International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347945)

Steve 26th February 2021 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410122)
I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Neither does Greene and her supporters. That really is the issue.

MRC_Hans 26th February 2021 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410122)
I am not getting your meaning with "suppression" and "freedom from interference".
care to elaborate?

Equal rights regardless of gender, creed or political affiliation. You may have heard about it.

Hans

Distracted1 26th February 2021 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410102)
Simply wrong. Support for her daughter did not start with that public statement, time, and place.

You know this how?

Steve 26th February 2021 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410137)
You know this how?

Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410143)
Exactly the same way you know that her support for her daughter did start with that public statement, time, and place.

great. you have answered both of our questions :)

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13409985)
If you fly a flag that supports MIA and fallen vets because a relative of yours died as a soldier and they put up a sign that says "He's not a war hero. I like people who didn't get captured." then I would not find that as a response in kind, no matter what is said via twitter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410016)
Nor would I.
Of course, if I publicly proclaimed before I hung that flag that I was doing so in an attempt to "trigger" someone, it would be.

No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

Steve 26th February 2021 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410159)
great. you have answered both of our questions :)

I do not seem to have asked a question related to this.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410160)
No, that is exactly what I meant in the highlighted. It is not a response in kind. It is taking it to the next level, it is an escalation. That is why one has garnered condemnation and the former has not.

I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

Steve 26th February 2021 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410175)
I see.
Please provide an example of a response that Ms. Greene could have made that would meet the criteria of being "in Kind"- as you seem to define it.

I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410198)
I doubt that there is any response Greene could possibly come up with that would have avoided blatantly displaying her bigotry, given that that was the sole purpose of her response.

She could have responded in a manner that showed she agreed that bigotry toward transgendered persons is both unacceptable and contrary to the principles stated in the US constitution that she has sworn to uphold and defend. But dear, dear Marjorie could never even grasp that concept.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410244)
Thanks for saving me the typing.

"I cannot" is not much to type.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410249)
"I cannot" is not much to type.

More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410253)
More accurately: I don't think that she is capable of doing so. Or at least, she has not shown that capability to this point in her political career.

I can translate other complicated points as you need in the future, but there may be a fee.

I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Steve 26th February 2021 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410256)
I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410256)
I did not ask her to do anything.

I asked you to provide an example of responding "in kind"- based upon your assertion that what was done was not such a response.
Everything since has been evasion.

You simply aren't getting the point: a response in kind is possible, but I don't think she is capable of it.

I would respond in kind by posting a rainbow flag, because I have LGBTQ loved ones I care about.

I could post a BLM flag because I have been inspired by what their movement has done in a short time.

I could post a vet flag because I have loved ones who are vets who I think do not get treated as well as they should.

Or is your contention that I need to find a response in kind that fits with MTG's message of bigotry and exclusion? Sorry, not happening.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410293)
Did someone claim that you did?

Talk about evasion. Let's ignore the semantics and cut to the chase. Do you personally think that Greene's stated and written position on transgendered persons is:
a. acceptable?
b. supportable?

and:

Would you change either of those opinions if Greene has stated her position outright rather than in response to another person's actions?

I'll go first. I think her position is totally unacceptable, and totally unsupportable. My opinion would not change regardless of the circumstances under which she states her position.

By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

RecoveringYuppy 26th February 2021 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).

wareyin 26th February 2021 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

For someone who is putting so much effort into defending Greene's position, you seem remarkably ignorant of that position. She's done more than just put up a sign that gets the science wrong.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410325)
It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

That wasn't the entirety of her sign though, she added something like "trust the science" (from memory).


LOL. you do you.
There is a whole thread devoted to it, which already has substantial spread, so I will forgo discussing it further here.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

Is there a reason you are not being honest about what the sign said?

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13410328)
For someone who is putting so much effort into defending Greene's position, you seem remarkably ignorant of that position. She's done more than just put up a sign that gets the science wrong.

The only discussion I have partaken in thus far regarding Ms. Greene is the incident linked to regarding the trolling of her by another Rep., and the resultant hyperbole and bias it entailed.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410331)
Is there a reason you are not being honest about what the sign said?

It also said "trust the science". The horror!

Hevneren 26th February 2021 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410325)
It's completely refuted by actual facts. There aren't even strictly two sexes in humans.

I'm afraid you'll need to provide some evidence for this.

Dr. Keith 26th February 2021 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410335)
It also said "trust the science". The horror!

It's just odd that you felt the need to lie. Weird.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 13410342)
It's just odd that you felt the need to lie. Weird.

"Weird" is a grown person (of which I am assuming you are)who doesn't know what a "lie" is.

wareyin 26th February 2021 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410333)
The only discussion I have partaken in thus far regarding Ms. Greene is the incident linked to regarding the trolling of her by another Rep., and the resultant hyperbole and bias it entailed.

And yet you are ignorant of Ms. Greene's actions in this incident. Of course you must be ignorant, because there is no way you would be disingenuously pretending her actions prior to the hanging of the trans flag* were not part of the incident.





*(remember, this means a flag representing support for transgender people and their rights, not a flag that has a gender. I know this was difficult for you before)

Distracted1 26th February 2021 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13410365)
And yet you are ignorant of Ms. Greene's actions in this incident. Of course you must be ignorant, because there is no way you would be disingenuously pretending her actions prior to the hanging of the trans flag* were not part of the incident.





