On massacres and atrocities

This is a topic that is too old to dwell on, but timeless and relevant to analyze.

A friend asked me. “Ano ang say mo sa Ampatuan-ampatuan at massacre hype na yan?“

I replied “Di ko alam, galit lang ata si Ampatuan dun kay Mangudadatu“

Then he argued that my answer is too opinionated, that the feeling “hate” is ambiguous in the circumstance.

After much deliberation, I summed up my retaliation in the most rational way, that my answer is not necessarily opinionated and still rooted on objective analysis.

In this post, I will prove that Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu thru Proof by Resolution in Predicate Logic. I am saluting Ludwig Wittgenstein for stating that all discussions can be solved thru symbolic logic.

Here are the premises.

1. Ampatuan is a from Maguindanao
2. Ampatuan is from Datu Unsay
3. All that is from Datu Unsay is from Maguinadanao
4. Mangudadatu is a ruler.
5. All that is from Maguindanao is either loyal to Mangudadatu or a hater of Mangudadatu
6. All man tries to inflict damage to a ruler only if they are not loyal to him
7. Ampatuan inflicted damage to Mangudadatu
8. Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu

And then I translate the premises to its conjunctive normal form prerequisite to the main method of proving.

1. Maguindanao(Ampatuan)
2. Datu Unsay (Ampatuan)
3. ∀x(D(x) →M(x)), therefore ~D(x1)∨M(x)
4. Ruler(Mangudadatu)
5. ∀x[M(x) →LoyalTo(x,M) ∨ Hate(x,M)], therefore ~D(x2) ∨L(x2,M) ∨H(x2,M)
6. ∀x[N(x) →InflictDamage(x,y)^Ruler(y) →~LoyalTo(x,y)], therefore ~N(x3) ∨~I(x3,y) ∨~R(y) ∨~L(x3,y)
7. I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
8. Hate(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)

Then I proceed with the proving. To prove using Proof by Resolution, I must come up with a contradiction by deriving from the statements above thru Disjunctive Syllogism.

1. Statement8 & Statement5 = ~M(x) ∨LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
2. ~M(x) ∨LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement3 = LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~D(Ampatuan)
3. Statement2 & LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~D(Ampatuan) = LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
4. LoyalTo(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement6 = ~N(Ampatuan) ∨~I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~R(Mangudadatu)
5. ~N(Ampatuan) ∨~I(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) ∨ ~R(Mangudadatu) & Statement7 = ~N(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu)
6. ~N(Ampatuan,Mangudadatu) & Statement1 = ~R(Mangudadatu)
7. ~R(Mangudadatu) & Statement4 = FALSE

I arrived with a contradiction, meaning the statement “Ampatuan hates Mangudadatu” is true.

Next time if a friend argues with you, try to think first then attack with an invincible one.

Gusto ko ng baboy

This is an insight about pigs, and a scrutiny in a Radioactive Sago’s song, as the pig would seem as a comparative parameter to many ideas such as politics and pop culture. The pig is a present element in the society and is subject to support and disdain, such as other elements in the society. As the pig is emphasized as an important niche, the pig must be a controversial concept, exhibited in different roles for the pig. In Gusto ko ng baboy, the persona is asking for a pig from his mother. The mother asks the persona’s need for a pig, and answers that the pig is an attention grabber especially from his teachers, and would expect a reward of high grades. This is a relation to a man’s consciousness to direct attention to him, and be at the top position among his peers and receive their approval. The mother, despite the son’s rational need for a pig, denies the provision.

The pig is also referred to be as many members of debatable notions such as the contrast of Gusto ko ng baboy to the existence of a god and being a pig. The weight of the comparison is significant, for the author to make a proposition that a supreme being must be a creature of lower importance and unclean lifestyle. With this, inferences can arise that the existence of god is of no lavish experience and not necessarily a holy appeal or any existence of supremacy is falsified. It is suggested that a pig can be any member of the society, and probably the world is composed of pigs; all is foul, dirty and impure.