Beware of the Charter Change Bait

Charter Change in a Time of Crisis

It is interesting to note that in this time of global economic crisis, Filipino politicians are more concerned about changing the constitution rather than looking for creative ways of cushioning the crisis' impact on a large number of their constituents who will be greatly affected by its devastation. While it cannot be denied that our constitution desperately needs some degree of overhauling, especially in the area involving the economic provisions, it is also equally undeniable that our politcians' greed for power and their shameless lust of eternally holding on to it is, to say the least, deplorable.

The Philippine constitution is definitely wanting in the aspect of competitiveness due to some limitations imposed under its economic provisions. The ownership restriction on business and real property not only depicts a highly obsolete sense of nationalism on the part of the framers of the constitution but also conveys an impractical adherence to protectionism. Candidly speaking, this is not the right attitude to follow in order for our country to be at par with its Asian neighbors and to be able to compete in the global arena. What we need to do right now is to come out of the box and to step up with what the rest of the world is doing.

Unfortunately, however, our politcians are making a big fuss over this issue to cover up for an impending sinister plot. They are actually conspiring with each other by pretending to amend our constitution in order to cure the 'inadequacies' contained therein. They want the people to believe that their motive for pushing such a proposal is noble. But judging from the way these traditional politicians have been conducting themselves on matters affecting the operation of the government and the welfare of the people, the truth is that they are actually concealing their real intention under the guise of a good motive.

Pushing for a charter change at this point in time is not the most prudent thing to do for our politicians. It is ill-timed, unnecessary and counter-productive. A great majority of our people believes that the real reason why these politicians are hellbent on changing the constitution is not to amend the economic provisions but to extend the President's term of office. Changing the form of government to a parliamentary unicameral system would pave the way for President Arroyo to become Prime Minister and thus perpetuate their family's hold on power.

It is without question that our nation's constitution needs a major change but it should be done after the 2010 elections. That is the most logical thing to do in oder to erase any cloud of doubt as to its real intention. The Arroyo administration and its allies should learn their lesson the easy way by reflecting at the mistakes of past administrations rather than learning it the hard way by getting booted out from office by an angry nation. As the curtains start to fall signalling the approaching end of its term of office, its incumbent officials can still pull a grand finale of sorts by cleansing the government of the evils of graft and corruption and coming up with concrete programs that aim to protect its citizens of the crippling effect of the global finacial meltdown. That would, to some degree, be a great way of fixing a shattered reputation.

On the subject of Fallacies

Verbal fallacies

Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words. They are generally classified as follows.

Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms ("All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.")

Connotation fallacies occur when a dysphemistic word is substituted for the speaker's actual quote and used to discredit the argument. It is a form of attribution fallacy.

Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure, e.g. of the position of the adverb "only" in careless writers ("He only said that," in which sentence, the adverb has been intended to qualify any one of the other three words).

Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All". Arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property e.g. "all the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled". This can be acceptable (i.e., not a fallacy) with certain arguments such as spatial arguments e.g. "all the parts of the car are in the garage, therefore the car is in the garage"

Material fallacies

The taxonomy of material fallacies widely adopted by modern logicians and based on that of Aristotle, Organon (Sophistici elenchi), is as follows:

Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions (e.g., Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.)

Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (e.g., Paul must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same thing many times before. Paul may be consistent in what he says, but he may have been lying the whole time.)

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great.)

• A special case of this fallacy also goes by the Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc--the fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.
• Another special case is given by the Latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc -- the fallacy of believing that happenstance implies causal relation (aka as fallacy of causation versus correlation: assumes that correlation implies causation).

Fallacy of Many Questions (Plurium Interrogationum)--groups more than one question in the form of a single question (e.g., Is it true that you no longer beat your wife? A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to wife-beating.)

Argumentum as populum (Argument By Emotive Language - Appeal To The People) Using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience's sentiments instead of their minds. Many emotions can be useful: anger, spite, envy, condescension, and so on.

Example:
A person on trial for a crime of theft pleaded for mercy on the ground that he had force to steal to provide food for his starving family, instead of presenting evidence in his defense.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal To False Authority) This fallacy is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by a person who commands respect and reverence.

For example: Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller extensively and found no evidence of trickery or fraud in his feats." Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of the kind used by stage magicians. Taylor later admitted Geller had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how.

Argumentum ad judicium (Fallacy Of The General Rule) Assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. This fallacy is committed when the debater ignores the real question and maintains that his contention is valid because people in general believe it to be so.

Example:
All chairs have four legs. Except that rocking chairs don't have any legs, and what is a one-legged "shooting stick" if it isn't a chair?

Argumentum ad bacculum (Appeal To Force) Committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than reason.

Example:
The traditional religious threat is that one will burn in Hell

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Burden Of Proof) The claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case. It is a case of shifting of burden of proof.

Example:
I maintain that there are ghosts, because you cannot prove that there are no ghosts.