Skip to main content

Very Easy to Say, "I'm Sure!" and Be Wrong, Am I Right?

 

I guess that foolish old man did the right thing to block me on social media. The old man remained incorrigible while having his toga display, apparently getting a doctorate. An earlier post I wrote was about the misuse and abuse of CTTO. I even wonder who in the world is Merkado CTTO? It's very easy to use CTTO to look smart. However, real studies need more than CTTO but several sources. It should be several valid sources and not just sources you agree with. I was laughing at this old man in a toga (who has thankfully blocked me after I tried to refute his errors as a nobody) who tends to use CTTO. I think he was also fond of saying, "I'm sure!" and then it ends up with several stupid claims.

Such people would be in what might be best called the MARITES Pyramid of Learning (read here). These people's best sources can be summarized as "Trust me bro" or "Just trust me". In the case of the meme I made, the peak of the pyramid is, "Just trust me or (insert insult)." Those who use insults hoping to win the argument aren't worth getting angry over. The big truth is that, according to the Positive Writer, using insults to win an argument is just plain stupid. Sure, I can get irritated. There's the chance I'll blow up. However, just because I got irritated or lost my cool doesn't change the facts. Though I'm told to keep cool because such people are plain incompetent.

It would be very easy to say one is sure of their claims. However, when challenged, it's very easy to go to the MARITES Pyramid of Learning. It's because insults make one feel good and feel like they've won. It could go as "I'm sure you're really stupid!" The person saying it might not even be aware of how many stupid claims he or she has made while saying, "I'm sure of it!" I can't really imagine how much error was made while the person kept saying, "I'm sure of it!" Or "I'm sure of it! If you don't believe me then you must be very stupid!" What a brilliant argument, right?" 

There are many instances of how "I'm sure!" is blended with the MARITES Pyramid of Learning. I could name some examples which can be very cringeworthy:

  1. Criminal investigations have been messed up because of this. First, we have the Vizconde Massacre (read here) and then we have the Chiong Sisters case (read my review on Give Up Tomorrow. Both cases were handled by judges who mishandled evidence by dismissing them. For example, retired judge Atty. Amelita G. Tolentino should've had the pieces of evidence examined before dismissing them. Didn't she say that the quality of evidence is more important than the amount of evidence?
  2. Gossip that the Chiong Sisters are still alive is another. It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented that Debbie Jane Chiong-Sia isn't Jacqueline and that Amelie R. Arquilliano-Chiong isn't Marijoy. Some people still continue to insist that they are. I guess not even taking them to the schools where the two studied will convince them. Maybe, they'll say the school fabricated the records--a serious case of slander that might land them in jail if they insist on it! I can imagine STC could file a case against such people as it can damage the school's reputation. 
  3. Some boomers still continue to insist that the Marcos Years were under a parliamentary form of government (read here). The evidence can be seen that there was a parliamentary without a parliament. The modifications still made the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. a "president with powers". There's no president with powers in a real parliamentary system. Some even say it will make the Philippines worse even after being shown how parliamentary countries fare better. When confronted with evidence, they will still say, "I'm sure Marcos years were parliamentary!" with a series of poorly handed evidence.
  4. When people who go against FDI start to cite examples how it supposedly destroyed other countries. When asked for evidence, chances besides sources like IBON Foundation, they would start to use CTTO. If CTTO doesn't work, they start hurling insults such as, "Just admit it you're going to sell us to China, you moron!" 
  5. The same also goes for the late Flor Contemplacion (read here). Some people still salute the film The Flor Contemplacion Story as a masterpiece. They would say something like, "I'm sure Flor was innocent!" even after evidence was presented by forensics. The late Fidel V. Ramos later renewed ties with Singapore after he supposedly wanted to cut ties with it. I even heard Rodrigo R. Duterte later repent of his reckless act of burning the Singaporean flag in protest.
I'd like to conclude that it's very easy to say I'm sure. But one can be sure but be dead wrong. That's why I'd like to say, "Are you sure? Give me a valid source!" Because for all we know, the best source is from Trust Me Bro Factcheckers. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What It Felt Like Entering the National Museum of the Philippines in Cebu City

National Museum As a man in his late 30s, I can really miss the memories of the 1990s and the early 2000s (which included my college years ). I miss a lot of people who are no longer with us too. I'd like to share my experience at the National Museum of the Philippines-Cebu . I haven't gone to a historical site in like, forever . Maybe, I could talk about some "historical sites" I "visited" a short time after the pandemic such as Bonsu Temple (a Buddhist temple in Pasil) and the Colon Chinese Temple (which I heard is no longer lived by anyone, if I'm not wrong). I wanted to go to Casa Gorordo, to relive some of my college days. Going to the NMP-Cebu made me feel like a student again.  Entering meant I had to get my ID. I presented my UMID ID as a registration. It was composed of two floors. It's spacious so getting lost (at first) can be expected for a first-time visitor. The first floor contained artifacts. That would remind me of the days at the Un...

Nirvana Fallacy and the Die-Hard Defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

IMGUR The philosopher Voltaire (real name  François-Marie Aroue ) was said to have said, "Perfect is the enemy of good." To define the Nirvana fallacy, we can look at Logically Fallacious to help us define it: Description: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one , and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason . Logical Form: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough. Example #1: What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21?  Kids still manage to get alcohol. Explanation: The goal in setting a minimum age for drinking is to deter underage drinking, not abolish it completely.  Suggesting the law is fruitless based on its failure to abolish underage drinking completely, is fallacious. Example #2: What’s the point of living?  We’re all going to die anyway. Ex...

Rare Interview Footage of Ninoy Aquino and Doy Laurel in Japan, Reveal Marcos Years Were NEVER a Legitimate Parliamentary System

People who are afraid of shifting to a parliamentary system tend to use the Marcos Years as proof. Fearmongers on Facebook are still up to their old tricks, using the Marcos Years to say, "No to cha-cha!" Never mind that a new constitution had to be written after 1986. If anything, Article XVII was inserted in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because it was never meant to be set in stone. Also, the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was illegal .  Here's a video of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel. The words of Laurel here show the problem of Marcos' "parliament". Marcos' "parliament" lacked legitimacy . Where was the sporting chance of the Opposition? If it was a real parliamentary system, Ninoy would've been leading the Opposition in weekly debates against the Marcos-led government. That is if the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was the prime minister. If Cesar Vir...