“THAT’S VERY politics.”
I remember the ungrammatical rant of the once-and-forever-future mayor of Mexico fondly monikered “Tigas” over a phone patch on dwRW appending political motives to the allegations of graft exposed by his then vice mayor. This was in the early aughts.
That flash of memory coming in the wake of the recurrency of that omnibus catch phrase that has become a convenient and uniform, albeit foolhardy and vain, escape clause of elected officials haled to the Ombudsman or the courts on charges of graft and corruption.
Politically motivated, in thus mintage, makes a mockery of reason if not a negation of logic. For, it seeks to compensate with trivialized emotions what it sorely lacks in intellectual discourse; opting for high drama over cold reason.
So, rather than reasoned arguments to disprove the charges ranged against them, the accused resort to all means of (ir)rationalizations that comprise the body of Material Fallacies of Reasoning any student of my day learned in Philosophy 101. (With reason and logic, not to mention sense, so uncommon nowadays, I wonder if they still teach this course.) It goes thus:
Item A: “I do not want to stoop to their level by dignifying with any comment the allegations against my person.”
Classic argumentum ad hominem — a shift from the issues to the personality of the accuser, even to the point of ridicule.
Item B: “I would have not have been elected to the House if I was corrupt as mayor.”
This is argumentum ad verecundiam – the appeal to respect, or prestige being equated with evidence.
The implication in the item cited — that a corrupt official cannot get elected to Congress – falls under another fallacy: contrary to fact conditional error. It alters reality and then draws conclusion from this alteration. Congress incorruptible? Cow dung!
Item C: “Will you believe this communist raising all these allegations against me, a democratically elected official?”
The fallacy of emotive language is exampled here – communist meant to cast aspersion, to refer to the accuser with contempt. Red tagging, anyone?
Item D: “After all my sacrifices – foregoing with my highly lucrative profession, neglecting my family just so I can be an exemplary public servant – this (graft case) is the gratitude I get!”
An appeal to pity, to gain public sympathy, deftly skirting the main issues – this is argumentum ad misericordiam.
Or have you heard of late Sen. Bong Go: “… matanda na po si Tatay Digong… frail, fragile at, sa totoo lang, harmless na po si Tatay Digong… sa ibang bansa, mag-isa siya, napaka-istrikto pa doon, sinong mag-aalaga kay Tatay Digong doon? Paano nalang kung may mangyari sa kanya doon?”
So, Duterte’s being harmless today exculpates him from all the harm he inflicted upon all the victims of his drug war?
Non-verbally this fallacy is expressed in the wheelchair prop of politicians when summoned to congressional hearings in the not-so-distant-past.
At the political hustings, at least two Pampanga politicians – a board member from Mabalacat and a councilor from Angeles City mastered this fallacy’s paawa effect, thus: “Sinawa na ku pung masasambut. Malunus na ko pu kanaku. Patakmanan yu na ku mang panyambut.” (I am fed up with losing. Have pity on me. Please, give me a taste of victory.) Their successive three consecutive terms made a very strong argument, if not a solid testament, to the electoral efficacy of this fallacy.
Item E: “They filed these cases against me because I will wrest the mayorship from them in the coming elections.”
The post hoc fallacy or finding consequence in sequence. It is made to appear that an announcement of an impending run in the next elections triggered the filing of the cases against the accused, a false cause really. In a local incident though, the cases were filed before the announcement was made. Still, the fallacy stands.
Item F: “They are accusing me of stealing the people’s money. How about the bank loan they secured?”
Offense as the greatest defense. The accused turned accuser – appending similar allegations of wrongdoing to his nemesis. This is the fallacy of tu quoque — “you yourself do it.” As in pare-parehu tamu mu king akbak nang Hudas (we are all the same in Judas’ skewer.)
Item G: “This (graft case) is what I get for being the best mayor this city ever had.”
Two fallacies interplay here: irrelevance or ignoratio elenchi, and contradiction. At issue is the graft case, so arguments must focus on that. And being the “best mayor” is highly debatable. Where did that title come from?
Item H: Alias Boy Regla – that sorry excuse for a House seat seeker – who disrespected solo women now pointing to Pasig Mayor Vico Sotto as the cause of all the troubles he drowned himself in.
This is a case of the straw man fallacy: refuting an argument different from the one actually on hand by propping up an entity to shift the discussion to. In a more familiar term, scapegoating. On an even higher, supernatural plane: The devil made me do it.
Item I: By vetoing the bill declaring Pampanga as culinary capital of the Philippines, President Marcos Jr’s Alyansa para sa Bagong Pilipinas senate slate will get zero votes in Pampanga.
This is the slippery slope fallacy whereby an issue or decision taken will directly lead to unintended negative consequences.
The above is but a sampling of erroneous ways of reasoning that have assumed a semblance of validity, given the pervasive system of idiotization in the country today.
Aye, a people dumbed, a nation damned. So, it has long been said. So have we long become.
(Updated repost from Oct. 1, 2006 Zona Libre)
