Nagyabang ang KOMIKONG Senador, “Ako na yata ang kauna-unahang Senador ng Pilipinas na naging biktima ng cyber-bullying.”
“Mula sa blogs, Facebook, at Twitter, ginawa akong sentro ng mga mapanira at malisyosong atake ng iba’t ibang tao, lalo pa ng mga sumusuporta sa RH Bill. Bahagi siguro ito ng kanilang istratehiya, lalo pa’t may milyun-milyon silang pondo.”
“’If you can’t kill the message, kill the messenger’—mukhang ganito ang ginagawa ng aking mga detractors.” – Tito Sotto
Dear Tito Sotto, you are not a “victim” of cyber bullying or a demolition job; you are the recipient of CYBER JUSTICE!
Bullying is when you pick on someone for no such logical reason. Its different from asking for accountability and scutiny is not bullying. Sotto is a public official and he should be accountable and face what he said is inaccurate.
It’s cyber justice. Plagiarism may not be a crime but a moral and ethical offense. Just the same, it says a lot about the person who committed it. No, he may not be a criminal for plagiarizing, but he is dishonest and a thief. The offense is further compounded by the fact that he first denied it, then when he admitted he lifted passages from blogs, he made excuses for it. A senator who cannot even admit something he did (with clear evidence), cannot be trusted. That’s the idea. I won’t call him a criminal for plagiarizing. I’d call him dishonest. I don’t want a criminal for a senator, nor do I want a dishonest one.
Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offense, and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.
Plagiarism. (August 30, 2012). In Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved Aug 30, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Senator Sotto: You were EXPOSED AND CONTRADICTED on your lies and obvious plagiarism. You initiated the dialogue by making false claims and non original statements by delivering your senate speech. Internet is the modern medium to expose charlatans lie you. In bullying, the victim is always silent, unmindful of others. You were far from that status.
Sotto said: “I was the center of ridicule and malicious attacks from various individuals”
Senator Sotto: you were ridiculed because you claimed you did not plagiarize Sarah Pope. Adding insult to injury you were the first Senator to malign bloggers by telling them ” why should you quote bloggers, they are just bloggers”. Now you are expunging your plagiarized statement of the blogger on her Dr McBride quote because you know you are guilty due to the fact that your staff did not read McBride’s book. Worst, you did not either and spoke about it.
Senator Sotto: you and your staff are the scumbags of senate by denying the issue of plagiarism, defending your cause despite the position you were alone in your stand. Claiming that everybody in the senate copies the words of unpassed bills of other senators is pathetic excuse. Stealing in whatever form is wrong. Because every Philippine senator is stealing from each other does not make stealing right because you are senators. You maligned your entire colleagues. Some may not be guilty as you are.
Sabi in Sotto: “ang mahalaga ay ang pinaglalaban ko”
Sen Sotto: Kung mahalaga ang pinaglalaban mo, bakit kailangan pang idahilan at isama ang pagkamatay ng anak sa inyong adhikain. Kasinungalingan naman ang inyong dahilan dahil walang pruweba na ang sakit sa puso dala ng paginom ng contraceptive pills ang nagdalot as sakit ng anak. Saka nagsinungaling ka dun as ngalan ng gamot na Diane ba ininom in Helen dahil hindi pa ginawa ang gamot noong taon 1975 kung kailan pinanganak ang inyong anak.
ANG TANONG: Bakit ayaw mong sagutin ang isyu ng iyong KASINUNGALINGAN?
If Sotto pointed out that there is no law against plagiarism in our country, then the Senate should push for one. We don’t want the Philippines known for its Boracay and people who plagiarized, right?
Wait, he won’t because he won’t shoot his own foot.
IF THE Senator was as good as defining “plagiarism” from dictionaries with their respective meanings in his previous “turno en contra” speeches, plagiarism would have been a non issue. He should have learned his lesson that he made the Senate chamber a sit-com of sorts for his lack of literacy in public speaking supposedly befitting a Senator. It turned out to be unproductive for him.
The demolition job is a myth. He is doing a great job of ruining his reputation on his own by continuing to deny his wrongdoings.
The half-wit Senator also thinks that all media or social media opinion commenters not supportive of his stance are paid and low-lifes. He accused the RH proponents as well funded? I wonder if he bothered to check if the Anti-RH bill side is not using money?
