Limbaugh: Dems Are "Unwilling To Pay The Troops But Want To Make Sure Abortionists Continue To Get Paid"

Background:

Rush Limbaugh, host of “The Rush Limbaugh Show”, discusses how the Democrats nearly brought about the total widespread shutdown of the national government over the issue of abortion and Planned Parenthood. In the following audio clip taken from Media Matters for America and from the April 13^th edition of “The Rush Limbaugh Show”; Rush points out that according to the budget debate at the White House, President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were poised to shutdown the government before any type of defunding would befall Planned Parenthood. One of the tactics they were willing to use to accomplish their goal was to withhold monetary funds from oversea soldiers. Below is the clip from April 13.

Analysis:

From information gathered from the audio clip, Rush poses some very intriguing questions about the tactics the Democrats used and the position they take toward abortion and Planned Parenthood in order to get what they wanted. About 1:45 into the clip is where the argument begins. Below is the transcript from the clip:

Rush: “Here we had Obama and Harry Reid locked into a position. They were willing to shutdown the government and not pay our soldiers on the battlefield in order to keep the money spickets flowing for the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.”

Rush: “And the Republicans didn’t think they could win that P.R. fight? Given the election results of November, where is it written that we can’t win a P.R. fight with a bunch of people who are unwilling to pay the troops but want to make sure that abortionists continue to get paid? That’s what the fight was about last week. (Pause for dramatic effect) Elmer Fudd could win that fight! (Another long dramatic pause) Elmer Fudd could win it!”

From the clip and accompanying transcript, Rush points out that Reid’s position does include the funding of abortions at Planned Parenthood. Rush also raises the question as to why Republicans backed out of the debate to stop funding to Planned Parenthood for abortions in order to reach a mutual decision on the budget.

So what exactly is Harry Reid’s position on funding abortion at Planned Parenthood? The answer is simple. Senator Harry Reid would rather keep funds flowing to Planned Parenthood than to have funds pulled from the organization but NOT for the reasons of abortion. Further research into the agenda of Harry Reid and the Democrats revealed that Planned Parenthood receives funding through a provision known as Title X, but the currency is not and cannot be for abortion purposes. Reid was actually against a government shutdown, as a shutdown would affect not only the troops, but also the country as a whole. Reid went on record, according to CBS News, by stating that he and fellow Democrats were unwilling to move on the subject of funding Planned Parenthood, that is was important to have access to these services when that time arose. Now, it is clear that Reid’s full intention regarding funding to Planned Parenthood stems from his personal campaign regarding his family; as in his wife, daughter, and granddaughters; from a statement released on April 8, 2011 from Senator Harry Reid’s website.

So what is the conclusion of this argument and the supporting factors?

(P) Senator Reid strongly favors the funding of Planned Parenthood.

(P) Senator Reid refuses to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, because young girls and women have a right to have access to the health services provided.

(P) Senator Reid agrees that a government shutdown would harm not only the soldiers, but also the economy.

Therefore,

(C) Planned Parenthood should continue to receive funding in order to provide accessible health services to all females and that a government shutdown would be detrimental to the American public.

From this audio clip, it is clear that Rush Limbaugh is committing a Straw Man fallacy. The intentions of Reid were to continue to keep funding to Planned Parenthood for the welfare of young girl’s and women in America to have access to screenings and testing, not for abortion purposes. Clearly, Rush has twisted the intentions that Reid had planned by targeting the abortion side of Planned Parenting and neglecting that they offer a wider scope of services. Yes, Planned Parenthood offers the choice of abortion, but in accordance with Title X, abortions cannot be entitled to government funds. Based on the information obtained, this argument is in moderate condition.

pastor Douglas Wilson: Is there a God?

Above is a debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens and pastor Douglas Wilson regarding God's existence, hosted in the JoyBehar show, by Moxnews. This post will focus on pastor Douglas arguments that there is a God.

When asked to provide a case for God, that God exists [0:48], Douglas said:

“One of the thing I would like to do is ask about where your starting point is. Who has the burden of proof? So does an automobile [Bill] have the burden of proof of demonstrating there was a Henry Ford or there wasn't.”

[...]
Then, he concludes

“I believe the one who denies the self-evident fact that God exists and created the world. I believe that that is the one who carries the burden of proof.”

