Let’s understand Fallacies

We will refer you or redirect you to these discussions when we have certain blogs treating on logic and the definitions herein will be made as bases for scrutiny. Hence, this blog portion is reserved for upcoming discussions with reference to this.

Illogical

Take note first :

 

What is our intention in creating the Page entitled Say It Right Logically or the Category Stand Ground Whén You Are Right?

Via this website, our intention is to relate ourselves, the readers and the community to the important social issues that may significantly affect our social living by some measure. It is thus important to determine the reasonability of these issues by screening or checking them on the basis of their logical elements or premises.

These important social issues that we mean may be pronouncements of political leaders and known public figures or even views, outlooks and understandings of ordinary citizens that have tremendous impacts.

What is one of the best bases by which to check if certain statements are illogical or not?

Since we attempt to be logical – but may not be perfectly so — in the way we attack or treat these issues, we need to rest on valid and solid ground.  The best way to do is to check them against the rules in reasoning. And the next best way is to see if they run counter to or fall in the elements of logical concepts provided by reliable sources.  The reliable source of concepts that we choose is the Wikipedia.

Why do we need to base from independent reliable source of conceptual bases our attempt at checking if an issue is logical instead of just providing our own conceptual bases?

 

Because if we make our own conceptual bases, that will be self-serving. For example, we cannot declare that a certain statement of a public figure is illogical by saying that it runs counter to a certain definition if the definition is our own words. We cannot convince an audience if our references are our own definitions. Hence, we take to Wikipedia, quoting verbatim the logical concepts it provided in its site that we will in effect provide here as our conceptual bases in our discussions.  These conceptual bases are generally definitions and secondarily illustrations.

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or “wrong moves”[1] in the construction of an argument.[2][3] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.[4]

We reiterate:

 

In case we have a particular blog on a special and relevant social issue where there is a need to check the logicality of that issue, we will quote herein the particular Wikipedia’s definition of a certain fallacy to check against it if something in the issue is violating logic and thus falls under such fallacy.

 

We will do so until such time that we are able to cover a number of fallacy definitions and applications.

Ano sa English ang nagpa-interview? Iku-combine mo lang sa word na ‘give’. Alamin ang mga gamit ng GIVE sa translations na ngayon mo lang mari-realize.

Ang ‘give’ ay hindi lang literal na ‘magbigay’

Kapag i-combine ito sa ibang words ay maraming mata-translate na mahirap sa una

Solution ito para ma-translate mo ang ‘nagpa’, ‘ipa’, ‘i(kuwan)’, ‘a(nu)hin’, etc. na hindi mo iwo-word for word sa iyong Tagalog/Filipino-English translation attempt.

All the following definitions of usage are those of Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

nagpa-interview

The representatives of Say News Agency came yesterday looking for you before I left. They want to have you featured in their newspaper as you topped the nursing board examination. Did you give an interview?

Ang mga kinatawan ng Say News Agency ay dumating kahapon na hinahanap ka bago ako umalis. Gusto nilang maitampok ka sa kanilang pahayagan dahil nag-top ka sa nursing board examination. Nagpa-interview ka ba?

i-regards

I-regards mo ako sa pamilya mo.

Give my regards to your family.

 

I-regards mo ako sa kanila.

Give them my regards.

 

to convey to another

mag-concert

Mag-concert tayo bilang pasasalamat sa mga fans mo.

Let’s give a concert as acknowledgment to your fans.

 

to present in public performance

umuusok, gumagatas, nanganganak

Umuusok itong dalawang bato na kinaskas mo.

These two stones that you grated give smoke.

 

Ang mga mammal ay gumagatas.

Mammals give milk.

 

Nanganganak pa ba ito?

Does it still give offspring?

 

to yield as a product, consequence, or effect : produce

i-limang piso

I-limang piso mo na lang ito kasi mahal sa pitong piso.

Give it for five pesos since it is expensive at ten pesos.

 

to dispose of for a price : sell

itulak

Itulak mo ito ng bahagya.

Give it a little push.

 

to deliver by some bodily action

(ngiting traydor) ngumingiting traydor

Bakit ka ngumingiting-traydor?

Why do you give a traitor smile?

 

to carry out (as a bodily movement)

isapuso, isaisip

Isapuso at isaisip mo ang iyong panata.

Give your vow to your heart and to your head.

 

to apply freely or fully : devote

sinipon

Sinipon ako ng pagtulong ko sa iyo kanina kahit mainit sa labas.

It gave me the sniffles/colds as I helped you out a while ago even though it was hot outdoors.

 

to cause a person to catch by contagion, infection, or exposure

mapasigaw, maisip/magawang sumigaw

Hindi ako mapasigaw kahit nagsisigawan na ang mga manonood dahil sa galing ng mga manlalaro.

