Skip to main content

Dismissing an Article Because It was Written on Blogspot, WordPress, Etc.?

I guess one of the dumbest things I've run into on Facebook when I share my essays is, "Blogspot? WordPress? Is that a reliable source?" That's really a fallacy called Ad Hominem. That is choosing to attack me (the blogger) instead of the argument on Blogspot because I'm using a free domain. 

I share my articles written in Blogger for this reason--I don't like writing overly long comments. It's sometimes better to link to my links rather than type them so long on social media. Writing articles on my business blog and this blog prepares me to write a lot. I can choose long essays and short ones. I may need 1,000+ (or more) words to explain a topic. Sometimes, I need only a few words (like this one) to stress a point. In short, I use my blog posts like ready-to-go ammunition. 

Is my blog really suddenly, automatically fake news? FYI, I don't just write. I also do some Internet research. I even quote from some books like the late Lee Kuan Yew's book From Third World to First. I also read from news websites, academic websites (though I have to be careful about paid membership sites to avoid spending too much), and more.

I'd like to stress out that a person can get an impressive design, a yearly domain, etc., and still be giving out fake news mixed with the truth. Unfortunately, LKY even called the Philippines press to be rambunctious in his book From Third World to First when he said:

Ramos knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino's proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges.

Would you really dismiss a valid argument on a free domain in exchange for a paid website full of rambunctious content? For all we know, the person using a free domain decided to go out there and get the information. The person may just be a hobby blogger so buying a domain might not be very practical. A blog is sometimes used to express ideals and share thoughts. Sure, it's not valid as an academic source. However, it can be used to automatically express views or to share thoughts without having to type ridiculously long comments.

Right now, I just write down my thoughts I don't intend to become some kind of expert. However, I do have my advocacy for constitutional reform in the Philippines. I'm also sharing my thoughts on shockers that I've encountered such as Francisco Juan G. Larrañaga's innocence or Hubert Jeffry Webb's innocence. I also want to share my thoughts on some random historical details. It's practicing my limited freedom of expression and freedom of the press. 

Sadly, some people still feel so high and mighty that they look down on those they call "just another blogger" or "minor, minor blogger". A degree, an award, etc. might be good but it's not a license to belittle people who are ordinary netizens. Even worse, the name-calling and bullying might show how awards and degrees may not be the best credibility. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Remembering Ninoy's Words, "We Had a Parliamentary Form of Government WITHOUT a Parliament!"

Some people on Facebook continually spread the lie, "The parliamentary form of government will never work because the Marcos Sr. years were a parliament!" The idea is incredibly stupid when you realize some old information that they probably ignored. It's a shame that some boomers refuse to surf the Internet to find decades-old information  that would prove it otherwise. Come on, are they even too lazy to order Third World to First written by the late Lee Kuan Yew and only use it to criticize the Marcoses?  With the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr., I really must highlight that he actually spilled out much truth in this speech done in Los Angeles in 1981: And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution.  We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary from of government.  And Mr. Marcos said, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Today in History: Hanoi's Liberation Day

Vietnam Times October 10 is mostly associated with Double 10 in Taiwan. However, Communism has its celebration with Hanoi Liberation Day . I got this information from the Vietnam Times on what the day is all about: Along with the victory of Dien Bien Phu campaign, the Geneva Agreements on armistice in Indochina was signed. After many days of struggling in the Geneva Conference, agreements on transfering Hanoi to the Vietnamese people were finally signed on September 30th and October 2nd 1954 in the United Armistice Center Committee. Following the Resolution on September 17th 1954 of the Government Council, the City Troops Committee of Hanoi was established with General Vuong Thua Vu, the commander of the Pioneer Division, as the Chairman and doctor Tran Duy Hung as the Vice Chairman. The City Troops Committee of Hanoi had the task of taking over and managing the city. The Military Commanders ordered the Vietnamese soldier units to take over the city of Hanoi and abide by the policies ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more