JUAN TAMAD AT PILOSOPONG TASYO

Si Juan Tamad ay nagaral sa kolehiyo

Para magtapos ng magandang kurso

Gusto na niyang magbago

Upang umunlad at umasenso.

Sa klase niyang siyensa politika merong

nakaenkwentro. Ito ay iskolar at sobrang talino.

Pero maliit ang tingin sa mga probinsyano.

Sila daw ay mahihina ang ulo

Pilosopong Tasyo ang bansag sa kanya. 

Bilib sa sarili at sipsip pa

Miyembro siya ng aktibista.

Pagtuligsa sa amerikano ay numero uno

Sila daw ay mga subersibo.

Pinalayas ang ating mga ninuno

sa kanilang lupain at tribo.

Dito po nagsimula itong tunay na kwento

Kung sino ang mas magaling sino ang mas bibo.

Pinoy or Amerikano ?

Mas magaling daw ang pinoy ayun kay Pilosopong Tasyo

Kahit sira na or luma ang isang bagay ay kaya pang

kumpunihin, paandarin at imaneho. Maliban sa amerikano

Matatag na dahilan at mahirap kuntrahin.

Nagisip si Juan Tamad kung papaano sasagutin.

Rason ni Pilosopong Tasyo dapat bang banggain.

Dahil may sagot kung ating aalamin.

Akda ni NeiL ArandA

Author's Note

Pinoy are well known for their resourcefulness and ingenuity . There's no question about that. However for the sake of this discourse " Pilosopong Tasyo " has quoted and used this reasoning to prove and defend his point. How did Juan Tamad debunk his counterpart's formidable reasoning. How do you answer this by using an example...

Reviews

[NeiL ArandA]

The author here may have tried hard enough or went a little bit beyond the norm to beef up the story. But the main topic of discussion or point of view revolved around this two different creed or nationality to emphasize and distinguish two different and unique innovations. If you have been designated to take and defend the other side on the basis of classroom discussion. How are you going to defend your case ?
" Mas magaling daw ang pinoy ayun kay Pilosopong Tasyo
Kahit sira na or luma ang isang bagay ay kaya pang
kumpunihin, paandarin at imaneho. Maliban sa amerikano "

Base on Pilosopong Tasyo arguments and statements. These lines were very strong and had a very solid points. It was really right. Because of scarcity of resources and living in a third world country. The inhabitants learned how to improvise and salvage anything that can still be fix. So nothing go into waste. On the other part or side of the continent where everything is abundant and affordable they don't know how to fix stuffs, its counterproductive. They don't normally push anything beyond its expected life of expectancy or predicted warranty. In the developed countries, anything from food to equipment and materials have expiration dates. They can be mass produce in abundance and with ease due to abundance of resources. Moreover because of the products or manufacturers self impose warranty or expiration date. Half of it goes also into waste. Its uncommon to fix and reuse stuffs. It will cost them more to have it fixed and repaired than get a brand new one with added benefits of new and full product warranty.
The author is not comparing two different idealogy or lifestyle or standard of living. But has to use two different creed or nationality to explain a point. The whole point is to explain an argument. This is not about who is better: an apple or an orange. The focal point of the logical argument is that if you have been given the privilege to defend the case of the orange how are you going to defend and debunk your opponent's claim ?

Hypothetically speaking, suppose Juan took the side and case of the orange. Here is how he did it using an example to prove his point by changing the location and setting. The reason of Tasyo and the given explanation works favorably to his own situation and advantage. Juan on the other hand gave an example and change the setting or location to show the implication using the same principle applied on a different setting will establish a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the statement.

Here is how Juan undermined Tasyo's statement. Tasyo has a valid and truthful statement. How will you put a dent and a reasonable doubt on his reasoning ? Let us change the setting if same principle or truth still applies.

Suppose you and your family want to take a vacation trip and cross the pacific ocean to take a vacation in the island of Hawaii. You have to take a plane and flew there a thousand miles to reach your destination. You and your loveones reached the Mactan's Airport. Two planes were parked on the runway. One was old and ringy-dingy but it has been overhauled and reconditioned to extend its service life. And the other is a brand new plane, speck and span , fresh from US factory. Which one would you prefer to ride over a thousand miles of uncharted sea to reach your destination ? Here we applied the same valid and truthful argument and change the setting or location and arrived to a different or not so favorable situation or conclusion. You and your family's safety is now the issue and is at stake. One's resourcefulness and ingenuity was put under fire... Will you err on the side of safety or risk everything on the side of ingenuity and innovation ?
Juan's closing argument...its better to be safe than be sorry for the rest of your life.

[gabrielle]

Kaibigan, ipagpaumanhin mo pero tingin ko mas mabuti na ang tawag kay Pilosopyong Tasyo ay Ipokritong Tasyo. Ang mga tunay na aktibista ay kailanman ay hindi mang-aalipusta ng kahit sino, mangmang man o probinsyana. I just could not reconcile the idea that someone could be an advocate for the indigenous but at the same time could discriminate or thought so lowly of us, from the countryside. Pero may mga taong ganito talaga. I cannot squarely answer your question dahil hindi ko alam ang basehan ng tunay na kagalingan… Dapat sa Americano manghamon ng debate si Tasyo hindi sa kapwa niya Filipino. How can he defend someone he is not even familiar with? Individually magagaling tayong mga Filipino pero collectively, I give it to them. Read request ko ito sa ibang kababayan. I hope they respond..