I don’t give a hoot even though the audience has been hooting because of the superbness of the players.

 

to care to the extent of

Filipino-English Translation: Common combinations sa Tagalog o Filipino na mahirap hanapan ng English translations na kombinasyon din

Kapag word for word ang pag-translate, awkward ang kalalabasan

Kaya kinolekta namin ang mga ready to use combinations

Ang mga samples ng English combinations sa ibaba ay typical o karaniwan nang gamit sa English kung kaya hindi mo na kailangang gumawa ng sarili mong kombinasyon dahil baka lumabas na awkward at nakakatawa ang sarili mong kombinasyon sa iyong Tagalog/Filipino-English translation.

mag (ano) ka — it’s for you to

Dahil sinisira ka ng patalikod, magsaalang-alang ka ng mga bagay.

Since you are being backbitten, it’s for you to consider things.

na — by the fact that

Pinatunayan niya ang pagmamahal niya sa atin na kahit inalimura natin siya ay hindi siya gumanti.

He proved his love for us by the fact that even though we despised him, he did not take revenge.

na — the fact that

Hindi mo dapat balewalain na siya ay akusado na.

You should not ignore the fact that he is already an accused.

ang hanapbuhay — do for a living

Ano ba ang trabaho ng mga magulang mo?

What do your parents do for work/for a living?

nangyari — became of

Ano ang nangyari sa mga tao, matapos magkasala sa Diyos?

What became of men, having sinned against God?

a(nuhin) mo — it’s for you to

A, ganiyan ang tsismis. E di, alamin mo ang katotohanan.

Oh, that goes the gossip. If so, it’s for you to find out the truth.

 

It’s for you to is a typical format in English that is unique to the native English speakers. Our equivalents are a(nuhin) mo or dapat mong a(nuhin); for example, alamin. Though it looks like a command, yet in essence it is not a command but an assumption — a spoken assumption that one is to take his personal responsibility — a personal responsibility to, for example, find out.

magawa na/maisisp na — bring oneself to

Hindi ko magawa na/maisip na mahalin ang isang taong laging manloloko.

I can’t bring myself to love a person who is constantly a cheater.

naisip na — did not occur

Hindi ko naisip na mura lang pala ang payong sa 100 pesos lang.

It did not occur to me that umbrella is just cheap by only 100 pesos.

 

sinabi raw na — quoted as

Sinabi mo raw na, “Ang kay Juan ay kay Juan”.

You were quoted as saying, “What is Juan’s is Juan’s.”


Hi there, learner!

Rest muna kami ng pag post dito. Balik-balikan mo lang dito at dadagdagan namin ng samples kapag ready na ulit kami. Marami pa po kaming isa-sample karugtong dito. Pero, in the meantime, i click mo ang button sa ibaba nito o ang link na ito para sa related samples — http://www.say-it-right.com/blog/list-of-ranslation-phrases-na-non-verbatim-at-magugulat-ka-na-yun-pala.html


 

 

Filipino-English Translation: Alam mo bang ang English ng ‘grabe’ at ‘matindi’ ay ‘some’ kung gagamitin sa conversation!

Isa na naman itong Filipino-English Translation pattern na di mo akalaing ganun pala

Mababasa mo sa mga internet blogs in English pero hindi mo ina-apply

Kasi akala natin ay kung ano lang. Hindi tayo nagba-bother na i-check ang usage. At kapag may kausap tayong native English-speaking foreigner ay hindi natin iniisip na gumagamit siya ng “some” pero ang Tagalag o Filipino equivalent ay “matindi”, “grabe” at “pambihira”.

pambihira, matindi, grabe

Webster’s usage: remarkable, notable, striking

Oh, that was some joke you just said. — O, matinding joke iyon na sinabi mo pa lang.

 

This English sample is taken exactly from The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. Once in a while, we would get verbatim sample specimens from the dictionary and then sprinkle them on different parts of this Page. Also, once in a while we would make this similar comment/reminder telling the learner that our reason for quoting verbatim dictionary samples is to give the learner (in a justified way) some breakthrough knowledge in Filipino-English translating.

other equivalent — may kung sinong

Webster’s usage: of a person or persons only vaguely of implicitly

Some fool left the light on. — May kung sinong baliw na iniwang nakabukas ang ilaw.

 

This other English sample is taken exactly from The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. The explanation of usage is likewise taken from the same source.

Why are there arguments, disputes, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misjudgments?

communication-1082656__340

Solutions to: if not avoid or settle these, then defend yourself from these

Please pay attention to this personal experience to which, maybe, you can relate!

