Maitim pa ang surface ng kalsada sa tira ng aspalto pero sabi ng isang kritiko sa defender ng nagpagawa ng road construction, “Tingnan mo, hayan o wala nang aspalto.” Mali ba ang kritiko? (The surface of the passageway is still black with left-over asphalt but a critique to a defender of the one who caused the road to be constructed asserted, ‘Look exactly there, there is no more asphalt.’ Is the critique wrong?
The problem in argument comes around when the two parties arguing have dissimilar points of reference!
What’s the issue? the problem?
A defender of a head of a local government unit and another fellow, a leader of a civic organization, were arguing. The subject matter is a passageway which was asphalted thru the effort then of the LGU head; but now, after barely 1 year, is already said to be bald with the asphalt (pudpod na ang aspalto). The civic group leader was saying strongly “Nakita ninyo iyan, o, wala na! (“Can’t you see that? There’s no more!”) He is pertaining to the asphalt. This civic group leader is spearheading a community protest because the LGU head’s projects such as this one in question are of substandard quality. So, the defender retorted, “Anong wala na? Hayan o, ang itim-itim. Bulag ka ba?!” (What are you trying to say, no more? Can’t you see? Look exactly, it is pitch black. Are you blind?”) Observers witnessing the argument could see that the passageway is really black with asphalt though the asphalt on the road appeared to be thinned out (manipis na). Now, who is illogical between the two? Who is pilosopo? Is the civic leader pilosopo for judging that there is no more? Or the defender is pilosopo for defending that there is still?
SAY IT RIGHT LOGICALLY brings the issue to light:
Air your grievance in this forum. We in this site forum and any advocating reader will help one another so that we may detect the illogical, trap the inconsistency; let you stand your ground, hold your oppressor back, debunk your basher, and, tune things straight, fine and upfront.