POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
So denounced Mabalacat Vice Mayor Noelito Castro of the report implying he engaged in some agaw-lupa scheme when he caused the titling to his name of a lot which was allegedly bought with barangay funds at the time he was chief of Bundagul village.
Soon as I read this in the local papers, rushed in remembrance of this piece I wrote on the issue of politics as motivating force a long time back which needed but little updating to make it more current.
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED: the omnibus catch phrase that has become a convenient and uniform, albeit foolhardy, 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 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: “Publicity stunt from a KSP (kulang sa pansin or attention seeker)”
The fallacy of emotive language is exampled here – KSP meant to cast aspersion, to refer to the accuser with contempt.
Item C: “I was the one who made the sacrifice for the sake of Bundagul residents. Aku nang memye, aku pang mipakarok.”
Castro’s lamentation in this wise makes an appeal to pity, to gain public sympathy, deftly skirting the main issues – this is argumentum ad misericordiam.
At the political hustings, Mabalacat’s John Santos mastered this fallacy 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.) The three consecutive terms at the provincial board of the man popularly referred to as “Richard Gomez” makes a very strong argument, if not a solid testament, to the electoral efficacy of this fallacy.
Santos’ avuncular appeal to the Mabalacquenos absent in Castro, I just can’t see how he could convince them of his self-proffered innocence and make them vote him mayor in 2013.
Item D: “I would have not have been elected vice mayor if I was corrupt as barangay captain.”
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 vice mayor or for that matter in any higher position – falls under another fallacy: contrary to fact conditional error. It alters reality and then draws conclusion from this alteration. Politics incorruptible? Cow dung!
Item E: “They raise these issues and threaten to file cases against me because they want to prevent me from contesting the mayorship 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 raising of issues against the vice mayor, a false cause really.
Item F: “They are accusing me of impropriety. How about the string of cases of malversation, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, immorality etc. raised against them?”
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 (allegations of wrongdoing) is what I get for being the best bet to win the mayorship in 2013.”
Two fallacies interplay here: irrelevance or ignoratio elenchi, and contradiction. At issue is the agaw-lupa allegation, so arguments must focus on that. And being the “best bet” is highly debatable. Where did that title come from?
The above are 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.
Castro just needs to try harder. MKM – Misip Ka Misan.