Senator Sotto: Tama ka naman hindi pinakingang mabuti ng mga critics mo ang speech mo about sa RH Bill, however, BINASA ito, ININTINDI, INALISA, kaya nakita kung paano mo ginamit ang opinion ng iba with matching iyak pa.
Senator Sotto: Hindi layunin ng mga critics mo na pahinain ang stand mo against RH Bill – ikaw ang gumawa ng katawa-tawa kaya ka pinupuna at pinupulaan ngayon. Hindi rin layunin ng mga kritiko mo na ilihis ang issue from RH Bill to Plagiarism, ikaw ang dahilan kung bakit hindi ang stand mo sa RH Bill ang nagiging issue kung hindi ang pangongopya mo. Kaya wag mong sabihin na target ka lang ng hatchet job or demolition job.
Senator Sotto: Huwag mo na pagbalingan mga pumupuna sa iyo – mag isip na lang kayo ng kampo mo ng maayos na sasabihin para ituwid ang inumpisahan nyong ingay.
I think Sotto was ill-advised. He should kick-out his lawyer(s). I believe plagiarism is within the context of IPP law. It is an intellectual property right and his lawyer should know this. But you know them, they can circumvent and find loopholes in the law advantageous to their own malicious bidding.
His Chief of Staff and lawyers appears unaware, or by intention to mislead, of Intellectual Property Rights law of the Philippines. Plagiarism is well within the context of this law as its violate the IP rights of the person, in this case Ms. Pope and other bloggers.
With his privilege speech, it appears that he is putting challenge to the bloggers. Its like “prove to me that I violated your rights through plagiarism” and its dangerous for him.
Pakisabi kay Tito Sotto na OK din to just shut up. KSP! Ok lang kung anti RH sya, opinion niya yun choice niya yun. Nakakawalang kredibilidad yung plagiarism. Harapin niya, wag niyang ilihis ang issue na magpapaawa na naman dahil may demolition job daw.
He and his staff are already doing a great job at self sabotage! Kailangan niya i-reprimand mga staff niya for all this giant ball of stupidity instead of adding more stupidity to the issue by not shutting up!
Then he makes another stand to “discriminate” against LGBTs by removing them / their rights and protection in the anti discrimination law. Ano baaaaaaa?! This will not be a good precedent for the supposed plan of Vic Sotto to run for a senate seat.
Sotto is desperately protecting his name and seems to be losing his mind in doing so! I’ll venture that his role in the Commission of Appointments over bypassing late Jesse Robredo’s confirmation would probably carry more weight in his undoing with the voters if he still aspire for elective position!
Where did Tito Sotto learn his morality and sense of values? At home or at Iskul Bukol’s Wanbol University?
Paano ba magsampa ng kaso sa Ethics Committee ng Senado? Pwede bang ikaso ang “moral turpitude”?
Sabi kasi sa Wikipedia: Moral turpitude is “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals.”
Nakita ko din po sa PLJ Volume 51 No. 1 & 2 by Teresita Herbosa page 15 po:
“So we must say that those things which are discountenanced and regarded as evil and accordingly forbidden by society are immoral and that the doing of them contrary to the sentiment thus expressed involves moral turpitude”.
This is a case where the Senate Ethics Committee is at fault for allowing this kind of dangerous thinking to persist. Senator Sotto is in effect the defendant in a civil case, with bloggers and others making the charges in the only forum available to them: Their keyboards.
The Senate Ethics Committee could provide a proper, formal forum, but does not. Senator Sotto and his mouthpiece attorney are allowed to run the show and the public is given no representation because their representatives are silent.
That is the danger. That a Senator can “rant” with no opposing view allowed in the court.
“rant” = shooting your mouth off in a loud and disagreeable manner and giving him the opportunity to cheat, deceive, deny, rationalize, accuse, etc.
He is permitted what I view as unethical rights, to cheat (plagiarize), deceive (use old statistics), deny (say there is nothing wrong with what he did), rationalize (bloggers are not legitimate owners of anything), and accuse (blame bloggers for attacking him). He ought not be allowed to do these things without challenge in the court of ethics, the Senate Ethics Committee. His getting away with it is a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Sotto, PLAGIARISM may not be illegal, but it does NOT mean that it is MORAL and ETHICAL!
