The Poor Filipino Logic in Defending that the Marcos Years were Indeed "Parliamentary" (and Going Against Parliamentary)

-

Cover picture is obvious why

It's September, and I don't associate it with the Christmas countdown. I hate the idea of a prolonged Christmas season. Instead, I could associate it with the Marcos Years. Previously, I wrote a question asking if the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was indeed under a parliamentary system. What would be worth highlighting is that the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. and the late Salvador "Doy" Laurel Jr., even challenged the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s legitimacy. There were no meaningful elections. How can the Philippines truly have a parliamentary system if there were no meaningful elections? That's not how a real parliamentary system is run!

I may be no professor in philosophy or any related course. I'm a person with an MBA. However, it doesn't mean that I couldn't study logic at my own pace. As I like to say it, the problem with the education system is how often it emphasizes degrees and grades over actual learning. Sure, I need to be a doctor to do surgery. However, I don't need to be a doctor to understand that I need surgery, or to tell someone that they need surgery, based on a doctor's recommendation!


Many people such as Mrs. Raissa Espinosa-Robles, try to make it look like that Marcos ran a parliamentary system. I'm amazed that she even made this tweet last 2016. One must ask, does she even know how a real parliamentary system is run? Come on, she's got the resources to go to Malaysia and Singapore, two neighboring parliamentary countries. Has she even bothered to tell that them? I'm amazed she most likely tried to discredit Malaysia's parliamentary system by saying that the hostage crisis that happened under the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III's term was resolved faster. That happened when a Boeing flight from Malaysia was lost and never recovered. It was a logical fallacy of False Equivalence. Now, we need to look into some "tried and tested" fallacies that boomers (read here) may be using, in trying to prove that the Marcos Years were indeed, according to them, a real "parliamentary system". 

Ad hominem, or the use of personal attacks 

Ad Hominem is defined by logic as attacking the person over the argument. It's like attacking my blog because I don't have a paid domain, I don't have a mass base, or that I don't have a Communist movement backing me up! All the attacks are hurling one insult after the other towards my face, hoping I'd get mad, and I'd lose my credibility. Unfortunately, the truth will never sink just because I lost my face when I got irritated at their insults. Again, insults are one of the worst ways to even win a debate properly! 

A common insult done is, "If you don't agree with me, you must be a huge moron if you don't see that the Marcos Years were under a parliamentary system. Come on, isn't Cesar Virata's position enough? Sure, Marcos was a president with powers but it was a parliamentary system nonetheless." The person may dismiss any claims of a real parliamentary system, convinced that if I don't believe him or her, I'm already a moron, and that person probably has a fixed mindset. Moron is merely 

A variation is often called ad hominem circumstantial, sometimes referred to as the genetic fallacy. I would like to give an example. I could get my book called From Third World to First. I would quote what the late Lee Kuan Yew said about Cesar Virata. However, the person willing to defend the Marcos Years starts to fire out comments. The person may not be satisfied with firing insults, decides to dismiss the source, proving that no source can ever refute them. They might say something like, "What does Lee Kuan Yew know about the Philippines? He's a Singaporean." I could also quote Indian-Singaporean professor Kishore Mahbubani and they could fire fire "Bumbay jokes" saying, "What does a stinky armpit Bumbay (a term commonly used for Indians among Filipinos) know compared to our beloved Christian Monsod and Hilario Davide Jr.?" 

Of course, what's often forgotten is that while Davide and Monsod talk and talk, they couldn't substantiate their arguments with results. Singapore and Malaysia are testaments that would prove both wrong. The evidence always says otherwise! Now, let's take a look at them for a start, shall we? 

Argumentum ad baculum, or appeal to force

This may be another common fallacy. I've noticed that some Filipino keyboard warriors are fond of, "If you don't (insert condition), I will (insert threat)." This could be like if I don't agree that the Marcos Years were under a parliamentary system, they would threaten to use physical force on me. The most common threat has often been a punch or a kick. This shows the stupidity of how people would prefer to use force than engage in a useful conversation. If they can't win the debate, at least they can physically harm the other person in a fight, right?!

