A New Sexual Misconduct Claim On Herman Cain Emerges

Background:

Herman Cain, a GOP presidential candidate, has had numerous claims against him on sexually inappropriate behavior. After the previous two women were paid for the charges they laid against Cain, a new claim from Sharon Bialek has emerged. In the article found on CNN titled “Cain Faces New Claim of Sexual Misconduct”,written by Tom Cohen, Kevin Bohn, and Sharron Travis, Bialek claims that Cain groped her after having dinner in 1997 when she came to him asking for a job.

Premises:

• Cain upgraded Bialek’s suite without telling her.

• Bialek and Cain went out to dinner and spoke about Bialek getting her job back.

• On the way back to the hotel Bialek was staying at, Cain offered to show Bialek where the National Restaurant Association offices were.

• Instead of going inside to see the offices, Cain parked the car and put his hand on Bialek’s leg and up her skirt toward her genitals. He also grabbed her head and pulled it toward his crotch.

• Upon Bialek’s protestation about the situation, Cain said “You want a job right?”

Conclusion:

Bialek says that Cain performed sexual misconduct and wants him to admit what he did.

Premises:

• Bialek’s accusation against Cain follows two other accusations made by two other women that were reported by Politico

• Bialek is the first woman to accuse Cain in public and her accusation could be true as she did in fact work for the National Restaurant Foundation in 1996 and was laid off in 1997. She also provided detailed accounts of what happened.

• It has also been proven to be true that Cain was head of the National Restaurant Foundation from 1996 – 1999.

• Bialek was waiting to come forward about the accusations now because there were other women doing so as well, not only against Cain but against harassment in general.

Conclusion:

“ "I think what you're seeing is a huge assault on women's rights in the Republican parties, and an extreme right-wing that has taken over that is going to make it very difficult for anybody in a general election in the Republican Party to be a centrist," Richardson said on NBC. ”

Analysis:

I think Sharon Bialek performed her speech pretty well, though I do not agree that she is telling the truth about what happened. It is clear to me that her throat tightened up when she began to accuse Cain of groping her. However, the purpose of this post is to point out the fallacy committed within the article, as well as the speech. Within the speech itself, I found no fallacy. However, within the article I feel a Hasty Generalization fallacy is being made. A Hasty Generalization fallacy is one in which a conclusion is made about a group of people based on a very small sample of the group, in this case, one man as compared to the entire Republican party. As mentioned in the previous conclusion: "I think what you're seeing is a huge assault on women's rights in the Republican parties, and an extreme right-wing that has taken over that is going to make it very difficult for anybody in a general election in the Republican Party to be a centrist."

capital punishment

I. This is an argument about the pros and cons for having or not having the death penalty in the United States.
-Issue: US Liberal Politics by Deborah White About.com


II.http://usliberald.about.com/ob/deathpenalty/i/DeathPenalty.htm


III. Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that "...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."

And Catholic Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, writes "...the death penalty diminishes all of us, increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."


IV. P: Premeditated and planned taking of a human life by a government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person is the definition of Capital Punishment . It also dubbed “the death penalty”.

P: Supporters and protesters of the death penalty in the U.S. is sharply divide equally.
of rights is the opinion of the Amnesty International.

P: The Death penalty is the premeditated and cold blooded killing of a human and a denial

P: This cruel and inhuman punishment violates the right to life.

C: Society has the duty and right to protect t he innocent.

V. This argument did not have enough evidence to support the opinion to keep capital punishment in effect. The fallacy in this argument would be begging the question . Begging the question fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle. Also the appeal to the people is committed in this argument. This fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an arguer plays on certain psychological needs for the purpose of getting the reader or listener to accept a conclusion.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1slTpRoVEGFJy61r9VsP_Hx2c3_ZaBH_YHZ_LWc52sUo



Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became a leading figure in Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen. He was killed there on Sept. 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an American drone aircraft.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1slTpRoVEGFJy61r9VsP_Hx2c3_ZaBH_YHZ_LWc52sUo/edit

Views to a Kill, an article written by Peter Catapano was posted in the New York Times October 14,2011. In this article, Catapano notes that assassinations are generally considered criminal and are not openly practiced by institutions governed by law. However, he contends that in light of recent events, pundit debates have brought to surface big questions like: are some assassinations justified? Does it matter who is assassinated? Or who does the assassinating? lhttp://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/views-to-a-kill/?emc=eta1
Catapano really lays out a spreadsheet of what appears to be a double standard committed by the United states not only as it relates to other countries committing acts of lawless assignations on U.S. soil and abroad but double standards along party lines. The following is an excerpt from the article.
Pundit followers would probably not be surprised to learn that Glenn Greenwald at Salon was all over the issue. In a post last week, raising the specter of a moral double standard, he wrote: “I genuinely wonder whether the Good Democrats doing so actually first convince themselves that if this were the Bush White House’s hit list, or if it becomes Rick Perry’s, they would be supportive just the same. Seriously: if you’re willing to endorse having White House functionaries meet in secret — with no known guidelines, no oversight, no transparency — and compile lists of American citizens to be killed by the CIA without due process, what aren’t you willing to support?”
And this: “Remember, Good Democrats hate the death penalty because they think it’s so terribly barbaric to execute people whose guilt is in doubt (even if, unlike Awlaki, they’ve enjoyed an indictment and full jury trial, lawyers, the right to examine evidence and to confront witnesses, multiple appeals, and habeas petitions).”


