classic and great philosophers

for my classic and great philosophers class

assignment for next meeting is pre-socratic philosophers, after which we will discuss socrates.



The Great Philosophers

syllabus of political science

for my political science class, the assignment is the entire part I for next meeting



Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
(University of the City of Manila)
Intramuros, Manila
College of Liberal Arts

Politics and Governance with Philippine Constitution Christian E. Rivero
Second Semester, SY 2009-2010 Department of Humanities

Course Description
The course is an introduction to the concepts, theories and principles of political science, types of political systems, development of political institutions and the processes involved in a larger international world system. The course specifically provides an understanding on Philippine government and politics as it gives highlights on studying and examining the development, organization and operation of the Philippine political system with special emphasis on the Philippine Constitution. Likewise, the course will also deal with the current issues confronting the students taking the course.

Course Objectives
1. Provide the students with the theories and principles in the course of political science;
2. Provide the students with the knowledge on the development, organization and operation of the Philippine government;
3. Strengthen the students' awareness on the formal structure for political participation and their role as citizens of the country;
4. Provides the students with the understanding on the importance of public opinion and the emergence of the civil society;
5. Reinforce the students' understanding on the constitution as the basis of all political institutions and processes.

Course Content

I. Nature of Politics and Governance
Nature of Politics and Governance Definition of Political Science
Scope of Political Science
Political Science and Its Related Fields

II. State and Its Elements
Meaning of the State
Theories on the Origin of the State Elements of the State
State Distinguished from Nation
Inherent Powers of the State Rights and Obligations of the State

III. Government and Political Ideology
Definition of Government
Forms of Government
Best Form of Government
Concept and Definition of Ideology Popular Kinds of Ideologies

IV. Constitution
Nature and Concepts of the Constitution Meaning of the Constitution
Purposes and Functions of the Constitution Classification of the Constitution
Requisites of a Good Written Constitution History of the Philippine Constitution

V. Bill of Rights
Political Rights
Civil Rights
Social and Economic Rights Rights of the Accused

VI. Citizenship
Concepts of Citizenship
Kinds of Citizens
Citizens and Aliens Distinguished Modes of Acquiring Citizenship
Loss of Citizenship
Duties and Responsibilities of Citizens

VII. Suffrage and Election
Nature of Suffrage
Right of Suffrage in the Philippines Kinds of Election in the Philippines Qualification of Voters
Disqualification of Voters
Absentee Voting

VIII. Political Parties and Interest Groups
Definition of Political Party
Functions of Political Parties Definition of Interest Group
Interest Groups in the Philippines

IX The Philippine Government
Principle of Separation of Powers Principle of Checks and Balance Legislative Branch of the Government Executive Branch of the Government Judicial Branch of the Government Local Government in the Philippines

X. International Relations
Definition of Foreign Policy
Requirements of a Foreign Policy International Relations
Definitions of International Law Importance of International Law United Nations Organizations

Reference
Any Book on the Constitution of the Philippines

welcome

welcome to the pamantasan mga skolars ng bayan to my blog.

here i am going to assignments, lessons, and other requirements for the class. please check this blog at least once a week.

i hope that you have a fruitful experience at the pamantasan.

here are some of the possible philosophy books that you can use, please just download them:

Philosophy and Philosophers - An Introduction to Western Philosophy (Penguin Philosophy)

An Introduction to Philosophy

empowered filipinas

polsci

helping the community

campaign ad

political science reviewer

piliin niyo lang yung kasama sa coverage ng exam natin

bill of rights
citizenship
suffrage
executive
legislative
judiciary

gud lak.


Political Law[1]

logic project

art history project

got this from the net.the student who made this project got an A.

project polsci

i have asked my students to make campaign advertisements where they would pretend that they are the candidates or at least voice their opinions regarding the election.

suffrage

notes on citizenship

Political Law Review - Citizenship

was manny villar really poor?

( got this from philippine star this weekend. the article raises the question whether villar was really poor. read for yourself and decide)





Was Manny Villar really ever poor?
AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR By William M. Esposo (The Philippine Star) Updated February 07, 2010 12:00 AM

“Nakaligo ka na ba sa dagat ng basura? (Have you bathed in a sea of garbage?)” is the opening line of the jingle of Nacionalista Party presidential candidate Manny Villar which is featured in a television commercial that attempts to project him as having been one of the poorest of the poor. But was Manny Villar really one of the poorest of the poor as what his advertising has been projecting?