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance, or burden of proof fallacy

The fallacy occurs when the person who makes the claim, shifts the claim of proving or disproving their claim, to the other person. This is a typical argument made by boomers, who were under the martial law era. One extremely stupid example would be like:
  • Born after martial law: But the Marcos Years were never a real parliamentary! I've researched it!
  • Boomer, who grew up during martial law: Please, you millennials don't know anything. I grew up during the martial law years and therefore, I can tell you that it was a real parliamentary system. The proof was with Cesar Virata!
Of course, what the boomer who grew up during martial law may have forgotten, are the circumstances. For example, the boomer who grew up during martial law may have failed to realize that:
  1. With all the overly strict censorship during the Marcos Years, can you truly get real information at that time?
  2. History textbooks are updated almost daily. Young people can also gather information about the martial law years, that will prove why his or her claim was false. 

Argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to authority

This is somewhat related to appealing to authority. It's like one would take the word of a trusted authority figure as the reason why something is true. It's like I'd say that I should reject the COVID-19 vaccine because a medical professional (such as Andrew Wakefield and Kate Sheminari, both removed from the medical profession for dishonesty) and that the person who told me ot get the COVID-19 vaccine wasn't a doctor. What I might be dismissing is that the person who told me to get the COVID-19 vaccine took advice from a trusted doctor, whose findings showed that vaccines don't cause autism.

Common examples of insults I've observed using argumentum ad verecundiam are:
  1. "You're not an economist, and Winnie Monsod is an economist."
  2. "You don't have multiple awards abroad like Rappler." 
  3. "You know nothing about the law and Hilario G. Davide Jr. is a lawyer."
  4. "Why should the Philippines take advice from a stinky Bumbay (Mahbubani) or a country that murdered Flor Contemplacion? Why would Lee Kuan Yew know that the Philippines wasn't a real parliamentary system"? (Okay, never mind that Ninoy and Laurel knew it too.)
The whole appeal to authority can be fatal. I'd give an example of my house catching on fire. People are telling me to get out of the area because my house is on fire. I would say, "Shut up! You're not a fireman!" What's ignored is that while one needs to be a fireman to know how to contain the fire, I don't need to be a fireman to know that my house is on fire. The same can go that while I may need a degree in mathematics for complex computations, I don't need a degree in mathematics to refute any mathematically illogical argument. It's like "One word, one stroke, one sentence two strokes," when it comes to penalizing people for speaking vernacular in school. Mathematically, a sentence contains more than one word. I don't need to get a BS Math degree to prove it wrong, because it's standard daily mathematics. I remember my hilarious argument with another former enemy back in high school. My former enemy outgrew it as much as he outgrew our childish quarels. Sadly, some people never outgrow such foolishness!

False equivalence

A false equivalence is making something equal. Some examples (hilariously bad or just irritating) can include:
  1. Comparing a minor crime to a major crime. A good example is saying, "What's the difference between bribing with a few pesos and bribing with a million pesos. They're both bribery. While it's true that both are briberies, one person's crime shouldn't punish him for more than he did over the other!
  2. Comparing different levels of criticism. A funny example is in saying, "The Marcos Years were parliamentary because we had a prime minister named Cesar Virata."
In short, it's trying to make things equal because of certain stuff. For instance, one of the biggest "proofs" that the Marcos Years was a parliamentary system, was because there was a prime minister in Virata. However, a closer look at everything about Virata would already disprove the claims (read here).

Red herring or using distractions

Red herrings come from the name of red fish, used to divert hunting dogs. William Cobbett used the term to describe anything that misleads the public. Now, the problem can be like that you bring up a statement that's in a flight of ideas. In short, you shift from one topic to another. Now, let's give an example of the argument:
  • Person A: The Marcos Years were a parliamentary system. Case closed! We had a prime minister, and his name was Cesar Virata! Look it up idiot!
  • Person B: Okay, but did you consider that Lee Kuan Yew actually called Virata a non-starter and no political leader. How can that make Virata a prime minister in a parliamentary system?!
  • Person A: Where do I even begin with how stupid you really are hahahahahaha! Have you even forgotten what happened to Flor Contemplacion? Did Lee Kuan Yew even apologize to us for that?!
By firing insults, Person A diverts from the topic. What would Flor's death have to do with the argument? What happened to Flor in Singapore is a completely different issue. 

