<div class="text-justify">

# About the Contest
This article is an entry to @logiczombie’s Contest. If you fancy participating, you can find the contest [here](https://steempeak.com/contest/@logiczombie/200-steem-essay-writing-contest-what-s-a-logiczombie).

https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/oivas/HEed5ck3-LogicZombie_Logo.jpg

The contest ends when ten acceptable articles are received. So, hurry!

![Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/oivas/Lkmk2QLX-Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg)
# Prompt/Ask
The expectation is to come out with our understanding of ‘What a Logic Zombie is?”

For this the account @logiczombie (I mention it as an account because it is also of the same name as the contest topic) wants us to understand the topic a bit more by visiting his (or her 😊) blog. 

Once you get a sense, you can go ahead and write about it in your blog and post the link under the contest blog page. Also, use the tag #logiczombie.
![Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/oivas/Lkmk2QLX-Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg)
# Introduction
In my first post talking about ***‘facts’*** and its underlying rationale, we saw how substituting logic for any other factor other than logic, caused the rationale to go awry and therefore, the facts. Anyone or any country with strong economic muscle could steamroll facts or even modify facts to suit their purpose.

You can read that post [here](https://steempeak.com/logiczombie/@oivas/logic-zombie-contest-oivas-entry).

However, facts are undeniable. We can try to suppress facts, hide it, rewrite it, or even bury it, but they have an uncanny ability to float to the top; not that suppression of facts did not happen in the past, but there was an honour still. What honour, you ask?

Well, when the fact did come in the open, the suppressor owned up and was ready to face the repercussions. However, in today’s world, that is fast changing. Not only is the fact suppressed, but when it comes in the open, the suppressor blames everybody other than himself or herself; clearly, honour is out of the window!

Let’s look at a few situations where we see clear non-congruence to what someone says and what someone does. I usually like to be diplomatic and not naming any country or situation from the recent past, but in this particular case, I will take a slight departure from the norm. However, there is a good chance that the world already knows about these incidents, so it is not that bad. 😊
![Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/oivas/Lkmk2QLX-Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg)
# Blame it on Others – *As a way to escape fact*

This is the most common example, and it is not difficult to see why. The common usage of blaming on other behaviour is seen in children when they are caught doing something that adults qualify as ***‘unacceptable’***. 

Now with children, it is understandable and, of course, something that is expected to correct with age, but when adults do it, it just baffles everyone. Hence when adults blame others, it is ironically called ***‘childish’***. 

For the last half a decade or so, the ***blame others*** plague has even taken over governments. If governments find themselves at the edge, then they will immediately blame it on the previous governments or neighbouring country or even market conditions but never take responsibility for what happened. Ironically, if something good does happen, then these same governments stand first in the queue to take credit; in some cases, without any contribution. 

Though an embarrassing behaviour, the person or government indulging in such behaviour do not feel so. It is more of a way to escape criticism; hence, embarrassment is the last thing that they will feel. 

**Nonetheless, it does not take away the fact that it is indeed an action devoid of honour!**
<div class="text-center">-----------------------------------------------******--------------------------------------------------</div>

# Feign No Knowledge – *As a way to escape fact*

Now, the world knows about 9/11 and the tragic loss of lives. The world also knows that the man believed to be behind 9/11, Osama Bin Laden, was eventually eliminated. While all these are details available in the public domain, what was relatively kept low profile was the country which harboured Osama.

The country had a reputation of supporting terrorists in their neighbourhood, so while it did not come as a surprise that Osama was found there, what surprised many was their statement after the event. They feigned no knowledge of the attack going to take place against Osama and even went on to warn the U.S. about such operations on their soil.

After about a year, some insiders did reveal that Osama’s elimination operation did take place with visible involvement of the country’s spy agency and its government. This fact was again refuted and put up as a conspiracy hatched by neighbouring countries. 

So, US attacks Osama within a country’s boundary, the country has no clue about it, warns the US, and when facts come out, they once again call it a conspiracy of the neighbouring country/s and continue to claim no involvement. The world did see through the episode but what was baffling is the country’s non-acceptance of facts despite many fingers pointing at them. 

**While this is one of the most prominent examples of denying facts, this is true of many countries, corporations, institutions and even individuals.**
<div class="text-center">-----------------------------------------------******--------------------------------------------------</div>

# Challenge the Fact – *As a way to escape fact*
This one betters every other type of fact refusal that we had seen so far. Here the fact itself is challenged and redrawn to suit the person challenging it. An example would help to get the point across. 

World over, automobile sale is considered as one of the benchmarks of customer confidence and customer spend. It is true for our country too. However, the economy is reeling from few shocks in the recent past, and it is visible in the form of a slowdown across sectors, including the automotive sector. When asked about this, the government, instead of facing the problem head-on, gave an interesting yet embarrassing answer. The government said that the millennials are not interested in buying cars, as they would rather rent them out from an OLA or an UBER. 

Now, this is not completely untrue, of course, where possible, it is better to take an Ola or an Uber. But the point is, Ola and Uber serve other countries too, but the automobile sale is steady in those countries. In fact, even in our country, owning a vehicle is considered as a pride for many, and I am pretty certain that includes the millennials. 

The government was just in denial of accepting the fact that there were indeed challenges in the sector and that the input cost and taxes may be impacting the sector. More importantly, job losses could also be hindering customer confidence, but the government chose to change the goal-post and claim that one segment of our population was responsible for an entire sector’s slowdown. 

So, this example shows how certain people, institutions or even governments would like to challenge a fact and then pass an alternate thesis as fact.
![Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg](https://files.steempeak.com/file/steempeak/oivas/Lkmk2QLX-Line_Divider2_Trunc.jpg)

# Summary
Here we saw a few examples of how facts could be toyed with to suit a particular narrative and even if the facts did come out, the responsible parties do not own up. **However, as I had mentioned at the beginning, facts have a way of finding its way up and it will indeed!**
<div class="text-center">-----------------------------------------------******--------------------------------------------------</div>

**Image Courtesy:** Logic Zombie Logo
</div>