Kung sa pag-aaral nga eh ang mga mahuling nagcommit ng plagiarism lalo na sa mga thesis or mga research hindi lang bagsak sa subject kundi minsan kick-out pa nangyayari sa estudyante kasi dahil nga sa pagnanakaw ng idea without consent or giving credit doon sa kinuhaan ng ideya at obvious naman na mali ang plagiarism, ano pa kaya sa position niya na pagiging senador tas magcocommit nito tapos wala man lang consequence ito? Hindi naman kailangang nakabatas para malaman mo kung tama o mali ginagawa mo eh.
Anu bang pinaglalaban niya? Kung baga yung speech niya parang plaka lang, gasgas na. Oo nga puwede naman gamitin yung idea ng iba pero dapat i-mention din kung saan nanggaling yung idea habang pinapahayag yung speech imbes na kung kelan buking na tapos doon aaminin na disclaiming ito. Parang pinapalabas pa niya na utang ng loob ng bayan kung magso-sorry siya. Wala ngang batas against plagiarism pero alam naman niya na nagnakaw siya ng idea. Imbes na maging ehemplo at mahiya parang siya pa ma-pride.
Startalk at the Senate?Hhmmm, waste of time and taxpayers money, nangopya na nga galit pa, grabe. Just a mere “SORRY” ay di pa magawa, taking it (the entry containing the controversial lines cited to have been plagiarized from Sarah Pope’s blog “The Healthy Home Economist”) off sa record ng senate is a simple admission of guilt, napahiya na kasi kaya pinatanggal, kainis ang hirit na para matigil na sila. Sana sa Startalk na lang siya nag inarte.
There was no apology from Senate Majority Floor Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III for plagiarizing the works of a blogger.
Instead, Sotto and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile proposed crafting a bill that will define and regulate blogging in the Philippines.
Law on blogging? looks like its Martial Law all over again: “control of mass media”.
Saan ka pa kokopya nang mga sasabihin mo sa Senado kung bubusalan mo mga bibig nang mga manunulat na pina-plagiarise mo? Grabe din ang kapal nang mukha mo ano? Pakiusap lang Tito Escalera, este Senador Sotto, tigilan mo na kami ng drama at komedya mo. Nakaririmarim!
And how about the FREEDOM OF SPEECH ! Ipapawalang saysay mo na rin ba? Kayo lang ang may karapatang magsalita? Have you forgotten that Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Right; and that as an elected public officer, you are subject to a public scrutiny? Anti-blogging bill- is that the most you can come out with? Curtailling our right to voice out whatever we are feeling and thinking on how the three branches of the government are managing the country? You could do more if you will humble yourself and instead of that idiotic antiblogging bill- you will introduce amendments in our antiquated Revised Penal Code. Puro kayo pasikat sa taas, bumaba nga kayo sa field para makita ninyo. Nakakayamot kayo.
WTF are these senators thinking? Do they know that blogging is a part of what we call “new media”? Alam din ba nila na even sa US is aware that the Internet ang pinakamahirap gawan ng “gatekeeping” (it’s a jargon in communication, so maybe they don’t have any idea about that) Sana if they don’t have any idea about the new media, huwag na lang silang magsalita (Enrile admitted that). The true issue here is Sotto committed a sin which we call “plagiarism”. What’s wrong about admitting his mistake and just say sorry? Ganoon ba kataas ang ego nya? Nag-thesis kaya siya at bakit hindi niya alam ang word na “plagiarism” at “attribute”? Nakaka-asar lang isipin na ganito kababaw ang mga politicians natin ngayon.
Parang tanga lang! Walang kaalam-alam sa blogging, ni hindi alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “blog” tapos gagawa ng bill na magmamando sa mga Pinoy Bloggers kung ano-ano ang karapatan nila? KALOKOHAN!!!
Unang tanong, sakop ba ng bill nila ang mga Pinoy Bloggers na nasa ibang bansa kung sinasabi nilang “a bill that will define and regulate blogging in the Philippines”?
Sige nga! Pag nasagot nila yan, sigurado kasunod nyan ang milyong-milyong tanong na hindi nila kayang sagutin gaya ng hindi nila alam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “blog”.
Saan ka ba nakakita ng gagawa ng batas sa isang bagay na kahit yung mismong word na gusto nilang gawan ng batas ay hindi nila alam ang ibig sabihin? lolzz … Sa dinami-dami ng problema ng bansa, naisip pa nila yan? Makagawa lang ng “bill”, kahit di na pag-isipan eh!
Pasukan ba naman kasi ng “artista” ang “pulitika”!!!
