Category: Stand Ground When You Are Right (with Logic)

SAMPLE TOPIC — WHAT’S THE PROBLEM OR ISSUE WITH THIS PICTURE? WELL, FIGURE OF SPEECH IS MISUNDERSTOOD

The picture is a cover design of a college paper of a university several years ago. A basher of the editor-in-chief assailed the latter because the caption of the picture goes, thus, “Paglaki ko ‘tay, magiging sabungero din ako, gaya mo. Kasi aydol kita e. Itong tirador sa leeg ko, oke lang ‘to. Paglaki ko, magiging titrador din ako. Kasi aydol kita. Ang galing natin ‘tay ano?” (When I grow up, Dad, I will be a cockfight goer, just like you. Because you’re my idol. This slingshot on my neck, it will be just fine. When I grow up, I’ll be a hitman like you. Coz you’re my idol. We’re superb, Dad, aren’t we?)

The basher outburst, “Why such a sinister child for the cover page? Why such a cover page that is psychologically menacing for the readers? It is not a good influence. Why not a child with a book and a pen depicting a scene of one being studious?

OUR EXPLANATIONS

Who is wrong?

It is not the editor who is wrong with the way he renders his caption for the picture. It is the basher who is wrong with his misunderstood grasping of the editor’s style of the rendition of the caption.

The basher seemed to have forgotten college lesson about Figure of Speech

Does the basher not get the point? Yes. The basher loses sight that the editor uses Irony, one of the FIGURES OF SPEECH in English along with Simile, Metaphor, Personification, Hyperbole, etc. Irony means the opposite of what is intended by the conveyor, user, writer, or speaker. Irony is one of the best forms of satire the purpose of the user of which is to catch attention, to correct one’s thinking, and to prod one’s thought purposely to make effective conveyance of the user’s view.

What is a Figure of Speech?

It is an unusual, essentially metaphorical mode of expression, used for effect in speech and writing and to clarify or deepen meaning by suggesting similitudes which provoke thought. (The New Lexicon, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)

What is the editor’s style?

So, obviously, the editor simply wanted to catch the attention of his readers and to prod the guilt of those who will be hit by the meaning of the caption in an effective manner of conveying his thought, being the opposite of his intention, thus, Irony. It was rendered in a satirical form. He used satire in the form of Irony. He is just prodding the conscience of any parent or would-be parent who would get the chance of reading the caption for the picture. So that, by Irony, he could convey the meaning that that is what is going to any child if they as parents will set up wrong patterns to emulate.

So, the editor’s style is a common writers’ style

The editor’s style is simply Irony. It is an effective satirical style of writing. It’s just Figure of Speech!

Please click on this related blog:

http://say-it-right.com/blog/pulubi-nakakaawa-ka-pero/

This image blog is an Allegory. — a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Allegory is one of the more than one-hundred types of Figures of Speech. To reiterate, a Figure of Speech is an unusual, usually metaphorical mode of expression, used for effect in speech and writing and to clarify or deepen meaning by suggesting similitudes which provoke thought. (The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)

Issue that we will take as example for our discussion

I would like to take as example here the August 2018 news about Karen Davila where she questioned why the Supreme Court penalized Carlos Celdran when, according to her, no less than President Rodrigo Duterte has cursed the church (Catholic).

Background of the issues

Activist Celdran was charged and then found guilty for the crime Offending Religious Feelings because he disrupted the religious activity inside the church when he entered and shouted “Damaso”. Duterte, on the other hand, severely criticizes the church in his public speeches.

Now, how should we determine and interpret acts?

After defining a term, you need to outline the elements. For example, in the crime of Offending Religious Feelings, the definition is

acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful that are done in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony

Then the elements should be outlined this way:

The acts of the accused must be —

One) Notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithfuls; and

Two) Performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony

Hence, between Duterte’s act and Celdran’s act, you can now determine which one falls under the offending religious feelings. It is Celdran’s, not Duterte’s. Duterte’s acts are made in public speeches and thus fall under the right of freedom of expression.

In the same discussion above, you can now assert that the elements of the acts of Duterte are not applicable to the definition of Offending Religious Feelings. Or, the other way around, the definition of Offending Religious Feelings is not applicable to the elements of the acts of Duterte.