A Chair Wrecker reader from Tondo who claimed to know the Villar family when they still resided there debunked that notion of Villar ever having been poor. This information was relayed to yours truly via our response email address.

The former Villar family Tondo neighbor cited reference points to support his assertion that Manny Villar was never really poor — including the claim that Villar’s father used to have a “nikaladong (stainless steel clad)” private Jeep. During the 1950s, a nikaladong private Jeep is a status symbol in Tondo, definitely not the hallmark of a poor household.

Considering how Manny Villar has been dodging the serious issues pertaining to his use of public office in order to add immense benefits and profits to his businesses, your Chair Wrecker decided to do some investigating. Guess what Manny Villar’s online bio revealed:

“Manuel Villar Jr. was born on December 13, 1949 in Tondo, a densely populated district of Manila. He was the second of nine children of Manuel Villar Sr., a government employee, and Curita Bamba, a seafood dealer. As a young boy, he helped his mother sell fish, crabs, and shrimp in Divisoria to help earn money to pay for his education.

Villar finished his education at Holy Child Catholic School in 1962, and finished his high school education at Mapua Institute of Technology in 1966. He attended the University of the Philippines-Diliman and earned his bachelor’s degree in business administration in 1970. He returned to the same school to earn his master’s degree in business administration in 1973.”

In the early 1950s, the rich lived in the big compounds in Ermita and Pasay and what was called New Manila in Quezon City. In Tondo, you found the middle class and the poor as well. Former president Joseph Estrada also claims roots in Tondo but his family was never poor. Based on his online bio, Villar cannot really justify calling himself poor.

The Villar Tondo home, as shown on his 2009 TV commercials, was made of sturdy materials. It has lasted to this day. His father was employed while his mother operated a fish, crab and shrimp dealership in lucrative Divisoria Market. It may not be Class AB household income but it is definitely not Class E.

Proof that the Villar children were never really wanting is the fact that Manny Villar studied in private schools. The indigent kids went to public school. Enrolling one’s child in a private school is a middle class value and option. The indigent kids who do manage to finish high school would tend to immediately learn a craft in order to be able to earn money right away. Aspiring for a business administration master’s degree is not the usual post high school move of indigent kids.

Villar narrated on his 2009 TV commercial, with Boy Abunda interviewing him, that as a young kid he thought that corned beef was soupy because that was how they used to prepare it at home. This, he claimed, was their way to ensure that everybody had a share.

But the fact is that there are really two ways to cook canned corned beef. One is the dry sautéed type while the other is the soupy type where you can add potatoes and cabbage. Both the rich and the middle class enjoy corned beef both ways.

Also, poor folks, especially a family of eleven, CANNOT AFFORD to eat canned corned beef. For a family of 11 to be eating corned beef confirms that the Villar family is anything but poor. That was the case then and more so now when the poor go hungry or manage to eat only one meal a day. Up to the 1980s, people from the provinces consider it a status symbol to be eating corned beef. That is why canned foodstuffs, especially corned beef, are being displayed in the sala by many households in the provinces for these to be seen by visitors.

For Manny Villar to don this facade of being “poor” once upon a time just to gain political advantage should make every Filipino voter ponder as to what else he would be willing to do just to attain his objective.

obama girl

obama girl became popular last US presidential election. maybe we should a local obama girl version....

videos of adel

for this week the PLM TV monitors have been incessantly plugging the adel tamano infomercial. i do not know if it is ethical or even legal but it is just politics-- politicians are out to sell themselves to the public.

choose wisely.

some interesting adel tamano videos,







i just wish that the elevator would finally be fixed. :)

the C5 controversy by winnie monsod

Everything you wanted to know about the C5 project but were afraid to ask
(Following is the transcript of the segment “Analysis by Winnie Monsod” which aired on News on Q on Feb. 1, 2010. Prof. Winnie Monsod is the resident analyst of News on Q which airs weeknights at 9:30 p.m. on QTV Channel 11.)












What are the specific charges against Senator Manny Villar?