He’s confusing the people and distorting things to save his ass. He’s being blasted for his plagiarism and for being none-apologetic about it AND NOT because of his stand on the RH Bill. Even dragged EAT BULAGA into the issue. Ano ngayon kung madaming natutulungan ang EAT BULAGA? Hindi po yun ang issue! Di na lang kasi mag-sincere (kung kaya man) apology instead of trying to say he didn’t plagiarized. Technically he didn’t but his staff did and he as the leader should take responsibility for it.
Senator Sotto blasted bloggers and commenters telling him to stick with Eat Bulaga by asking: “individually, What have they done to help people. Our program Eat Bulaga had been helping thousands of indigents daily for decades now”
Tito Sotto is counting beans. Beans not coming from his pocket personally but tangential benefits of program advertising necessary to promote the show.
The show would not have prospered if the producers did not dangle money as bait to watch the show. In Agriculture they call that “innovative fishing” by using attractive baits.
The money did not come from his pocket so he was not directly responsible to the awards. Yet, he is claiming personal credit. Besides, he was earning money to act in the show, so he was personally benefiting, not giving away anything.
Some of the commenters or posters may have helped indigents too in their own way. more important, it was voluntary, donated funds coming from their own pocket not out of their jobs unlike Sotto.
Here is another example of a deceptive Sotto. Fraudulent personal claim on charitable acts.
Tito Vic and Joey actually has a song called Family Planning Department. This was from their Tough Hits album which came out in 1977 or 2 years after the claimed death of his son from alleged complications from contraceptives. And as can be expected , the song parodies Feelings originally by Morris Albert.
Surprising was his disrespect to his wife. He claimed Helen terribly suffered mentally on the early demise of a son, yet he parodied contraceptive pills on a song without thinking on the emotional impact it would cause on the spouse.
This song is another proof that Tito Sotto lied about the devastation of his family on the death of son from contraceptive side effect.
He claimed in his speech that for 37 years they were depressed on the outcome of the use of pills causing deep mental anguish. Yet just 2 years after his son’s death. Tito Sotto made fun of contraceptive pills. This is living documentary proof that his mental pain was fake along with his melodramatic tears during his speech. this song belied all his claims on the ill effects of pills on his son.
His fellow senators must denounce his incredulous act abusing his senate privileges by using the senate hall his platform in telling deception and lies.
Tito “Bugiardo” Sotto!
PILLS (sing to the tune of Feelings by Morris Albert)
Si Misis nag pi-pills
Trying to control it
Products of love
Ngunit (but, subalit)
Kahit sya nag-pi-pills
Wala ring nangyayari
Pagkat si Mister
There’s another song, dont know the title (sung to the tune of Shame And Scandal In The Family, originally performed by Calypso singer Sir Lancelot back in the 1940s).
Ang anak mo ay anong dami
Magplano kayo ng family
Si Aling Tinay na mapagbigay
Lagi na syang nanganganay
Sa sampung taon
Ang anak ay panay
Nakabuo sya ng isang barangay
How can he make, or sing, fun songs about family planning and contraceptives when his son just died two years before this, and he’s blaming contraceptives for the death of his son?
That is the real character of Tito Sotto! Insensitive to the agony of the wife and basher of women’s rights. The songs speak for themselves!
Sotto said he will not hold his online critics accountable. He said their accountability will be when “pag kinuha na sila ni Lord, mananagot sila doon hindi dito.”…and then he ends his speech leaving us with three Psalms to ponder: Psalms 56, 63, and 64.
I just love how he managed to turn Christian scripture into something that sounds like a threat. That’s so Christ-like of him.
WOW! Wrath of God descend upon the bloggers. He’s calling the wrath of God upon us!
In the Philippines, his words could be taken as an extrajudicial threat, a physical threat. He is turning into one scary dude.
When the Philistines had seized him in Gath.
1 Be merciful to me, my God,
for my enemies are in hot pursuit;
all day long they press their attack.
2 My adversaries pursue me all day long;
in their pride many are attacking me.
3 When I am afraid, I put my trust in you.
4 In God, whose word I praise—
in God I trust and am not afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?
5 All day long they twist my words;
all their schemes are for my ruin.
6 They conspire, they lurk,
they watch my steps,
hoping to take my life.
7 Because of their wickedness do not let them escape;
in your anger, God, bring the nations down.
8 Record my misery;
list my tears on your scroll —
are they not in your record?
