JEJOMAR BINAY

This advert shows Binay during his childhood years. Grieving after the death of his mother. He said that the death of his mother was due to poverty, as a result, they do not have access to healthcare. At the end, Binay said that he experienced what we are experiencing too, and that we will have no one to help but ourselves.

This advertisement is the embodiment (okay, this is an exaggeration) of the fallacy of appealing to the authority. A fallacy wherein a person, outside of their field, is used to justify the other person’s conclusion. In this case, Binay is using Manny Pacquiao, an internationally known boxer. Manny claims that Binay understands the problems of the poor people because he was also poor at a point in his life, which is also true in Manny’s case. And that because of this, he is the most qualified out of the rest of the candidates.

A case of fallacy of single cause or causal oversimplification, a fallacy of questionable cause, is present on the picture above. Education alone does not guarantee a prosperous country. He fails to mention that there are many factors in making a country rise.

This is also an example of the false analogy fallacy. Binay used a poor analogy in this one. How can we be sure that free uniforms and books will guarantee a better state of living? A better life is not entirely dependent on free things. Again, many factors are included in this problem. Binay is showing it like education answers all the need of the country, that education will solve all problems of this country, when that is not necessarily the case.

Another fallacy has resurfaced again in this picture, the fallacy of composition. Again, we are not sure if what Binay has done for Makati, will also be done for the rest of the country. Let me say this again, Makati does not represent the entirety of the Philippines. Makati is only a small part of the country.

Another fallacy has also resurfaced, cherry-picking. A fallacy wherein evidence is suppressed. If free education has really helped Makati a lot, then why are there still poor people lingering in the streets? Why are there homeless people sleeping on the sidewalks? He’s discarding the fact that education, alone, will not help this country.

In this advert, Binay is guilty of the fallacy of composition. The fallacy states that if a part of a whole is true, then the whole must also be true. In Binay’s case, if he made Makati better (which is debatable, but it’s a story for another day), then he can make the Philippines better too, as if the city of Makati represents the entirety of the country.

Also, Binay is guilty of cherry-picking. He only pointed out his accomplishment in this advert, whilst ignoring his failures. He is only showing one side of the coin, the shiny, squeaky, clean part of the coin.

Well, you know who he is talking about in here if you followed the recent events on our election season. This is an example of ad hominem. It’s an indirect attack on Duterte’s...intense liking of women, as it was released around the time of Duterte’s statements.

It’s also a case of the moral high ground fallacy, or the holier-than-thou attitude. We can see here that Binay is describing himself as a person above whoever he’s attacking, that he stand on a much more higher moral plane compared to his opponent’s.

This is an example of appeal to emotion, or more specifically appeal to pity. A fallacy wherein a person attempts to induce pity to sway the audience or your opponents to your side.

The sad thing in this advert is that Jejomar Binay is using his mother’s own illness to persuade or sway the audience to vote for him in the election. You should never use somebody’s illness as a stepping stone towards your path to presidency. Use your credentials, your accomplishments, or even your own vision for your country.

Infographic showing Presidential Candidate Jejomar Binay’s Credentials, Platforms, as well as Controversies.

Source: Antes, R., Dulla, J.K., Tarroza, D., and Virrey, F.M, 2015

Vice President Jejomar Binay regarding Human Rights.

This is an example of an appeal to emotion fallacy. This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. Binay appeals to the emotions of the Filipino citizens by telling them that no one will be left behind instead of showing concrete plans on how this well be done.

Vice President Jejomar Binay’s statement on becoming the next president:

“Ang sinasabi ko, kapag underspending, underperformance. Hindi nagagamit yung dapat paggamitan.”

This is a clip showing the Fast Talk portion with Presidential Candiate Jejomar Binay during the 3rd PH Presidential Debate.

Vice President Jejomar Binay is questioned by a student of UP Los Banos regarding the informal settlers in Makati.

Student: How come there are still a lot of informal settlers in Makati?

Binay: What? In Makati? Excuse me? Where are you from?

Student: I’m from Mandaluyong.

Binay: Show me. Where are the informal settlers?

Student: Look for them sir, It seems like you can’t find them.

Binay: You know partner, there are only about 3% to 5% of the population in Makati are informal settlers.

This conversation is an example of a burden of proof fallacy wherein Binay tried to divert the question of the student by asking where the informal settlers were instead of saying that it was true

Burden of proof is a type of fallacy wherein a claim is presented by person A, and Person  B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In this case, Binay tries to deny the claim presented by the student by asking where the informal settlers are.

ONLY BINAY - Bullet train ad

Everyone from all social classes can enjoy VP Binay’s magical bullet train to prosperity! EXCITING!!!

“All these people love Binay therefore everyone should vote for Binay” :)

This is not necessarily true though! 

Binay had a chance.

And he blew it.

Or maybe not since the audience fell for his answer (you can hear them applauding). 

Sec. Mar Roxas asked VP Binay to explain the corruption allegations against him. Our VP instead, responded like this: “Alam mo Mar, ikaw eh shoot na shoot sa sinabi sa tagalog. Kung ayaw mong makinig, nagbibingi-bingihan. Kung ayaw mong makita, nagbubulag-bulagan. Ilang beses kong sinagutan ‘yang pinagsasabi mo. Wala nang bago diyan.” He committed the fallacy of ad hominem back there.