Based on the Senate Report 780, stripped of all the legalese, the charges are that he used his position and influence to cause a government roadway — the so-called C-5 road extension project — to be built and that the road was unnecessary, financially disadvantageous to the government, and would actually yield him enormous financial benefits.

It was unnecessary, because there was already an existing project, the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway (MCTEP), which was a Build-Operate-Transfer project to be built by private contractors.

It was financially disadvantageous to the government because the Villar-proposed project would be longer and would be built entirely by the government using public funds.

And it would result in tremendous financial benefit for Villar because it would pass right through his properties so that the government would have to pay him road right-of-way and at the same time, considerably enhance the value of those properties.

What exacerbates the situation is that the government, per the documentary evidence, paid much more for the right-of-way for the Villar properties than the other properties, that Villar allegedly used his position as a senator — in particular as the Senate Finance Chairman and then as Senate President — to make insertions that would ensure that his properties would be paid for right away.

Based on the Philippine Senate resolution 1472 filed by mostly Villar allies, the committee of the whole had no jurisdiction, that it adopted rules that were inapplicable, that it did not even publish the final rules, that there was an inadequate quorum reuirement; and most importantly, that Manny Villar was being singled out.

What does it then find?

Resolution 1472 finds that:

(1) there was no “double insertion” and that the same were actually “regular amendments”;

(2) that there is no realignment of the C-5 road extension project, much less one authored or done at the behest of senator Villar to secure that it passed through his real estate properties.

Why? Because there are two separate alignments: one is the C-5 road extension project, which is a public road; and the other is the MCTEP, a toll expressway project, which, if completed, would require the payment of toll for its use; and

(3) that there was no overpricing because the right of way payments were based on properly certified zonal valuations; that all requirements were complied with; and that there was no participation of villar or his staff in the acquisition of the properties.

What can we make of these conflicting opinions?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A map prepared by GMANews.TV shows what the case is all about. [See: The C5 extension controversy: An interactive map]

Here, you see the original C-5 extension project, called the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project.

The idea was that this would be a BOT project, with the private partner bearing the costs of construction, to be paid by future tolls, and the government’s exposure would be limited to P2.5 billion pesos which will be used to obtain right-of-way.

Here now is the new project.

We have super imposed the burnt orange line representing the new project again connecting SLEX to coastal road except it is very much longer and hits the coastal road farther along.

Here are the Villar properties.

On the basis of this map, it is clear that there are two alignments.

But it is also clear that one of them was unnecessary — why?

It has to be the burnt orange project, because the other project had been approved earlier.

It is also clear that the C-5 extension project is going to be more costly, first because it is longer, and second because it was built wholly with government funds; and third because of what the government spent on the road right of way for the old project will now be gone to waste.

Why will it go to waste?

Can you imagine the joint venture partner building this project which is a toll road, when a free road is almost right beside it — who will want to pay the toll?

And finally, it is very clear that the greater length of the C-5 extension project enables it to pass through all the Villar company properties — Golden Haven, Adelfa, Camella, Azalea.

There remains the issue of the overprice of the Villar properties.

Based on the documentary evidence that was presented in Senate Report 780, there were 22 properties that had to be bought to get a road right of way for the C-5 extension project.

The average price paid for the non-Villar properties was Php 2,422 per square meter.

The average price paid for of Villar properties was Php 11,519 per square meter for mostly raw land.

So, now i think we have sufficient basis, free of the posturing and screaming, to make our own decisions.

some lecture notes

Common logical fallacies to avoid
Statements that weaken arguments...
Argument
An argument can be supported by...
logic (logos), an appeal to reasoning such as deductive and inductive;
ethics (ethos), an appeal to one's sense of right and wrong or good sense, or to
emotions (pathos), an appeal to one’s patriotism, fears, or sympathies.
Weak Arguments
Weak arguments rely on illogical statements called fallacies.
The following slides contain examples of logical fallacies...
Non-sequitur- ("it does not follow")
“Non-SECK-quit-er” An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.