Slippery slope fallacy

The slippery slope fallacy is believing that one particular act, will automatically snowball into a series of unfortunate events. Many people who oppose shifting to parliamentary system, often use Marcos as an example. Again, have they really listened closely to what Ninoy said about having a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Ninoy highlighted the differences but I guess their comprehension is too small. Instead, they say that going parliamentary would mean the Marcoses will go back into power.

Now, let's give another example. During the Duterte Administration, Mrs. Robles asserted that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. would be the "best pick for prime minister". The argument is close to a slippery slope. Some people keep assuming that if the Philippines will go parliamentary, that things would go worse because of stuff like (1) no term limits, and (2) people could no longer choose the leader of their choice. For such people, the nation may be "healing now" because Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan is the new chairman (again) instead of "Boy Sili" Senator Robin Padilla. 

What's dismissed is that Mrs. Robles is most likely not studying how real parliamentary systems work. She's supposed to be a journalist. How in the world does she not see that parliamentary systems work much differently from presidential systems? She's also a favorite source of anti-reform advocates. I demanded a study from someone on Facebook. However, I was, in turn, asked him to present a study to prove his claims. However, that person also asked me a question to say, "Well, where's your study that will prove that it will make it better?" I pointed him over to an article from the Philippine Star by Alex Magno. The person still insisted on his slippery slope.

Strawman fallacy or distorting the argument

A strawman was often used as a training dummy in ancient times. The Japanese samurai warriors used it as a testing ground for their katana blades. In the figure of speech, it means to misrepresent the opponent's argument and overexaggerate or underplay it, so one looks good. Now, we need to look into this example:
  • Person A: The Marcos Years weren't a real parliamentary system despite the existence of a prime minister, named Cesar Virata. Virata wasn't the head of state. Lee Kuan Yew even called him a non-starter.
  • Person B: So are you saying Cesar Virata wasn't doing anything? What about his meeting in Singapore?
This causes a real problem. A graceful loser accepts they've lost. However, a sore loser would rather misrepresent the opponent and do anything to win the argument, no matter how nonsensical things become. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad: Just a Matter of Strong Leadership Without a Good System?

-
Image
Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T...
Read more

Are 1987 Constitution Fanatics Willing to Amend (or Even DELETE) Article XVII of Their So-Called Inviolate Constitution?

-
I could read people who keep saying, "The 1987 Constitution is inviolate! It should never be amended  because it's the sacred law of the land." However, that's in total contradiction with  Article XVII  which says the following: Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2)  A constitutional convention . Section 2.  Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein . No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of th...
Read more

The "Star Witness" Davidson Rusia

-
Image
It's Time to Free Paco Now   Comparing one's perspective when one was in high school vs. the present can be a daunting thing. For example, I could get told that, "Maybe the person wants to be friends with you already. Maybe he realized that you were only teenagers and your fight was nothing more than a childish quarrel." As a 13-year-old who got into the case--I once admired what Davidson Rusia did. However, after hearing that Paco Larrañaga was innocent--I was really shocked. Yes, Paco was really in Manila when the crime happened (read here ). Why was David even allowed to testify when he wasn't even qualified? That's what the documentary Give Up Tomorrow highlighted. Atty. Florencio Villarin, who may be retired now due to his advanced age, also stated that in Case Unclosed. A lot of people were interested in what he had to say. At first, I thought Paco was wrongly tagged along with guilty people. However, what Solita Collas-Monsod said in Give Up Tomorrow , ...
Read more

Still One of My Favorite Politicians, the Late Miriam Palma Defensor-Santiago

-
Image
It's been some time since Miriam Palma Defensor-Santiago died. True, she can be temperamental but she really has a lot of good  reasons to be angry. The impeachment of the late Renato Corona was one example. I could remember seething in anger seeing Atty. Vitaliano N. Aguirre II when he covered his ears. Some say she went overboard. Maybe, she did and I think Aguire II didn't deserve to be detained in contrast to instant admonition. I believe that no caucus was needed and making Aguire II get out of the courtroom was more than enough punishment for minor disrespect . She may have clashed with the late Fidel V. Ramos but I can't get enough of her feisty behavior--something I feel the Philippines needs to become a truly disciplined country.  Some may say that MDS is very maldita or a very mean woman. I did pass through a teacher who was like her. Sure, I didn't get good grades, she could go overboard, but I'm still thankful to that economics teacher. I'd say I...
Read more