Other related blogs:

http://say-it-right.com/blog/insurance-is-not-heredity-hindi-iyan-mana/

http://say-it-right.com/blog/wrong-interpretation-of-company-secret/

In the same discussion above, you can now assert that the elements of the acts of Duterte are not applicable to the definition of Offending Religious Feelings. Or, the other way around, the definition of Offending Religious Feelings is not applicable to the elements of the acts of Duterte.

What’s the problem with interpretation?

Sometimes, a communicator may have DIFFERENT INTENTIONS in his expressions/statements that are not bad at all, but you, because of your bias, maybe because you were enemies by other issue before that is different from the present issue, or maybe because he is not your choice in politics/elections, have a FORCED MEANING by your own about his expressions/statements. The problem that will come into play now is the SLANTING.

Slanting — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator.

Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, Understanding and Using English (New York,

1958), p. 51.

For our example, we will take up this related blog:

http://say-it-right.com/blog/usapang-logic-umamin-ba-si-duterte-sa-extrajudicial-killing/

Sabi ng Commission on Human Rights, hayan umamin si Duterte

(Filipino translation of our blog)

Sabi niya kasi, ‘hindi ako nagnakaw, ang kasalanan ko lang ay yung extra-judicial killing’.

Huwag muna nating pag-usapan kung totoo ang extrajudicial killing at kung sino ang die-hard Dutertian. Nagkataon lang na sikat si Duterte. Sinasamantala nating may matutunan sa mga isyu niya.Tanga daw siya dahil sabi niya, di siya nagnakaw, ang kasalanan niya lang ay iyong extrajudicial killing. Kaya sabi ng nagkaso sa kaniya, hayan umamin siya. Ganito po: Noong ako’y bata pa, nagreklamo ako sa ate ko dahil pinagalitan ako na hindi raw ako naghugas ng mga plato at nagwalis. Sagot ko, “GRABE NAMAN, ANG KASALANAN KO LANG AY DI AKO NAGPAKAIN NG ALAGANG BIIK.“ Di nangahulugan na umamin ako. Ang point ko ay iyon lang di pagpakain ng biik na ikinagalit ng nanay ang problema, reklamo o isyung kinakaharap ko sa pamilya namin na siyang gusto kong harapin , pag-usapan at patunayang hindi ako sangkot. Nainis ako’t may idinagdag pa si Ate.

Sa Argumentation & Debate, may tinatawag na Qualifying the Point of Reference. May pananalita o terms kasi na iba ang sentido (sense) ng pagkakagamit ng communicator sa sense ng pagkaintindi ng listener. I-qualify means uriin at tiyakin kung ano (in what sense) ang pakahulugang nais palabasin ng communicator. Sabi kasi ng authors na sina Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, ang pananalita ay may “slanting” — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Kung magtatatalak ka sa isyung ang sangkot na pananalita o terms ay iba sa sense o intention ng communicator, malalabag mo ang logic at ang kasalanan mo ay FALLACY OF SELF-SERVING MEANING. Inilagay mo sa bibig ng ibang tao ang sarili mong pagkaunawa’t salita. Kasi dati ka nang may bias na gusto mo siyang idiin. Ang punto ni Duterte ay iyon lang ang kasalanan na pinupukol sa kaniya thru the legal process. Bueno, kung later ay umamin nga talaga siya, then, iaatras namin itong blog/comment ko and we will stand corrected here sa pagdepensa namin sa kaniya. Pero in the meantime, alam na ninyo kung estupido nga talaga si Duterte.

The Commission on Human Rights asserted that there he goes, Duterte made an admission!

(English translation of our blog)

The CHR’s reaction followed after Duterte said, “I did not steal, my only sin is the extra-judicial killing.” (In this article, we would like to appeal that let’s not talk about whether or not extra-judicial killing is true and who are the die-hard Dutertians. It’s just so incidental that Duterte is famous. So, we take this opportunity to learn from his issues. Lately, he is thought to be stupid because he purportedly admitted that although he did not steal yet he admits that his only sin is the extrajudicial killing. Now, did he really own up to the EJK?

Here, consider this reasoning: When I was a child I complained to my eldest sister for berating me that I did not wash the dishes and did not sweep the yard. I retorted: “How gross of you, sister! My only sin is that I did not feed the pigs. Now it did not mean that I owned up to the fault of not having fed the pigs. My point is that the non-feeding of the pigs for which our mother got mad at me is the only problem, complaint, protest or issue that I was facing with the family that I really wanted to face, talk about and prove that I was not involved. I got irritated that my sister added some more issues.