 

 

Back in college, I was the editor-in-chief of a university magazine. We placed on its cover a picture and a caption. Ironically, it shocked us why the same statement in the caption got us severely bashed and negatively criticized by some people yet at the same time earned us much appreciation from another people and group and even got us awarded! Whoa! A caption statement that was both condemned and praised! Shocking as it was but you can glean a reality here: people really fight in thoughts and in arguments. Now, who’s right? Who’s wrong? What’s wrong with some people’s argumentation? And how to detect the right from the wrong?

 

 

So what’s the relevance of a website?

 

 

It is for this concern that our website www.say-it-right.com is born. But do take note: By our treatments in logic, we don’t present ourselves as the ones superior in it while the rest of you as deficient in it. In fact, we have gone through the same deficiency that triggered us to make up or redeem ourselves. This logical platform in our site is simply an attempt to generate collaboration, fellowship or relationship with the interested readers and learners aiming to cultivate, influence and nurture a logical community.

 

 

People don’t apply in the real world these that were taught in schools; studied these only to earn grades and comply with classroom requirements:

 

 

A teacher of mine in high school said during lecture that one needs to master figures of speech and try applying them as well as detecting them in the real world or in actual day to day interaction. She further said that it is in the use and misinterpretation of these that many people find themselves in conflict and controversy with each other in their civil life. Sadly, nowadays, it concerns me why many people do not seem to consider, apply and derive the relevance of these figures of speech in their daily interaction despite the fact that these were taught in schools. For such a reason, many people quarrel. In fact, I myself have encountered misjudgments several times because my bashers failed to detect figures of speech that I used. The irony is: I was bashed by some people for the very same expressions/statements which earned me awards and appreciations from other people or groups. Aside from Figures of Speech, there are few other factors to reckon. I discuss them in subtopics. Please just read on.

 

 

Our discussions will be effective if we get examples from issues that are popular especially if these are of well-known figures

 

 

Before I go on, let me clarify why my favorite to quote are those of President Rodrigo Duterte. It’s NOT BECAUSE I IDOLIZE HIM. It just happens that he is especially in the habit of using figures of speech. Figures of Speech are literary devices whose meaning and interpretation need logical analysis in order to comprehend. I just take SOME, take note, SOME, ONLY SOME of his statements. For the reason that he is popular, I take his issues for my discussion so that my article would be catchy or engaging. As a writer, I use this technique: Writers usually ride on the popularity of the relevance of a social issue or of an important social figure so that their blogs would be engaging or interesting.

 

 

Main discussion

 

 

Below are five factors why conflicts and misunderstanding arise. Please take note that our deficiency in these factors is the typical reason why in some cases we become a disaster to our neighbor, partner, colleague, group, family, or community. On the contrary, excellence in these factors can make us a godsend to anybody else:

 

  1. Figures of Speech (Not appreciating their relevance)
  2. Definition of Terms (Disregarding it)
  3. Application or Applicability of an Idea (Not considering the question about it)
  4. Slanting (Mistaking it)
  5. Context (Not determining it)
  6. Fallacies (Not Knowing them)
  7. Logic (Not applying or misapplying it)

 

 

Explanations

Figures of Speech

Detect-Argument3-271x300SAMPLE 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)

 

Definition of Terms

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/

Application or Applicability of an Idea

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.

Slanting

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!

Context

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.

Fallacies

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.

Logic

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.

PERSONAL BLOG OF REMIGIO S. ESPARES III

Filipino-English Translation: Ano sa English ang ‘sa pangunguna ng’? ‘In the leading of’ ba?

Halimbawa ay “Sa pangunguna ng mga konsehal, magti-tree-planting tayo”.

Para diyan sa ‘sa pangunguna’ gagamit ka ng ‘with’ as sentence preface

Ang pinakamalapit at most logical translations ng usual Filipino phrases na mahirap i-English ay ni-research, in-analyze, at pinag-aralan ng website at books namin. Ia-apply na lang ninyo dahil kami na ang nag-ukol ng panahon (initiative) para sa inyong Tagalog (Filipino) to English Translation Problem.

 

Ang translation patterns na ibinabahagi namin ang pinakamalapit na Tagalog (Filipino)-English translations:

 

Sa pangungulo mo

Sa pangungulo mo, naniniwala kami na magtatagumpay ang ating samahan.

With you as the president, we believe our club will succeed. or With you presiding, we believe our club will succeed.

 

Tendency of some Pinoys but wrong: In your presiding, we believe our club will succeed.

Sa pangunguna ng

Sa pangunguna ng mga konsehal, magti-tree-planting activity tayo.

With the councilors leading us, we will conduct a tree-planting activity.

or

With the councilors as our leaders, we will conduct a tree-planting activity.

 

Tendency of some Pinoys but wrong: In the leading of the councilors, we will conduct a tree-planting activity.

Sa pagsasaayos mo

Sa pagsasaayos mo nitong tindahan, makakapag-umpisa na kami agad.

With you fixing this store, we can start then.