Examples:
The President graduated from Harvard. He can't make mistakes.
She rides a motorcycle, so she must be a lesbian.
Begging the Question
Basing an argument on an assumption that has not been proven or that is impossible to prove.
Examples:
Synthetic vitamins are dangerous to one's health, so all of them should be removed from the store shelves.
Teaching evolution is contrary to what God wants; therefore, the theory of evolution comes directly from Satan.
People who watch little or no TV are generally more active than people who watch a lot of TV because the major networks send subliminal messages to make people passive, sleepy, and wanting more TV.
Circular Reasoning
repeats a premise rather than giving a valid reason.
Examples:
Martha is a good supervisor because she supervises the company's personnel office effectively.
Only a fatalist would bungee jump, and the fact that bungee jumpers are fatalists is proof of this.
Straw-man Argument
attributes untrue characteristics to an argument and then attacks the argument based on those characteristics.
Examples:
"Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
You’re a bad driver, so that’s why you won't support a bill to raise the driving age to twenty-one.
Ad Hominem (to the man)
attacks the person rather than the issue.
Examples:
Sam is divorced, so how can he make sound financial decisions for the city?
Mr. Spock is not an effective second-in- command because he has ugly pointed ears.
Dr. Kirkegard’s books about plant genetics are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler.
Over-generalization
draws a conclusion about an entire group based on insufficient evidence.
Examples:
I know five Italians who like pizza, so all Italians must like pizza.
Since Warren Buffet and Bill Gates made large gifts to charitable causes, all wealthy men must be charitable.
Post hoc, Ergo Procter Hoc
(“after this; therefore because of this”)
attributes a cause/effect relationship simply
because something occurs after something
else. (“black cat” reasoning)
Examples:
A black cat crossed my path before I took the math test; I ended up failing the test because of that cat!
Our weather patterns have changed since we began launching the space shuttle into space.
False Dichotomy
...based on the false assumption that there are only two possibilities. Sometimes called the “Either/Or” fallacy. Most situations provide more than two possible outcomes.
Examples:
Either you are with America's fight against terrorism or you are America's enemy.
If you don’t take this trip now, you will either live with lifelong regret or you will take a better trip later in your life.
Red Herring
Appeal to the Crowd-
relying on the emotional passion of the crowd in making an argument; playing on a group's fears or prejudices.
Examples:
We will all go broke if we don't put a stop to welfare fraud.
All I can say is that if enjoying junk food is unhealthy, then the majority of us are unhealthy!
Just ask anyone in Professor Campbell’s class if the latest test was extremely unfair.
Appeal To Tradition:
...We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions. (“don't rock the boat”)
Of course you have to play “Here Comes the Bride" at your wedding, because that's always been the song that is played.
We always have liver on Thanksgiving even though we dislike it because it’s been a family tradition for generations.


II.

Logical Fallacies
Continuing our foray into the world of Argument
What is Fallacy?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments.

First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources.

Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious.

An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones.

Hasty Generalization
Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small).
Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards," "grad students are nerdy," etc.) are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization.

Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!"
Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.

Missing the Point
Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion--but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws.

Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving."
The argument actually supports several conclusions-- "The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in particular--but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
Post hoc (false cause)
This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."

Definition: Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
Of course, sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later--for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

Examples: "President Jones raised taxes, and then the rate of violent crime went up. Jones is responsible for the rise in crime.“
The increase in taxes might or might not be one factor in the rising crime rates, but the argument hasn't shown us that one caused the other.
Slippery Slope
Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption.
The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.

Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now."
Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place.
Weak Analogy

Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy.

Example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers--so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous."
While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it.

If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: "My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when I'm stuck inside) and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.
Appeal to Authority
Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing.
If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Example: "We should abolish the death penalty. Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it."
While Guy Handsome may be an authority on matters having to do with acting, there's no particular reason why anyone should be moved by his political opinions--he is probably no more of an authority on the death penalty than the person writing the paper.
Appeal to Pity
Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Example: "I know the exam is graded based on performance, but you should give me an A. My cat has been sick, my car broke down, and I've had a cold, so it was really hard for me to study!"
The conclusion here is "You should give me an A." But the criteria for getting an A have to do with learning and applying the material from the course; the principle the arguer wants us to accept (people who have a hard week deserve A's) is clearly unacceptable.

Example: "It's wrong to tax corporations--think of all the money they give to charity, and of the costs they already pay to run their businesses!"

Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist."

Here's an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy:

"People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists."
In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well-thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't exist.

Straw Man
Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score point by knocking it down.


Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers should be left in peace."
The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated--in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages.
Red Herring
Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue.

Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument:
Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.
Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do.

