Republican representative compares women to cattle

I didn't think that the Republicans could top themselves but.... Well this speak for itself.

edited 5th Jun '11 3:32:26 PM by joeyjojo

Par for the course for Republicans.

Definitely foot in mouth disease from that representative.

edited 5th Jun '11 3:34:15 PM by IanExMachina

Dun Dun Tish!

But yeah this seems less like an insult and more like a horrible analogy failure.

edited 5th Jun '11 3:35:15 PM by Thorn14

Yeah, it seems like a fail analogy, but I get what the guy means.

Apparently he didn't realize that you can't buy and sell human beings anymore.

That Makes Me Feel Angry.

And That's Terrible.

edited 5th Jun '11 3:39:14 PM by OurGLORIOUSLeader

He's pointing out that there are people who place less value on a human being than a rancher places on cattle. Based on the assumption that human beings are more valuable than animals, he is accusing supporters of abortion of devaluing human women and children.

TL;DR: He did not compare women to cows, he contrasted them. People who get uncomfortable at the idea of human life having value greater than that of an animal are intentionally misrepresenting the statement to make him look sexist.

Except calves are an asset: We kill them and eat them. The meat is sold and makes a profit.

On the other hand, fetuses are liabilities. You're looking forward to hospital bills, then financial support for 20-ish years. Finally, when the kid finishes college/community college/trade school and goes on its merry way, he may or may not stop leeching from the family. Eventually, once you are very old, it might pay off. Might. The fetus-unborn calf analogy is thus flawed and beyond stupid.

edited 5th Jun '11 3:54:23 PM by SavageHeathen

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be contrasted with cattle either, unless he wants to say the government should treat people like a rancher treats his cows, and I'll be honest, I don't want to be sent to Bovine University.

Congratulations on figuring out that calves and children are different, but I think you're missing one of the basic premises that most people base many moral and ethical decisions on: that a person is not, in fact, a material possession, and has the right to not receive unprovoked harm by the hands of other people.

What he's saying is that ranchers are currently treating their cows better than the law treats people. It's a criticism based on the assumption that people should be treated better than cows rather than vice versa. Does it offend you for someone to say that you and other people should be accorded higher worth than a cow?

Because Cows are owned by the rancher whereas the child is "owned" by its mother. There isn't a law preventing a rancher from getting rid of his cows calves, so why should there be for a mother getting rid of a child?

edited 5th Jun '11 4:06:25 PM by JosefBugman

Damn, guys, learn to listen. What he said means 'for people, baby cows are worth something while babies are worth nothing. And That's Terrible'. You're one step from Quote Mine here

I think he's wrong, because cows aren't treated better than people. Cows are bought and sold, and eventually killed for their beef, leather, and so forth. They are mass-fed in lots, not given their freedom. Sorry, but I don't want to be a cow.

Besides, he's really not trying to make a case for improving the lives of people. Or do you have evidence for his support of laws to give shelter to people? Medical care? What has he done except try to make a tangential complaint about abortion and cattle? I just don't buy his nobility.

We call out politicians on this sort of thing all the time, or on even simple mistakes. And sometimes they get all whiny about it, because it's some sort of blood libel.

edited 5th Jun '11 4:25:31 PM by blueharp

So, he is using a heavy-handed and misguided metaphor. So what? A lot of politicians do it. Most of people ITT act like if they didn't understand the speech and interpret it as 'women are cows lol'

The analogy fails on multiple levels, one being that women and cows differ in the very crucial respects that women have full human rights and are therefore more analogous to the ranchers in this situation (not the cattle) and that you can't sell human babies for profit, and another being that most people are unlikely to pay any attention to his actual point when he's just compared women to cattle, regardless of his actual intent.

All that said, yes, it's pretty clear that when he makes the analogy, he's comparing them in a specific respect, so it's very unlikely that he is actually intentionally insulting women.

I'm going with possible analogy failure or quote mining.

while he may of now intended as such, not seeing Unfortunate Implications with his metaphor and when feminists go on about how the right views 'women as livestock' is a pretty major epic fail on his part

edited 5th Jun '11 4:35:05 PM by joeyjojo

This is conclusive proof that the argument from analogy is a really, really bad form of argument.

Oh man, someone should collect all the stupid things politicians have said over the last few years and put them on a comedy album.

They'd need a whole album for Bush and Biden.

News just in: A Republican [Democrat] just said something related to women [socialism]!

<Mod Hat ON>

Annnnd this thread has apparently already run its course and is heading into general bashing territory.

Locking.

<Mod Hat OFF>