9 Then my enemies will turn back
when I call for help.
By this I will know that God is for me.
10 In God, whose word I praise,
in the Lord, whose word I praise—
11 in God I trust and am not afraid.
What can man do to me?
12 I am under vows to you, my God;
I will present my thank offerings to you.
13 For you have delivered me from death
and my feet from stumbling,
that I may walk before God
in the light of life.
A psalm of David. When he was in the Desert of Judah.
1 You, God, are my God, earnestly I seek you;
I thirst for you, my whole being longs for you,
in a dry and parched land where there is no water.
2 I have seen you in the sanctuary
and beheld your power and your glory.
3 Because your love is better than life,
my lips will glorify you.
4 I will praise you as long as I live,
and in your name I will lift up my hands.
5 I will be fully satisfied as with the richest of foods;
with singing lips my mouth will praise you.
6 On my bed I remember you;
I think of you through the watches of the night.
7 Because you are my help,
I sing in the shadow of your wings.
8 I cling to you;
your right hand upholds me.
9 Those who want to kill me will be destroyed;
they will go down to the depths of the earth.
10 They will be given over to the sword
and become food for jackals.
11 But the king will rejoice in God;
all who swear by God will glory in him,
while the mouths of liars will be silenced.
1 Hear me, my God, as I voice my complaint;
protect my life from the threat of the enemy.
2 Hide me from the conspiracy of the wicked,
from the plots of evildoers.
3 They sharpen their tongues like swords
and aim cruel words like deadly arrows.
4 They shoot from ambush at the innocent;
they shoot suddenly, without fear.
5 They encourage each other in evil plans,
they talk about hiding their snares;
they say, “Who will see it?”
6 They plot injustice and say,
“We have devised a perfect plan!”
Surely the human mind and heart are cunning.
7 But God will shoot them with his arrows;
they will suddenly be struck down.
8 He will turn their own tongues against them
and bring them to ruin;
all who see them will shake their heads in scorn.
9 All people will fear;
they will proclaim the works of God
and ponder what he has done.
10 The righteous will rejoice in the Lord
and take refuge in him;
all the upright in heart will glory in him!
If it were possible to deliver a counter to the 14+ minutes of mind numbing fertilizer that came out of the good senator’s mouth, I’d quote this speech from the 1995 movie “Billy Madison”
There are actually quotes on plagiarism:
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who steal my words from one another.
You shall not steal.
Since Tito Sotto included some Bible verse sa speech niya I think the proverbs below is more apt sa kanya:
8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you;
rebuke the wise and they will love you.
9 Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still;
teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.
Sa huling bahagi ng kanyang talumpati ay binasa ni Senator Sotto ang huling dalawang talata ng tula na ginawa ng co-host at kabigang si Joey de Leon tungkol sa isyu ng pagkopya:
Eh ‘di wala nang titingin sa katalogo,
Ipagbawal mga sumusunod sa uso,
Mga impressionists ipakulong na ninyo,
Pati na rin si Willie Nepomuceno.
Ang masama lamang pagdating sa gayahan
Ay yaong masasamang asal ang tularan
At kopyahin ang pera at lagda ninuman
At gayahin ang pilay at may kapansanan.
Eto ang sagot sa tula ni Joey de Leon:
Eh di wala nang taong rerespeto
Sa talumpati ni Tito sa Senado
Mga speeches ipa xerox na lang ninyo
Pati na rin ang utak ni Sotto.
Ang masama pagdating sa gayahan
Ay anong aral ang makukuha ng kabataan
Kopyahin ang gawa ng iba
At palabasin itoý sa kanya?
Gets kaya ni ni Tito Sotto ito?
Senator Tito Sotto is now in deep shit!
Toilet humor brought him to fame
His speeches contained the same
Even using God’s name in vain
Now his humor makes him insane
Wanbol University – enrollment on-going!
Wow. Tito’s absolutely oozing with an I-am-right-and-everyone-who-thinks-otherwise-can-go-eff-themselves sense of entitlement.
We don’t mind if hindi mo kami kilala, and don’t smirk while saying that because you really look so arrogant. I just hate that smirk, the look of “entitlement mentality” in his face. Our opinions regarding the issue (plagiarism and NOT RH Bill) should not be shut down. We all have a say here. Hindi rin kami nagdudunung-dunungan lang.