When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent--the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.
False Dichotomy
Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.


Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down."
The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
Begging the Question
Definition: A complicated fallacy, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence
the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.
Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here.

Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death." Let's lay this out in premise-conclusion form:
Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.
Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: "decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and "help another human being escape suffering through death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise basically says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does! The arguer hasn't yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real question (think of "beg off").
Equivocation
Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument.

Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money."
The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both something that is correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and something to which someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life").
Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice," "rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it's important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.
Can you name this Fallacy?
1) It is ridiculous to have spent thousands of dollars to rescue those two whales trapped in the Arctic ice. Why look at all the people trapped in jobs they don’t like.


RED HERRING
Can you name this Fallacy?
2) Plagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest.


BEGGING THE QUESTION
Can you name this Fallacy?
3) Water fluoridation affects the brain. Citywide, student’s test scores began to drop five months after fluoridation began.


POST HOC (false cause)
Can you name this Fallacy?
4) I know three redheads who have terrible tempers, and since Annabel has red hair, I’ll bet she has a terrible temper too.


HASTY GENERALIZATION
Can you name this Fallacy?
5) Supreme Court Justice Byron White was an All-American football player while in college, so how can you say that athletes are dumb?


HASTY GENERALIZATION
Can you name this Fallacy?
6) Why should we put people on trial when we know they are guilty?



BEGGING THE QUESTION
Can you name this Fallacy?
7) You support capital punishment just because you want an “eye for an eye,” but I have several good reasons to believe that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong…


STRAW MAN
Can you name this Fallacy?
8) The meteorologist predicted the wrong amount of rain for May. Obviously the meteorologist is unreliable.


HASTY GENERALIZATION
Can you name this Fallacy?
9) You know Jane Fonda’s exercise video’s must be worth the money. Look at the great shape she’s in.


POST HOC (false cause)
Can you name this Fallacy?
10) We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!


SLIPPERY SLOPE
Can you name this Fallacy?
11) The book Investing for Dummies really helped me understand my finances better. The book Chess for Dummies was written by the same author, was published by the same press, and costs about the same amount, so it would probably help me understand my finances as well.

WEAK ANALOGY
Can you name this Fallacy?
12) Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while.

FALSE DICHOTOMY (Dilemma)
Can you name this Fallacy?
13) I'm positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since my grandmother is sick.



APPEAL TO PITY
Can you name this Fallacy?
14) Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious, we must reinstate the death penalty immediately.

MISSING THE POINT
Can you name this Fallacy?
15) I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.

solutions

Solutions

1. If the first native is a politician, then he lies and denies being a politician. If the first native is not a politician, then he tells the truth and denies being a politician. In either case, then, the first native denies being a politician.
Since the second native reports that the first native denies being a politician, he tells the truth, and is therefore a non-politician.
The third native asserts that the first native is a politician. If the first native is a politician, then the thirds native speaks the truth and is therefore a non politician. If the first native is a non politician, then the third native lies and is therefore a politician. Hence, only one of the first and the third natives is a politician, and since the second is a non-politician, there is only one politician among the natives.


4. Hint: The two robots know each others personality. That they talk when they're bored, lonely, etc. Try to get the two robots to cancel their evil & good ways out.
Answer: Ask one robot what the other robot would say, if it was asked which door was safe. Then go through the other door.

watch this

freedom of expression

another case assignment

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ISAAC PEREZ, defendant-appellant.

Mario Guariña for appellant.
Attorney-General Villa Real for appellee.



MALCOLM, J.:

Isaac Perez, the municipal secretary of Pilar, Sorsogon, and Fortunato Lodovice, a citizen of that municipality, happening to meet on the morning of April 1, 1992, in the presidencia of Pilar, they became engaged in a discussion regarding the administration of Governor-General Wood, which resulted in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Filipinos, for he has killed our independence." Charged in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon with a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code having to do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other persons in authority, and convicted thereof, Perez has appealed the case to this court. The question presented for decision is, What crime, if any, did the accused commit?