Understanding that he has implied some premises and a conclusion, below is my rearrangement of his argument.

The argument above has committed Petitio Principii (begging the question) and Appeal to Ignorance.

Douglas uses the conclusion from the Henry Ford case [Premise 2a] as supporting evidence for God case. I mistakenly thought this was a Weak Analogy since God is much different from a human; however, the fallacy didn't occur. Based on the argument, both God and Henry share two similar attributes: their existences being challenged and their self-evident existences. Henry third attribute: whoever challenges his existences carries the burden of proof, is causally related to the two preceding attributes. Thus, this third attribute can be safely applied to the God case, providing that the two preceding attributes are also true for God.

However, this argument does commit Begging for the question. For the analogy between Henry Ford and God to take place, Douglas must establish that God obviously exists [Premise 2b], which is the ultimate conclusion of the argument. This premise is begging for the question: how do you know that God exists. A conclusion can never be, and must never be a premise of itself “Without supporting reasons or evidence, the argument proves nothing. Yet most people who are predisposed to believe the conclusion are likely to accept the argument as a good one“ [Quoted from aplia online Philosophy textbook, chapter 3-4]

Another fallacy this argument has committed is Appeal to Ignorance. Even if Premise 3a and Premise 3b are true, proving that the atheists failed their burden to disprove God, we still can not safely conclude that God does exist. The absence of evidence shall not be treated as the evidence.

Based on the two fallacies, I conclude that this is a bad argument.

Jalen Rose Shouldn't Take Back 'Uncle Tom' Jab

In DeWayne Wickham's article, "Jalen Rose needs to take back 'Uncle Tom' jab" (written on April 2, 2011), he attacks a statement made by former University of Michican/NBA star Jalen Rose on a special ESPN documentary about the Fab Five. The Fab Five documentary tells the story of five freshmen, in which Jalen Rose was one of them, who took the University of Michigan's basketball team to two consecutive NCAA title games. Rose, an executive producer and co-narrator of the documentary, made a statement about how he felt about one of his rival teams, Duke University, at the time he played for the University of Michigan Wolverines. While reminiscing about his past experiences and feelings about Duke University's basketball team, Rose stated: "For me, Duke was personal. I hated Duke and I hated everything I felt Duke stood for. Schools like Duke didn't recruit players like me. I felt like they only recruited black players who were Uncle Toms." This statement alone sparked alot of controversy in the media, and writers and bloggers began attacking Jalen Rose's statement. One to name is DeWayne Wickham. In his article, he attacked Rose's statement by saying:

"I wish Jalen Rose hadn't said that. I wish he'd "man up" and take back the ugly thing he said about Grant Hill..."

Wickham's argument is that Jalen Rose shouldn't have made the statement at all and should take it back. He also refers to an article that Grant Hill (current NBA and former Duke University star who played against and defeated Rose's Fab Five team in the 1992 title game) published in the New York Times that responded to Rose's statement, in which Hill took defensively and attacked as well. Wickham's article goes on to acknowledge that Rose did in fact offer an explanation about his statement by saying that was how he felt about the black players who played for Duke back when he was playing in college and that is not how he feels about them today. Despite Rose's explanation of the statement, Wickham still argued that Rose's explanation was not good enough. He feels that Rose needs to admit that he was wrong to have felt that way about the Duke players in the past. So to get a better understanding of Wickham's article, here is his argument structure broken down:

- Premise #1: I wish Jalen Rose hadn't said that. I wish he'd "man up" and take back the ugly thing he said about Grant Hill.

- Premise #2: Hill, whose response to the documentary was published in The New York Times, said Rose seemed to be saying black athletes from two-parent families who went to Duke were lackeys for whites -- which is what the term "Uncle Tom" has come to mean.

- Premise #3: The document's characterization of Duke's players was "a sad and somewhat pathetic turn of events." Hill wrote.

- Conclusion: Even worse than that, it is a message to young blacks that Rose needs to not just take back, but also denounce.

