes I was pointing primarily to the teachings of the New Testament (which surely encompasses all your points.) But not just the new testament, also such 'philosophies' as buddhism or taoism or zen (which go beyond the petty world of an eye for an eye "and justified lying.")

I am not a philosopher or even a historian, just general knowledge (and lots of reading.)

"moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths"

Surely the 2 books the above can most be directed against are: the OT, the Koran.

"Can you make a moral judgement as to which is right/correct without applying any of these contrasting philosophies"?

To my mind surely the OT is not a "contrasting philosophy," it is a book of rules and regulations and punishments.

The koran seems to apply many of the aspects of the OT, same applies.

I'm sure you'll find a few dweebs wanting to discuss these topics "over there."

Perhaps much of the world does not have in-depth knowledge; we have generalities; but much of what goes on in the world today seems "OT" governed, hence the mess.
 
kilo39 said:
Rikus: would think you are presently on probation. Note a "single post" has a bad post feature like all others.

Case closed.
Click to expand...
You have showed many times here on this forum that you can not, in fact, think.
Hell, you even admitted to not being able to read properly, ask alan.
The rest of what you said i really don't get.
:p :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X