Why do Republicans talk about beastiality so much?

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with logic.

When you use an undefined term as some kind of qualifying metric "so much", (qualifying in the intent to establish that there are some kind of limits on the quan y of speech, which is in and of itself ludicrous) and then use this newly minted but unqualified metric to impose a value, you've built a gigantic strawman argument.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fic ious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...-million-moms/



some commercial with a talking pig promoting beastiality

Yeah, that clearly implcates all Republicans. :facepalm

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with logic.

When you use an undefined term as some kind of qualifying metric "so much", (qualifying in the intent to establish that there are some kind of limits on the quan y of speech, which is in and of itself ludicrous) and then use this newly minted but unqualified metric to impose a value, you've built a gigantic strawman argument.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fic ious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

I wasn't presenting any "position" the 4 quoted GOP members in the OP have. All the OP does is accuse them of talking about beastiality, it doesn't go into their position or usage of beastiality in context, which is why it's not a strawman.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why do some Republicans talk about beastiality so much.

See? Was that too hard to grok?

[TeyshaBlue]

I wasn't presenting any "position" the 4 quoted GOP members in the OP have. All the OP does is accuse them of talking about beastiality, it doesn't go into their position or usage of beastiality in context, which is why it's not a strawman.

Why do Republicans talk about beastiality so much?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Yeah, that clearly implcates all Republicans. :facepalm

It implicates a million of them (unless one million moms is another conservative group that uses a misleading label to distort its popularity)

[TeyshaBlue]

You were clearly presenting a position.

[TeyshaBlue]

It implicates a million of them (unless one million moms is another conservative group that uses a misleading label to distort its popularity)

So you really don't have a clue about what they represent. Ok. But let's conflate to all R's anyway. It beats thinking.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do Republicans talk about beastiality so much?

Still don't see how it's a strawman. I wasn't misconstruing any argument or position Republicans have. It's not like I said they were for the legalization of beastiality (however they seem really enamored with the idea).

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So you really don't have a clue about what they represent. Ok. But let's conflate to all R's anyway. It beats thinking.

They represent wholesome, evangelical Christian values that America was built on!

[TeyshaBlue]

Still don't see how it's a strawman. I wasn't misconstruing any argument or position Republicans have. It's not like I said they were for the legalization of beastiality (however they seem really enamored with the idea).

Why do Republicans (how many? Must be all.) talk about beastiality so much (how much? Oh so much. That must be alot)?

Honestly. If you can't see the vapidity of the OP you've gone full boutons.

[Spurminator]

Why do some Republicans talk about bestiality at all?

[Spurminator]

If not for the ludicrous connection to the sexuality debate, I'm not sure I would have ever even known that bestiality was a thing.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why do some Republicans talk about bestiality at all?

What? You've never owned a sexy dog?

[LnGrrrR]

Teysha, I think one could argue that even FIVE politicians equating sexuality with bestiality is "many". It need not be a majority, or even a high minority. For instance, if I worked with 100 people, and you told me that 10 of them were child rapists, I'd probably say "I didn't realize so MANY people in my office were child rapists."

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Teysha I have compiled more quotes for you to help you understand where I arrived at "so much", because I'm a liberal and that's what we do, we help people.



"I guess that means if you're intimate with your horse, you can marry your horse." -JD Hayworth, AZ (R)

"At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest." -From Scooter Libby's book where they use a bear to train a girl to be a ( what the )

http://www.politicolnews.com/tea-par...rn-and-racism/
Piece about Carl Paladino, NY (R) emailing people horse pornography

"Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule." -Neal Horsley, GA (R)

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, pros ution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding." -Antonin Scalia (R) in his dissent of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling

"[ sexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school." -Stacey Campfield, TN (R)

"There is no need to talk about Billy wanting to marry a goat," -Dwight Scharnhorst, MO (R)

“no more a right to engage in sodomy than pedophiles have to engage in their sexual practices; than those who would like to engage in incest have a right to engage in their kind of practices; or people who want to have sex with animals. They don’t have a right to do that under the Cons ution.” -Bryan Fischer, Conservative Talk Show Host

[boutons_deux]

Why do Republicans (how many? Must be all.) talk about beastiality so much (how much? Oh so much. That must be alot)?

Honestly. If you can't see the vapidity of the OP you've gone full boutons.

bigoted Repugs, tea baggers, hating "Christians" mention bestiality A LOT, for years, in scare-mongering about same-sex marriage and any old LGBT issue, along with same-sex marriage destroying heterosexual-marriage, destroying America, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

Teysha, I think one could argue that even FIVE politicians equating sexuality with bestiality is "many". It need not be a majority, or even a high minority. For instance, if I worked with 100 people, and you told me that 10 of them were child rapists, I'd probably say "I didn't realize so MANY people in my office were child rapists."

That's a fair view, but it doesn't negate the inferred point of the OP. Busting on R's under the guise of a bestiality debate. Newsflash. Probably "many" Dems make statements like this too. But that's not OP worthy.

[TeyshaBlue]

bigoted Repugs, tea baggers, hating "Christians" mention bestiality A LOT, for years, in scare-mongering about same-sex marriage and any old LGBT issue, along with same-sex marriage destroying heterosexual-marriage, destroying America, etc.

You've mentioned it more in this post than I have in 10 years. Congrats, re .

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If not for the ludicrous connection to the sexuality debate, I'm not sure I would have ever even known that bestiality was a thing.

The only reason I know what it is was the scene in Clerks 2 where they accidentally hire some guy and horse rather than a real stripper for a bachelor party

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm obsessed with sexy beagles.

[LnGrrrR]

That's a fair view, but it doesn't negate the inferred point of the OP. Busting on R's under the guise of a bestiality debate. Newsflash. Probably "many" Dems make statements like this too. But that's not OP worthy.

Personally speaking, I don't know of many Dems who have said things of this nature. Additionally, DoK has done the small amount of proof to show that some Republican politicians have; you could counter that with showing Dem politicians who have said the same.

[LnGrrrR]

The only reason I know what it is was the scene in Clerks 2 where they accidentally hire some guy and horse rather than a real stripper for a bachelor party

There's also that story about Queen... Catherine? I forget the name.

[boutons_deux]

You've mentioned it more in this post than I have in 10 years. Congrats, re .

you, rigth winger, wouldn't want to bring attention to the undeniable fact that right-wingers obsession with bestiality as the inevitable next step after same-sex marriage. right-wingers also scare-monger that every is pedophile.

[clambake]

the actual number is huge! don't forget about those that supported these people with their vote!