Reflecting on Ninoy Aquino's Words as I Feel ALONE in Promoting Constitutional Reform

-
Image
As I insist on the need for constitutional reform, I already feel like I'm alone. It's not because I'm in jail (otherwise, I would not be able to type this), but because most of my life, most Filipinos have become the collective   tyranny . In fact, one can say, "Are we a democracy or are we an anarchy?" The more I think about the surveys by Pulse Asia, they claim that 88% of Filipinos (but have they truly surveyed everywhere) are supposedly against charter change. This is where the tyranny of the majority kicks in. People may have overthrown the tyranny of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., but they haven't learned much. Instead, people insist on false myths such as the Marcos Parliamentary Years (which, by the way, is bogus to the core, read why here ). As Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. said, "We had a parliamentary system, without a parliament. "  I felt alone many times when I wanted to change the Philippines. When I went to Singapore for a...
Read more

The MARITES Pyramid of Learning Explained

-
Image
There's the term MARITES which can be often said as Masters in the Art of Relaying Information Through Exaggerated Storytelling . Such people give a bad name to any woman named Marites. I wouldn't be surprised if women would stop naming their daughters Marites for that reason. I decided to make this simplistic meme to talk about what I'd call the MARITES Pyramid of Learning. The Pyramid of Learning has been used as a joke in many memes.  One of them has the caption "Trust Me Bro" (read more about that here ) at the tip which is the fallacy of Appeal to Emotion. If Trust Me Bro isn't enough then what happens next is, "If you don't believe them you must be (insert insult)." If there was a lesson I had to be taught many times, "Never get mad at insults. That just proves that the other person is either insecure, in the wrong, or has a very shaky ground that he or she is defensive. Get even and they'll play the victim."  If there's a...
Read more

Taiwanese Aborigine Song "Go to the Mountain, Go to the Seas" (上山下海)

-
Image
I'm trying to find some other Taiwanese aborigine songs. I think this is a song by the Amis tribe or the sea people. I believe the Amis are descended from the seafaring Indonesians and Malaysians. The song's aboriginal song and melody are rather enchanting. Maybe, an Ifugao or an Igorot scholar would be able to decode this wonderful song. If only the Philippines would show more respect to the indigenous tribes. It's a sad fact that Ifugaos would need to go to Taiwan to learn their weaving culture (read here ). These natives (who I believe are Malay and Indos) get more appreciation than the Filipino indigenous people.
Read more

Real Talk: Chinese Filipinos ARE Still Filipinos

-
Image
It's the Chinese New Year once again. Some  ignorant people have their ill feelings towards Chinese Filipinos, never mind the long history of Chinese immigrants who have become Filipinos. A simple classroom history lesson to a Google search, will tell us what it meant to be a Filipino.  What does it mean to be a Filipino?  It's often said that Filipino is more of a nationality than a race. Here's the definition of what it means to be a Filipino: 1 : a native of the Philippine Islands 2 : a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines 3 : the Tagalog-based official language of the Republic of the Philippines Filipino adjective  According to the current constitution, these define what makes one a Filipino: Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution; [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Fili...
Read more

"Give Up Tomorrow" Deleted Scene: An Illiterate Woman's Plight

-
Image
This deleted scene involves a woman with lower learning as the woman called herself. Fortunately, there are English subtitles for those who can't understand the Cebuano dialect. For some reason, this scene never made it into the final cut. Yet, this scene provided valid evidence that something was very fishy about Davidson Rusia's story.  Back then, I remembered the Chiong Sisters' case was dramatized on national television. Yes, it was done during the trial . That's why it shocked me when I learned that Juan Francisco G. Larrañaga aka Paco was innocent of the crime. I was shocked when I learned that a friend of mine was also with Paco in Manila on July 16, 1997. It was the night when the crime happened. His brother-in-law, Miguel Syjuco, was pretty confident because Paco was in school . A woman was made to sign an affidavit by the police? Okay, I still believe that the body was really that of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. Even if it were Marijoy, the fact that this woman has...
Read more