Analysis: Secretive panel of senior government officials staffed by med-level NSC officials, who distance themselves from the President, compose a target list of individuals to be killed or captured as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki. The President can not be implemented or held accountable for anything decisions made by the panel because, he’s “hands-off” per se. Liberals and conservatives alike, criticized the drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki however, when Osama bin Laden was assassinated,there was high praise from both parties.
Emptywheel reached back for a comparison that could not have pleased Democrats, writing that the Awlaki assination is like the Bush torture program. There, too, the administration built in plausible deniability for the President. The Obama White House efforts to do the same with Awalaki’s death are all the more striking given that it has not been so coy about Obama’s involvement in ordering hits in the past,most notably when we killed Osama bin Laden. With OBL, the Administration proudly highlighted Obama’s role in the decision-making process; here, they’re working hard to obscure it.


Formalized:
P1. A plot by Iranian operatives to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. elicited anger from the Obama administration.
P2. CIA drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen following orders from a secret panel of U.S. government officials.
P3. Reports of a secret panel open the door for Obama opponents to criticize a possible reviving of the “death panel” in which the President is theoretically protected from liability.
P4. Obama supporters say the “death panel” concept is one that mirrors the bizarre structure of the Iran-Contra scheme that shielded President Reagan.
P5. The Awlaki assassination is like the Bush torture program that had a built in plausible denial for the President.
conclusion:
With the death of Osama bin Laden, the role of the President was proudly highlighted but here, they are working hard to obscure it.
The fallacy committed in this argument is that of Red Herring. Tricky moral questions are being asked of the current administration but instead of answering directly our attention is diverted to unrelated comparisons.

Rush Limbaugh is a well-known conservative radio talk show host. He focuses most of his air time to politics, but sometimes he discusses other things such as new found scientific research. The argument shown below is a transcript of a conversation Limbaugh had with a caller regarding meat eaters and vegans/ vegetarians. Limbaugh had previously spoken or joked about a scientific research done in the Netherlands which concluded that meat eaters were more selfish and less sociable compared to vegans/ vegetarians. Later it was found that the person that had conducted the research had falsified some data, and Limbaugh was quick to report it. I believe the research had intensions of getting people to eat healthier, and Limbaugh wanted to dispute it because the same scientist explained liberalism as a science.

Premise 1) the research was done by “that stupid Dutch scientist, that fraud that was trying to codify liberalism as science.”

2) Vegans are hard to talk to

3) Vegans don’t want to have fun

4) Vegans don’t seem healthy

5) Meat eaters are not bad people

6) Meat eaters are level headed

7) Ivy League girls are vegans

7) Clinton went vegan and he looks terrible

8) Vegetarians are militant eaters

9) All vegetarians are liberals

Conclusion: meat eaters are more approachable and overall better people compared to vegans/ vegetarians.

You can find the argument here

“…my wife and I always noticed that the vegans and the vegetarians, they got a whole list of unpleasant characteristics. They're a hard to talk to. They gotta think before they say everything. They never want to have any fun. They generally don't seem real healthy. They... I don't know. Meat eaters, on the other hand, I'm like you: I don't know any of 'em that have been bad people. They all seem levelheaded to me somehow.”

One of the fallacies that show up in the beginning of the argument is Ad Hominem abusive. It is a type of fallacy where the arguer is not providing evidence against the other person’s argument but instead attacks the person that made the argument. Limbaugh insults the scientist that conducted the research by calling him stupid and a fraud. He called him stupid because the same scientist did a study that tried to codify liberalism as a science. Limbaugh is attacking the man’s work not the point in hand. Another type of fallacy in this argument is red herring. It is a type of fallacy where the arguer distracts the audience from the argument and focuses on another topic. The caller talks about President Clinton going vegan and how he looks terrible. He chose to talk about Clinton specifically because Clinton is a Democrat and on this show disgracing Democrats and liberals makes you a hero. And, of course Limbaugh added to it by saying vegetarians are liberals. This premise is supposed to make the audience associate vegetarians with the “evil liberals” when in fact it has nothing to do with the point they are trying to make. The caller also associated vegans with Ivy Leaguers when he was talking which was also irrelevant. Being an Ivy Leaguer or a liberal does not make you a better person, and it does not make you worse either. The last fallacy I found in this argument, which is also the most common one, is hasty generalization. Hasty generalization is a type of fallacy where the arguer makes a quick conclusion about a group based on a small sample. Limbaugh as well as the caller make judgments about vegans and vegetarians based on a couple of people they have met over the years. The caller talks about the bad attitude and health of some vegans and vegetarians he has met and concluded that they are all like that. Limbaugh uses the word “all” when he talks about vegetarians being militant eaters and liberals.