A logical point of departure is the information presented in this case. It reads in translation as follows:

That on or about April 1, 1922, in the municipality of Pilar, Province of Sorsogon, Philippine Islands, the said accused, Isaac Perez, while holding a discussion with several persons on political matters, did criminally, unlawfully and wilfully and with knowledge that Honorable Leonard Wood was the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and in the discharge of his functions as such authority, insult by word, without his presence, said Governor-General, uttering in a loud voice and in the presence of many persons, and in a public place, the following phrases: "Asin an mangña filipinos na caparejo co, maninigong gumamit nin sundang asin haleon an payo ni Wood huli can saiyang recomendacion sa pag raot con Filipinas," which in English, is as follows: "And the Filipinos, like myself, must use bolos for cutting off Wood's head for having recommended a bad thing for the Philippines.

Contrary to article 256 of the Penal Code.

At the trial of the case, two witnesses were called on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses on behalf of the defense. According to the first witness for the Government, Juan Lumbao, the municipal president of Pilar, what Perez said on the occasion in question was this:

"The Filipinos, like myself, should get a bolo and cut off the head of Governor-General Wood, because he has recommended a bad administration in these Islands and has not made a good recommendation; on the contrary, he has assassinated the independence of the Philippines and for this reason, we have not obtained independence and the head of that Governor-General must be cut off." Higinio J. Angustia, justice of the peace of Pilar, in a written statement, and Gregorio Cresencio, another witness for the prosecution, corroborated the testimony of the first witness. Cresencio understood that Perez invited the Filipinos including himself to get their bolos and cut off the head of Governor-General Wood and throw it into the sea.

The witnesses for the defense did not deny that an altercation took place on the morning of April 1, 1922, in which the accused participated. But they endeavored to explain that the discussion was between Perez and one Severo Madrid, the latter maintaining that the fault was due to the Nacionalista Party, while Perez argued that the Governor-General was to blame. The accused testified that the discussion was held in a peaceful manner, and that what he wished to say was that the Governor-General should be removed and substituted by another. On the witness stand, he stated that his words were the following: "We are but blaming the Nacionalista Party which is in power but do not take into account that above the representatives there is Governor-General Wood who controls everything, and I told him that the day on which the Democrats may kill that Governor-General, then we, the Filipinos will install the government we like whether you Democratas want to pay or not to pay taxes."

The trial judge found as a fact, and we think with abundant reason, that it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made use of the language stated in the beginning of this decision and set out in the information. The question of fact thus settled, the question of law recurs as to the crime of which the accused should be convicted.

It should be recalled that the fiscal named, in the information, article 256 of the Penal Code as having been infringed and the trial judge so found in his decision. The first error assigned by counsel for the appellant is addressed to this conclusion of the lower court and is to the effect that article 256 of the Penal Code is no longer in force.

In the case of United States vs. Helbig ([1920], R. G. No. 14705 1), the accused was charged with having uttered the following language: "To hell with the President of the United States and his proclamation!" Mr. Helbig was prosecuted under article 256, and though the case was eventually sent back to the court of origin for a new trial, the appellate court by majority vote held as a question of law that article 256 is still in force.

In the case of People vs. Perfecto ([1922], 43 Phil., 887), the accused was charged with having published an article reflecting on the Philippine Senate and its members in violation of article 256 of the Penal Code. In this court, Mr. Perfecto was acquitted by unanimous vote, with three members of the court holding that article 256 was abrogated completely by the change from Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines, and with six members holding that the Libel Law had the effect of repealing so much of article 256 as relates to written defamation, abuse, or insult, and that under the information and the facts, the defendant was neither guilty of a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code nor of the libel Law. In the course of the main opinion in the Perfecto case, is found this significant sentence: "Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, the Treason and Sedition Law, may also have affected article 256, but as to this point, it is not necessary to make a pronouncement."

It may therefore be taken as settled doctrine, to which those of us who retain a contrary opinion must bow with as good grace as we can muster, that until otherwise decided by higher authority, so much of article 256 of the Penal Code as does not relate to ministers of the Crown or to writings coming under the Libel Law, exist and must be enforced. To which proposition, can properly be appended a corollary, namely: Seditious words, speeches, or libels, constitute a violation of Act No. 292, the Treason and Sedition Law, and to this extent, both the Penal Code and the Libel Law are modified.

Accepting the above statements relative to the continuance and status of article 256 of the Penal Code, it is our opinion that the law infringed in this instance is not this article but rather a portion of the Treason and Sedition Law. In other words, as will later appear, we think that the words of the accused did not so much tend to defame, abuse, or insult, a person in authority, as they did to raise a disturbance in the community.