DeWayne Wickham says that Jalen Rose should take back the statement that he made in the Fab Five documentary because he feels that the statement sends a negative message to young blacks and paints the wrong picture in their minds of what black people who attend/play for Duke University, or any other prestigious colleges, are. Even though Rose's statement used a harsh description for Duke's players, that is besides the point. He was speaking about how he felt in past tense, making Wickham's argument a "straw-man" fallacy for the simple fact that he mischaracterized Rose's statement and attacked it. Every word in Rose's statement is in past tense, implying that it is not his current stand. With that said, Jalen Rose shouldn't have to take back what he said because as Wickham even acknowledged in his article, Rose explained that his statement was about how he felt as a young person, not how he feels today. Therefore, Wickham's argument is in critical condition.

Is it better to be a liberal or a conservative?

This argument was attributed to on Wednesday April 14, 2011 by THE ONE; an active Bolger on sodahead.com. The argument gives the view point of a conservative. The full argument presents eleven examples of how individuals make different decisions regarding various situations in life when they are conservative verses being liberal. To fully understand the argument it can be rewritten as follows.

Tolerant Conservative/Non Tolerant Liberal

Premise 1: Instead of being a liberal and wondering who will take care of them when they are down and out, conservatives are tolerant, happy and better their situation.

Premise 2: Liberals see themselves as victims in need of government protection instead of independent successful and tolerant like conservatives.

Premise3: Liberals shut down everyone they do not like instead of tolerating them like conservatives.

Premise 4: Conservative non believers tolerate any mention of God and choose not to go to church while liberals want the mention of God to be silenced.

Happier Conservative/Non Happy Liberal

Premise 5: A conservative is happier than a liberal when he slips and falls in a store.

Premise 6: His happiness allows him to get up, laugh at himself and be humbly embarrassed instead of grabbing his neck, moaning like he is in labor and trying to sue like liberals do.

Premise 7: A conservative is more happy and tolerant enough to forward this to his friend and laugh instead of deleting it like an offended liberal would do.

Conclusion: Since conservatives are happier and more tolerant, it is better to be a conservative than a liberal.

THE ONE continuously attributes the part to the whole. Attributing the part to the whole is a composition fallacy. In premise two the arguer attributes the feeling of being a victim and wanting government protection to all liberals. Part of the Liberal group may feel like victims and may need government protection, but part of the group does not constitute for the whole group. The same can be applied to the idea of liberals shutting down everyone they do not like. Some liberals may indeed shut down everyone they do not like, but all liberals may not feel that way. THE ONE continues to attribute actions and feelings of part of the liberal group to the entire liberal group as he gives examples of situations that conservatives and liberals may be involved in.

Even if THE ONE had taken a sample of thirty liberals who had been involved in the various situations given in his premise, he could not take the sample of liberals and make a claim about the entire population of liberals. This would have caused THE ONE to commit a hasty generalization fallacy. After taking a sample of thirty liberals, THE ONE could argue that Part of the liberal group is less tolerant and less happy, so it may be better to be a conservative. It is always unhealthy to attribute a part to a whole. Until the part has been applied to the whole properly this article will remain in critical condition. The full argument of THE ONE was not presented here, and the argument was paraphrased and put into premise conclusion format.

Billy's request for more death

http://speakout.com/petitions/1274.html

In 2011 the same question of whether the death penalty is a good form of capital punishment still dominates as one of the top arguments among the people. In September of 2001 Billy Fould Driftwood from Taxes decided to voice his argument in favor of the death penalty in the form a petition on “Speakout.com” in hopes of making a political change. After reading the short petition entitled “The death Penalty is a Good thing that needs to be used more often”, I found the author may have been confused on what platform he wanted to take in defense of his conclusion. In his argument you can hear Billy’s frustration in the tone of the paragraph. Billy’s argument states good premises that should make the reader want to move to action by signing the petition. Billy states in the beginning that the death penalty is a great way to help keep the murder rate down. Billy also expresses in the argument, the death penalty should be used more to save the tax payers thousands of dollars.

Now i understand Billy’s sincere feelings toward increasing the usage of the death penalty, but i think the premises he chose, put together, are building a week argument. Lets take a moment to analyze the statements.

P) The fact remains that there are too many murders a year.

P) The murder rate will be lowered if the penalty was a real threat for criminals.

P) The crime rate stayed the same after the death penalty was re-instated.