In Argumentation and Debate, there is that so-called Qualifying the Point of Reference. Be noted that there are statements, words or terms whose sense of usage by the communicator is different from the sense of comprehension of the listener. To qualify means to determine the sense of meaning that the communicator would like to impart or convey. That is because according to authors Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk, a statement, speech or expression has a slanting – the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas) words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Now if you rant on the issue involving a speech or statement different from the sense or intention in meaning of the communicator, you will violate logic and your fault in the process is the fallacy of self-serving meaning. You, in the process, is putting in the mouth of another people your own words and understanding. That is because you have, in the first place, your own bias by which you would want the other fellow to be nailed. Duterte’s point is that THAT (EJK) IS THE ONLY SIN BING HURLED AGAIST HIM THRU THE LEGAL PROCESS. That’s the logical point!

Note: Well, if later from today, he will finally admit or own up to the sin or crime of EJK, then we will withdraw this blog/comment and will stand corrected in our defense of his statement. But in the meantime, the question is, is Duterte really stupid for admitting guilt? Using logic, you now know the answer!

Please learn about understanding Context via the blogs outlined below.

(Context is the conditions or circumstances which affect something, The New Lexicon, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)

Not all possessions of prohibited drug are bad

http://say-it-right.com/blog/logic-and-context-in-translation/

Here comes an actual case where a student was caught possessing a prohibited drug. The teacher confiscated the drug. But she turned out later to be accused of possession of prohibited drugs. The accuser is illogical. She failed to consider the circumstances affecting the actual objective why the teacher possessed the drug. She possessed the drug for the purpose of confiscating, not for purposes of illegal possession.

Let’s go back to the sample discussed in Slanting about Duterte

http://say-it-right.com/blog/pasintabi-sino-amg-estupido-ang-diyos-si-duterte-o-ang-preacher/

In this case, Duterte is not in the state of defining or describing the real essence of God generically. Rather, he is in the state of rebuking those who use God wrongly and whose acts are equivalent to making any god that they believe as stupid; that is pertaining to the wrong or false god.

For our example, see these related blogs:

http://say-it-right.com/blog/can-you-detect-a-wrong-conclusion-by-a-subjective-reasoning/

http://say-it-right.com/blog/hey-slogans-are-not-truthful-wisdoms-be-careful-about-beliving-in-them/

Fallacies are false notion, false reasoning or unsound reasoning but looking truthful because they are appealing and suit the biases of both the speaker and the listener.

What’s logic for?

Logic is not for professionals only. It is for everybody. This is what we need to apply in our everyday interaction.

For our example, we will take up this related blog:

http://say-it-right.com/blog/pasintabi-sino-amg-estupido-ang-diyos-si-duterte-o-ang-preacher/

In this blog, we will take up Duterte again. As we said, we do not idolize him. It’s just that we deem it best to take up some of the relevant social issues about him for purposes of writing blogs that are catchy, interesting or engaging.

Duterte said this controversial “stupid god” statement

Filipino translation of our blog: When Duterte asserted “stupid God”, he was not blaspheming and insulting God and the entire Christendom (Christianity). Ang tinutukoy niyang estupidong Diyos ay ang maling Diyos na itinurong mali ayon sa kaniyang pagkaunawa. Gayundin, nang sabihin ni Duterte na ang kasalanan ay hindi namamana, tumpak siya ayon sa kanjyang pagkaunawa. Dapat marunong tayo sa definition of terms. I-define mo muna ang kasalanan. Well, the scriptures define sin as the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Wala pang nata-transgress o nalalabag ang sanggol sapagkat wala pa itong discernment (pagkaunawa) at liability sa mali o tama. Therefore, there is no such thing as kasalanang namamana, ayon sa lohikal na pagtasa ni Duterte.

English translation of our blog: When Duterte asserted “stupid God”, he was not insulting God and the Christendom. The stupid God he was alluding is the WRONG GOD that was wrongly taught to him (according to his comprehension). Also, when Duterte said that the sin cannot be inherited, he was correct according to his comprehension. You have to define sin first. Well, the Scriptures define sin as the transgression of the laws of God (1 John 3:4). The infant makes no transgression yet because it still has no discernment of and liability to what is right or wrong. Therefore, for Duterte, there is no such thing as inherited sin based on his logical treatment o the matter.

Note: This blog and this site does not and will not criticize a particular religion. The blog is incidentally treated here to give a chance to a political figure to have his logical view get a consideration. This blogger believes that the political figure in question has no intention to commit a blasphemy on the deity.