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:
- With all the overly strict censorship during the Marcos Years, can you truly get real information at that time?
- 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:
- "You're not an economist, and Winnie Monsod is an economist."
- "You don't have multiple awards abroad like Rappler."
- "You know nothing about the law and Hilario G. Davide Jr. is a lawyer."
- "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:
- 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!
- 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.