As you can see the third premise does not follow the others and weakens this portion of the argument. Even though i pointed out a weak premise, I think Billy’s goal is very clear here. Billy’s goal is to show the people how this may be a benefit to them if they sign the petition. After I started reading, I thought about being the next person murdered if i didn’t take action. I also thought about other bad results that could also happen if i don’t take action. The consequences being, the murders may never stop, and there is a chance the murders may actually increase. Billy wants this to be something personal to his readers. Billy then goes on to list more good premises to support using the death penalty more often.

P) In taxes it cost 86 dollars for the state to kill someone.

P) In taxes it cost 30,000 dollars a year to keep a criminal alive.

P) The tax payer should not pay to keep criminal alive.

P) The tax payer should be saved money.

C) The death penalty is not used enough.

In this final portion of the argument, Billy makes very good points to support his conclusion. Billy starts once again with sparking the individuals’ interest with something everyone is familiar with, paying taxes and money. The subject of money is a topic that most individuals, companies, and the government find extremely important. Even with differences of race, origin and religion, we all have the same love for money. Billy hones in on this love by showing how our own money can be affected if we don’t increase the usage of the death penalty. Its like a sales pitch for those people that may be religious, or a person that lets their morals and values lead them in their decision making. Even as a sale pitch, the argument is structured with good premises that support the conclusion.

The problem with Billy’s argument is, some of the premises don’t follow the main idea Billy made of “The death penalty is not used enough”. Actually one premise makes it invalid. When Billy adds the statement, “in other states the crime rate did not change”, he leaves the idea open that his theory of increasing use of the death penalty may not work in our state either. The additional premises could also vaguely support a different conclusion. Billy unintentionally may give the idea he wants to help balance the state budget by carrying out death sentences at a faster rate. No, this is not what Billy openly said, but he put so many ideas on the tabel thinking they all support this one idea. The argument should not imply more then one conclusion. Billy tries to add more information that he thinks will help his main conclusion but really winds up weakening his argument. Because Billy takes this approach, the argument clearly has a fallacy of “Missing the point”. Billy should have continued listing true statements that were geared toward keeping the same conclusion, even at the very end of the argument. In order to make this into a healthy argument, Billy would have to replace some of the premises with other statements that support the original conclusion of the argument. Because so much replacement need to be done to make this a healthy argument, I diagnose this argument as Critical Condition.

The HOPE Scholarship: Keep state's future in mind amid cuts

On March 4, 2011 an article was published by Mr. Andre Jackson in The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) concerning budget cuts for HOPE scholars and Pre-K students. The article can be found at the following web site, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/the-hope-scholarship-keep-861299.html. Mr. Jackson reported views on behalf of the Editorial Board of the AJC. Where he cautions the General Assembly to think about all of the students this budget cut is going to affect not only now, but the students in the future. Denying students an education is ultimately going to take a toll on the state. Students who cannot afford nor obtain financial aid here will begin to move away to other states where they can obtain financial aid and become educated. Educated minds can attract better paying jobs that enrich communities so other states would benefit instead of Georgia. The Pre-K program will have their class time reduced by one-third under this budget cut. Early childhood education should remain a high priority, because teaching young children at an early age reduces the expenses of remedial work later on. It is important that the State of Georgia continue to invest in their students education, because they are our future.

The HOPE scholarship was introduced by Georgia’s former Governor Zell Miller, its stipulations were to earn a grade-point average of 3.0 and the state would pay your tuition at any state schools. Supporters for the scholarship wanted to provide a way for Georgia students who were willing to work hard and wanted to go to college. Therefore they formulated a way for them to attain their dreams, by funding the HOPE Scholarship. The scholarship has been “down sized” because the lottery proceeds has not been able to keep up with increase of students and the cost of tuition. Now in order to be fully covered by HOPE a student’s grade-point average has to be at least a 3.7 or better, which cuts out a lot of students because not everyone is capable of meeting that criteria.

The argument commits a fallacy of relevance, and to be exact the argument is a direct approach to “appeal to the people”. Mr. Jackson’s argument reaches out to all Georgia residents, (which is a large group of people), informing them about the cut backs on the HOPE scholarship and Pre-K program. Mr. Jackson is trying to win acceptance for his conclusion by playing on the crowd’s emotions. The argument proceeds to give examples of how this will bring a negative affect to the state. Georgia’s college students may consider attending out of state schools which would lower the college graduation rate for the state. Most students are more likely to obtain a job where they earn their degree. If this happens it will cause a decrease in the state’s economy. Georgia could remain at a low level for education and expenses for remedial work could still be high, since early childhood education has been reduced. Many students of modest or meager means will not be able to afford college tuition causing a lack of well educated people in the future. Below are the premises and the conclusion of this argument.

