Defending the 1987 Constitution Like a Broken Record

I've observed several anti-constitutional reform pages on Facebook. Whether it'd be Change Scamming, Silent No More PH, Mahal Ko Ang Pilipinas, La Verite (and Pinocchio ironically represents this page), Rule of Law Sentinel, We Are Millenials, etc.--the argument tends to quote the framers (or the Catholic Bishops' Conference in the Philippines) more than anything. Most of them tend to echo the same idea, echo the same sources, etc. In fact, one foolish old man I met said he wouldn't believe anything about the constitution if it's not from Filipino constitutionalists. 

In short, I'm dealing with a group of broken records. Why do I say that they're broken records? It's always repeating the same ideas over and over again. It may not be the same words over and over again. However, one can look at the idiomatic meaning of broken record, as a person who keeps repeating the same ideas or statements, over and over again, without offering anything new. In fact, that's how the framers, such as Atty. Christian Monsod (mockingly called XTian Monsod by a few) and Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (read here), as well as their defenders, sound like. The same goes for several members of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. 

In logic, we have the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Sometimes, we may defend what is true while engaging in circular reasoning. In the case of the 1987 Constitution defenders, one could look at the circular reasoning as absurd as the meme I made above. I used Socrates Villegas (former CBCP president) as Argument A and Argument B is by the 1987 Constitution framers. Villegas says, "Ask the framers!" then the framers say, "Ask the CBCP!" 

To answer it, circular reasoning means:

Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.  This fallacy is often quite humorous. 

For example, one uses the book, to defend the book, than looks for other sources that could help defend the validity of the book. Of course, the book with good information, remainds valid, whether or not circular argument is used. However, without any evidence (other than just statements), there's really no use in defending the truth or debunking an error.  In the case of the CBCP and the 1987 Constitution framers, it's become a broken record. CBCP cites the 1987 framers and vice versa. CBCP may also cite the faulty DepEd textbooks then the teacher says, "Don't ask me, ask the framers!" Then the student asks the framers and it goes back to the CBCP.

Here's also another screenshot of some guy who calls himself Logie Kinko. However, this comment really makes me ask, "Does he know how systems work?" This individual may be part of the boomer generation, as indicated by his profile photo. I would really laugh at how this guy even calls himself Logic Kinko in the woke world of Twitter. However, based on logic, the guy doesn't understand how systems work. The problem isn't being a boomer, but being a stubborn one. 

When asked for proof, it can even be crazier. I remember running into someone I dub as Sayad (Crazy) GY (Get Your) Herenggilya (Injection). Whenever I asked for proof of his arguments, it went like this. The highest school of thought for that guy is, "If you don't trust me, you must be such an (insert derogatory name)." That person defending the 1987 Constitution would choose to repeatedly hurl insults, if the person doesn't believe him. The same went for a political scientist (probably retired) who I dub Professor Camote. Professor Camote would rather call me stupid than provide evidence that the Marcos Years were supposedly under a parliamentary regime. Instead of arguing the argument, Professor Camote would prefer to call me stupid repeatedly. The same may be true for others like Jover Laurio, Gerry Cacanindin, and Logie Kinko.

When I think about this one, it's all but a broken record. A broken record is best thrown away. In a literal sense, nobody in their right mind will enjoy listening to music from a broken record. The song will never be able to play completely. It will just keep getting stuck in that part. The same goes for people who defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines--they're really broken records.