#binay2016

This advertisement is another of example of an argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity). Obviously Binay is using the death of his mother to breast cancer as an appeal to the audience, to make them feel pity for him and to vote for him. But why do you need our pity? Breast cancer is a sad thing yes, but for the sake of voting?

Bruh, just no. Really?

Jejomar Binay, when asked about corruption allegations

© http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/105995-students-roast-binay-transparency-forum

“Ang importante po, ang magiging pangulo ay may kakayahang ipatupad yung kanyang ipinapangako, mayroong track record, may karanasan. Kung may karanasan naman, baka naman puros kapalpakan, ito ho si Jojo Binay, sa lawak ng karanasan, wala na pong makakapantay sa akin. Karanasan bilang nanungkulan sa executive department.”

(What’s important is that, the soon-to-be president has the ability to enforce what he has promised, has a track record, and has experience. If he has experience, it might be mostly errors, this is Jojo Binay, with a wide experience, no one can compare with me. Experience as someone who has served in the executive department.) [as if it makes sense lol]

In the Philippines, we have a popular idiom that goes as: “nagbubuhat ng sariling bangko” (lifting up one’s chair), which means that a person who’s committing it boasts about himself shamelessly. In this case, Binay is guilty of this. What’s he more guilty about is committing the sanctimony fallacy. It means that the arguer implies that his/her position has moral superiority over the opponent's position. It basically implies an “I’m better than you” attitude.

Apart from this, he is also guilty of poisoning the well. This is committed when one arguer attempts to bias the listener against his/her opponent, sometimes even before the argument begins. In this case, Binay has done it by stating “Kung may karanasan naman, baka naman puros kapalpakan” (If he has experience, it might be mostly errors), directed towards the other presidential candidates.

Humility is still the best way to get into a person’s heart. Don’t do this again, Binay.

“Binay, who fought against dictatorship as a human rights lawyer during martial law, was also against the use of violence to correct the present administration’s blunders.”

Howdie, howdie! Binay back at it again with the fallacies. When will this ever end, oh Lord. Once again, he has committed the personal ad hominem fallacy in such a short statement by indirectly attacking both the Marcos regime and the present administration (which, up to date, is PNoy’s). This one sentence was effective in implying how flawed the aforementioned administrations were.

Apart from this, he has also committed the sanctimony fallacy, wherein he hails his own name and attempts to persuade people of how eligible he is through his own descriptions about himself.

Come on, man. Throwing shade is not cool.

Wow, so happy. That picture above looks really genuine, until a sentence ruined it all. “Sa pamumuno ni Jojo Binay, aangat ang buhay ng bawat Pilipino - pangako na nagawa ko na sa Makati.” (With Jojo Binay’s leadership, the life of every Filipino will be better - a promise that I have already done in Makati.)

This statement clearly commits the wishful thinking fallacy. This fallacy is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. Him claiming that each and every Filipino’s life will get better if he wins as president seems like a very idealistic vision. Instead of actually doing something, he mustn’t declare empty promises like these. Also, even though “he has already done it in Makati” (if he already has), it doesn’t mean that he has the unquestionable capability to make it happen in the whole country.

Apart from this, he also commits the sanctimony fallacy in this statement. He again makes his name a lot more fragrant by reiterating his “accomplishment” in Makati.

Also, he is also guilty of the cherry picking fallacy. It is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Basically, he made a bias for himself by stating just his good sides and ignoring his bad ones.

Lastly, he is guilty of the fallacy of composition. This fallacy arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For instance, he already claimed that he has made the Makati people’s lives better, therefore, he claims that he can do it for the whole Philippines.

Tl;dr: Know your candidates well, for they might make promises that will just turn into mere air after they get what they want from you.

This ad shows a testimony of a person who supposedly received help from Binay. Why use someone he helped to endorse him though? Hearing the testimony from Apple Valera, a cancer survivor who was supposedly helped by him, is a clear sign of the appeal to emotion fallacy. This logical fallacy is characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument. 

Also, the sanctimony fallacy is being committed. This fallacy simply pertains to one’s self-righteousness. In this case, however, the claim came from the person in the video; though, it is for certain that Binay or his officials made her say that in the video.

The cherry picking fallacy is also evident in this ad. Cherry picking is basically just showing a part of the whole, in this case, what is desirable. This ad only showed the positive side of Binay and tried its best to make people ignore about his negative side.

This is why we shouldn’t be gullible in choosing whether to believe ads or not.

This ad above shows an old woman, holding up a sign saying “Serbisyu dili sa pag abuso” (Service, not abuse). The ad’s use of a picture of the old woman is a clear manifestation of the appeal to emotion fallacy. As some may have the soft spot for old people, the ad utilized the photo in the hopes of getting more supporters.

Apart from this, the ad is also guilty of committing the sanctimony fallacy. The ad says “Hindi kayo magsisi na si Jojo Binay ang inyong iboboto. Hindi kayo magsisisi dahil si Jojo Binay nirerespeto ang buhay ng bawat tao. Hindi kayo magsisisi dahil si Jojo Binay nagbibigay ng respeto at dignidad sa kababaihan.” (You won’t regret voting for Jojo Binay. You won’t regret [it] because Jojo Binay respects the life of every person. You won’t regret [it] because Jojo Binay gives respect and dignity to women.) Even though this may not be from his own mouth, using it for his own campaign material is enough to manifest the fallacy. It’s basically bringing his own name more recognition.

Circular reasoning is also seen in through the statement aforementioned. It is the fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Starting the statement with “Hindi kayo magsisi na si Jojo Binay ang inyong iboboto.” (You won’t regret voting for Jojo Binay), a conclusion, before stating first the premises brings the statement in a full circle.

Binay should be careful in picking out and structuring the statements that he uses in his campaign materials. Also, next time, it is best for him to just reiterate his concrete plans for the country instead of using innocent people to indirectly endorse him. Thanks a lot. :)