Premise 1: One risk of moving to a system where tuition award levels will be set each year is that Georgia’s best students might seek more predictable financial aid packages in other states.

Premise 2: The general Assembly can help in this regard by keeping budget cuts to the state’s colleges and universities as small as possible in coming fiscal years.

Premise 3: Lawmakers must remain mindful of the powerful advantages of early childhood education, starting young children on the right path reduces the expense of remedial work later on.

Conclusion: As the Gold Dome files down HOPE, legislators should keep our future as much in mind as the present.

I believe budget cuts should not be made towards the education of people who are trying to better themselves in life. Why should people be penalized for making an effort to improve themselves? In addition, in the long run the state will earn more money than what was spent sending people to school because the more money people make, the more they spend which means a surplus in Georgia’s economy. Not cutting back will also help boost Georgia’s education rate.

Is building a mosque similar to yelling "fire"?

This article, which appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Wednesday, August 18, 2010, concerns opinions about the planned mosque and community center to be built near the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. The article reports the views of various religious leaders and academics concerning the proposed mosque. I want to draw our attention to an argument attributed to John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

My opposition to building the mosque is not driven by politics or emotion or anti-Muslim prejudice, but by a constitutional logic of religious freedom," he said. "Expressions of religious freedom are always subject to valid time, place and manner regulations. And the right to build a religious building is always judged against the rights and needs of others. Just as freedom of speech does not allow you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, so freedom of religion does not allow to build a church or mosque in a place that's inappropriate.

Witte is asserting that there is an important analogy between the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. It is well-accepted that there are important limits on the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment and the example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is often appealed to as a readily accepted instance in which speech should be subject to restrictions. Witte is suggesting that there are similarly cases in which the freedom to practice religion must also be curtailed. However, it is far from obvious that the instance at hand, that of the planned mosque near the WTC site, is analogous to yelling “fire” in the theater.

The argument is fairly straightforward; but just so that we can very clearly understand its structure, let’s re-write it as follows:

Premise: Freedom of speech does not allow one to scream “fire” in a crowded theater.

Conclusion: In the same way, freedom of religion does not allow a religious group to build a place of worship in an inappropriate place.

Part of the problem concerns the word ‘inappropriate.’ It is not clear what constitutes an inappropriate place for a religious building. But let’s put this issue to one side and just grant, for the sake of argument, that, in some sense of ‘inappropriate’ the proposed site is inappropriate for a religious site. [I sympathize with those who would argue that I am granting too much here, that we really do want to understand what makes the site inappropriate for a mosque. And certainly the onus is on Prof. Witte to explain what is inappropriate about this site. But I think that there are other more serious concerns with this argument; so let’s leave it to one side for now.]

The problem with the argument is that there is a relevant dis-analogy between the two cases. In the theater case, the person who yells “fire” stands to cause a great deal of physical harm, possibly including death. And it is precisely this tendency to cause serious bodily harm that is usually cited as the reason that this kind of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. [Notice also that the fact that someone might be offended by a person’s words is not typically cited as a legitimate reason to restrict speech. That I might be offended by the words of a neo-nazi is not a reason to forbid him from publishing his book.] In the mosque case, however, there is no obvious way in which the presence of this building will cause bodily harm to anyone. Undoubtedly some people will be offended by the presence of the mosque. But causing offense is not the same as causing bodily injury or death.

Since there is this dis-analogy, and since the dis-analogy occurs precisely with respect to the very feature that, in the theater case, is supposed to be the reason that the restrictions are legitimate, Prof. Witte’s argument commits the fallacy of weak-analogy. The two cases are importantly different and thus what is true about the first case is not necessarily true about the second.  Perhaps Prof. Witte has additional reasons for thinking that the two cases really are analogous. If so he should present them, unless he does, the argument will remain in critical condition. [And to be fair to Prof. Witte, the article only quoted part of what was undoubtedly a longer interview. We have every reason to expect that he would have more to say in defense of his conclusion. However, as it is presented in the AJC article, the argument does commit the weak analogy fallacy.]