Sotto is too arrogant and proud to admit he made a mistake. Unlike the Philip Morris executive Robert Blair Carabuena who issued an apology already to the MMDA Traffic enforcer Saturnino Fabros even though deemed insincere, at least he was man enough to resort to humility to ease his legal burden and stop receiving the wrath of cyber peeps.
Mas gusto ng tao ang humble at willing to admit when he is wrong. Even if he (or his staff) meant no intentional dishonorable act, what is more important? – The people’s perception of you – or your own personal view of yourself?
People who are in position who do not accept their mistakes are not suppose to be elected again. If revenge is what they have against the person who has the courage to bring their mistakes to light, that is just a manifestation of how shallow is their way of thinking with regards to the people they are suppose to serve. People will come to love them more if instead of denying they will accept it. Erap did not deny that he has a lot of women in his life that is why they accepted him.
Ayaw pa umamin nakakahiya talaga ang Senado. Hindi daw inaatake ang argument,
– simpleng katanungan na kailan na manufacture yung DIANE hindi mo pa nga sinasagot nagtuturo ka na agad?
– since you brought up your sons death then please show us the death certificate that alone will explain alot
Kaya nga diba during impeachment trial mere words does not mean its a fact thats why parating nagagalit ang mga Senators because he wants black and white evidences.
Tito Sotto hindi nyo po ba natutunan ang leksyon sa impeachment trial? If you believe that every blogger or people who use Twitter or Facebook are paid people to destroy your credibility, why not prove it? You accuse us then prove it!
He accused the RH proponents as well funded? I wonder if he bothered to check if the Anti-RH bill side is not using money?
Actually, every point he raised was and countered but he calls every counter-argument as malicious.
And I found it funny he tried to try to explain plagiarism when he should understand he did violate it. Ask Miriam, she said it occurs (without referring to Sotto) but said its not as grave as the academic ones.
And the best argument, no crime daw sa Pilipinas yung plagiarism. Ayus! oo nga naman. Pero may tawag tayo sa mga sagot na ganyan, walang hiya! Walang delikadeza.
Kaya walang asenso ang bansa natin.. Reflection sa mga tulad niyong arogante! All he needed to do is ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY AND QUIT LYING AND DIVERTING THE ISSUE. OBVIOUS PLAGIARISM IS OBVIOUS.
Will admitting to his faults and apologizing for the fiasco made by his speech writers – paid by taxpayers’ money – make him a lesser person? Malalagasan ba ang bigote na simbolo ng kamachohan nya pag nag sorry siya?
Ang pride mo wala sa lugar Mr. Sotto! Just say SORRY and after that you can proceed with the RH Bill issue! That’s it!!! After that… done with plagiarism issue! *Good grief!*
Tama, huwag ka na lang mag-sorry kasi baka ala GLORIA-GARCI lang ang dating sa amin! Our advise is to resign ka na lang. That would be the most decent and honorable thing to do (just learn from Miguel Zubiri). NAKAKAHIYA lang ang ginagawa mo pagpipilitan na wala kang ginawang mali!
Attention: Senator Sotto – PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read all the comments from the BLOG SITES, FORUMS, SOCIAL MEDIA, ETC., – they are comments from Filipino voters and OPEN YOUR EYES AND MIND TO THE HARSH REALITY THAT ARROGANCE WILL BRING YOU NOWHERE……
Is it so humbling to own up to your mistake, apologize and get on with your life as a Senator? Why all this backlash?
Pope asked Sen. Sotto to admit and apologize. Pope also asked Sen. Sotto to give women a choice.
But that’s only about the plagiarism part. There is more to that. Worse than that.
What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT vetting the source.
An older study cited by Sotto was questioned years later because the baseline data will not effectively result to a cause-and-effect conclusion as regards hormonal contraceptives and congenital cardiovascular defects. (Contraceptives causing congenital cardiac defects)
What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT digging deeper into the how-and-whys of cited source.
An idea cited by Sotto discredits the use of hormonal contraceptives when in the first place a hormonal contraceptive is just one of the many factors that can cause illness. The other factors that may cause such illness are commonplace compared to the use of hormonal contraceptives, for example, stress, infections, use of antibiotics, and poor diet which the author herself had given. (Contraceptives and gut dysbiosis)
What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT weighing the pros and cons; in appropriate terms, NOT obtaining the balance between the benefit and the risk of hormonal contraceptives AND just enumerate their ill effects.