In criminal law, there are a variety of offenses which are not directed primarily against individuals, but rather against the existence of the State, the authority of the Government, or the general public peace. The offenses created and defined in Act No. 292 are distinctly of this character. Among them is sedition, which is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. It is a revolt against legitimate authority. Though the ultimate object of sedition is a violation of the public peace or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution. (2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 974; U.S. vs. Abad [1902], 1 Phil., 437; People vs. Cabrera [1922], 43 Phil., 64.)

It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of Act No. 292 must not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to the foundations of Government. Criticism, no matter how severe, on the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary, is within the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious. But when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State. (III Wharton's Criminal Law, pp. 2127 et seq.; U.S. vs. Apurado [1907], 7 Phil., 422; People vs. Perfecto, supra.)

Here, the person maligned by the accused is the Chief Executive of the Philippine Islands. His official position, like the Presidency of the United States and other high offices, under a democratic form of government, instead, of affording immunity from promiscuous comment, seems rather to invite abusive attacks. But in this instance, the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds of free speech was intended. There is a seditious tendency in the words used, which could easily produce disaffection among the people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws.

The Governor-General is an executive official appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, and holds in his office at the pleasure of the President. The Organic Act vests supreme executive power in the Governor-General to be exercised in accordance with law. The Governor-General is the representative of executive civil authority in the Philippines and of the sovereign power. A seditious attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights of the Filipino people and on American sovereignty. (Concepcion vs. Paredes [1921], 42 Phil., 599; U.S. vs. Dorr [1903], 2 Phil., 332.)

Section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Philippine Commission, as amended by Act No. 1692, appears to have been placed on the statute books exactly to meet such a situation. This section reads as follows:

Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, or who shall write, publish or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or against the Government of the Philippine Islands, or who shall print, write, publish utter or make any statement, or speech, or do any act which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office or in performing his duty, or which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or which tends to disturb the peace of the community or the safety or order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices from the constituted authorities, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars United States currency or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

In the words of the law, Perez has uttered seditious words. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. He has made a statement and done an act which suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to stir up the people against the lawful authorities. He has made a statement and done an act which tended to disturb the peace of the community and the safety or order of the Government. All of these various tendencies can be ascribed to the action of Perez and may be characterized as penalized by section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended.

A judgment and sentence convicting the accused of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended, is, in effect, responsive to, and based upon, the offense with which the defendant is charged. The designation of the crime by the fiscal is not conclusive. The crime of which the defendant stands charged is that described by the facts stated in the information. In accordance with our settled rule, an accused may be found guilty and convicted of a graver offense than that designated in the information, if such graver offense is included or described in the body of the information, and is afterwards justified by the proof presented during the trial. (Guevarra's Code of Criminal Procedure, p. 9; De Joya's Code of Criminal Procedure, p. 9.)

The penalty meted out by the trial court falls within the limits provided by the Treason and Sedition Law, and will, we think, sufficiently punish the accused.

That we have given more attention to this case than it deserves, may be possible. Our course is justified when it is recalled that only last year, Mr. Chief Justice Taft of the United States Supreme Court, in speaking of an outrageous libel on the Governor of the Porto Rico, observed: "A reading of the two articles removes the slightest doubt that they go far beyond the "exuberant expressions of meridional speech," to use the expression of this court in a similar case in Gandia vs. Pettingill (222 U.S. , 452, 456). Indeed they are so excessive and outrageous in their character that they suggest the query whether their superlative vilification has not overleapt itself and become unconsciously humorous." (Balzac vs. Porto Rico [1922], 258 U.S., 298.) While our own sense of humor is not entirely blunted, we nevertheless entertain the conviction that the courts should be the first to stamp out the embers of insurrection. The fugitive flame of disloyalty, lighted by an irresponsible individual, must be dealt with firmly before it endangers the general public peace.

The result is to agree with the trial Judge in his findings of fact, and on these facts to convict the accused of a violation of section 8 of Act No. 292 as amended. With the modification thus indicated, judgment is affirmed, it being understood that, in accordance with the sentence of the lower court, the defendant and appellant shall suffer 2 months and 1 day's imprisonment and pay the costs. So ordered.