The impression that is made publicly known by Sotto is that hormonal contraceptives is dangerous to women’s health when all the while current (and not outdated!) medical evidence points to their safety if used by women.
The risk-to-benefit ratio is so low that presently they are not banned in the market just like antibiotics. The benefit of contraception (Read: prevent unintended pregnancies) which is the primary goal of these drugs far outweigh the risk it may pose to women.
Sotto must first prove to the public that the risk-to-benefit ratio is high to even “criminalize” the use of hormonal contraceptives.
What’s worse than plagiarism is mimicking to be an authority on the issue of hormonal contraceptives.
Sotto’s haphazard research on the subject matter does NOT make him an authority. The consideration of just the negative effects of hormonal contraceptives in order to advance his motive does NOT make him an authority.
This situation is a logical fallacy called “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” (argument from authority)—the misleading notion of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his expertise, for example, a lawyer doing medical research. In Sotto’s case, a senator talking like a medical expert. It’s no worse than a celebrity advertising how good a pharmacy is.
At any given time, I would rather believe former DOH Secretary Cabral than relying on Sotto for medical information.
What’s worse than plagiarism is the one-of-a-kind SOTTOISM.
Sotto declares he is not against contraceptives when he said:
Gusto kong bigyang diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito.
Yet he isolated the bad side of contraceptive use and made it into a speech for everyone to hear. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to criticize his colleagues and a medical expert. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to scare the public.
Does the doublespeak reek of uncertainty on his part? Does the doublespeak signify that his agenda may prove to be untenable because he is hiding the good side of contraceptive use?
Sotto cannot be relied upon because Sottoism is of the dangerous kind—even worse than what he claimed to be an existence of danger in the use of hormonal contraceptives.
Now known to the embattled senator, he himself was to blame for misrepresenting the GUTS study of Natasha Campbell-McBride. By declaring in his first speech, ‘According to …’ where in fact it was Sarah Pope’s paraphrase of Natasha Campbell-McBride’s idea or study from one of her books. It was not a direct quote from Natasha Campbell-McBride, but from a third hand source written for in a different context.
See related comparison by davide’s comments at ‘Sen. Vicente Sotto’s speech against RH’.
It is this folly of errs that Senator Sotto asked the Senate Chamber to strike out that reference from the Senate Journal. He was wrong, his staff took it out of context, and the senator read and made it part of his rebuttal, which in totality – renders his ‘turno en contra’ speeches INCREDIBLE!
THEY DIDN’T even READ A SINGLE BOOK from the original source or author.
As Raïssa Robles reminds us, what about ‘… the other five instances of plagiarism on his part. He merely kept silent on these.’.
Ang reklamo ng escalerang senador na ‘walang narinig’ na mga sagot sa limang punto ng kaniyang ‘turno en contra’ sa RH Bill.
Ang simpleng sagot sa makitid na isipang senador. Magbasa ka!
Lumabas ka sa lunga mo, at matuto kang magbasa sa sarili mong mga mata.
1. Is plagiarism a crime? No, it is not, but it is a moral offence.
2. Did Sotto admit plagiarizing? Not directly, no. But his aide Villacorta in a letter to Pope did admit copying and offered an apology.
3. Did Sotto lie about copying a blogger? Yes, he did.
4. Has Sotto apologised? No, he has not.
5. What has been Sotto’s latest reactions?
5.1. Anti-blogger’s bill.
5.2. Purging the Senate record of his plagiarism.
5.3. Quoting the Bible for the destruction of his enemies.
SO SOTTO’S SINS ARE:
2. Not apologizing
4. Seeking to curb freedom of expression
5. Attempting to expunge records of his moral offense
6. Invoking Biblical vengeance on his enemies
“You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.”
“A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will.”
“A few days after saying goodbye
To one who has a hero mind
We again say hello and hi
To a guy with a zero mind”
“Great man knows when he made a mistake but Greater is a man who admits he made a mistake.”
Kindly read these lengthy analyses of Sen. Sotto’s first two TeC chapters…
Please watch this:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/us-blogger-accuses-filipino-senator-plagiarism-17024907#.UD5RLz1lRQI and this: http://rp3.abs-cbnnews.com/video/lifestyle/08/18/12/us-blogger-urges-sotto-apologize
and then head over to this:
*credit to all the forum threads, blogs, online newspapers, and social media peeps out there. I claim no credit to most of the contents and images that were compiled from many sources that are too many to mention.