*(remember, this means a flag representing support for transgender people and their rights, not a flag that has a gender. I know this was difficult for you before)

Was one of her actions prior to the incident calling out and trolling her office mate?

RecoveringYuppy 26th February 2021 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hevneren (Post 13410336)
I'm afraid you'll need to provide some evidence for this.

Would you mind telling me why you need evidence? Can you take an educated guess as to what I'm talking about please.

wareyin 26th February 2021 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410373)
Was one of her actions prior to the incident calling out and trolling her office mate?

Why don't you look it up? There's no shortage of reporting on her anti-trans statements and actions going back at least 2 year's.

smartcooky 26th February 2021 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410373)
Was one of her actions prior to the incident calling out and trolling her office mate?

Its not limited to that, and it not the first time she has made vile comments about LGBTQ people

When you make a point of publicly attacking transgender people when you KNOW that an opponent is transgender, or that they have transgender family, you ARE trolling that person whether you think you are or not.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13410383)
Its not limited to that, and it not the first time she has made vile comments about LGBTQ people

When you make a point of publicly attacking transgender people when you KNOW that an opponent is transgender, or that they have transgender family, you ARE trolling that person whether you think you are or not.

What is not the first time?
What "vile comment" about LGBTQ people has she made?

The post I joined this thread responding to claimed that the "there are two genders....respect the science" sign she put up in response to trolling from her office-mate was "the worst thing she has ever done", that doesn't indicate much of a history of "vileness".

ETAmend: the post did not claim it was the "worst" thing she had done. It claimed it was the "most disgusting"

Resume 26th February 2021 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410392)
What is not the first time?
What "vile comment" about LGBTQ people has she made?

All of this stupidity as one example.

Quote:

Conspiracy theorist and member of Congress Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) has called landmark LGBTQ rights legislation the Equality Act “evil” and “a direct attack on God’s creation.”

Earlier this week, the anti-LGBTQ far-right Republican took to Twitter to declare that the Equality Act was an attack on women’s rights and the rights of religious individuals.

“The so-called #EqualityAct is evil,” Taylor Greene tweeted. “Disguised as #LGBT rights, it expands governmental regulatory reach that destroys women’s rights, religious rights, and rights of the unborn. It is a direct attack on God’s creation, He created us male and female.”

Citing a transphobic column in the New York Post by the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, Greene claimed that protecting transgender people against discrimination would mean women “no longer have the right to privacy in their bathrooms, locker rooms, playing fields, and even TSA pat downs if a male TSA agent ‘identifies’ as a woman.”

She added: “Men who dress and think they are women will have rights over all real girls and women.”

Greene also claimed that doctors who perform mastectomies “in the case of breast cancer” would also have to “perform one on the teenage girl identifying as a boy. All in the name of equality.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Greene said, in block capitals no less, that she would “BE VOTING NO TO THE DISGUSTING, IMMORAL, AND EVIL #EqualityAct!!!”

“It has nothing to do with stopping discrimination against the LGBT community, that could be done easily without this,” she concluded. “It has everything to do with attacking God & believers.”

Greene is no stranger to anti-LGBTQ sentiment. She has previously protested a Drag Queen Story Time event in Georgia and claimed it was “brainwashing” children, liked the anti-LGBTQ group MassResistance on Facebook, and wrote on her social media, “Trans does not mean gender change, it just means a gender refusal and gender pretending! Truth is truth, it is not a choice!!!”

Steve 26th February 2021 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

Your refusal to answer my questions is all the answer I need. It is more than a little odd that you are so are so ashamed of your agreement with Greene's bigotry that you cannot admit it.

You have misquoted the sign, But no, I do not find that a supportable position. It is totally and intentionally wrong, and completely ignorant of the facts.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410400)
Your refusal to answer my questions is all the answer I need. It is more than a little odd that you are so are so ashamed of your agreement with Greene's bigotry that you cannot admit it.

You have misquoted the sign, But no, I do not find that a supportable position. It is totally and intentionally wrong, and completely ignorant of the facts.

Your question?
What question?
The one where you asked if I found "her positions" supportable without spelling out which position you were asking about?

Distracted1 26th February 2021 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resume (Post 13410396)

Which of those qualifies as a "vile" comment about an LGBTQ person?

Resume 26th February 2021 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410417)
Which of those qualifies as a "vile" comment about an LGBTQ person?

Quote:

“Trans does not mean gender change, it just means a gender refusal and gender pretending!
As one example.

MTG is neither a psychologist nor a gender researcher; she is a cement-headed bigot who is attempting to legislate her bigotry against the LGBTQ community.

Steve 26th February 2021 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410415)
Your question?
What question?
The one where you asked if I found "her positions" supportable without spelling out which position you were asking about?

Sorry that you have so much difficulty following a simple discussion. As I said, your refusal to answer my questions is all the answer I need. Your support of Greene's bigotry is not in doubt.

newyorkguy 26th February 2021 06:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Greene tweeted about the Equality Act
Quote:

“It has nothing to do with stopping discrimination against the LGBT community, that could be done easily without this,” she concluded. “It has everything to do with attacking God & believers.”
Discrimination against LGBT people could be ended "easily?" Okay I'll ask: How? And I hope the answer isn't, discrimination against LGBT people could be ended easily if they'd just stop being LGBT.

As for Marj, she shore is a red-blooded American gal!

Marj gropes trump cutout at rally

My ex-boss was right. You can't make this stuff up! :eek:

Distracted1 26th February 2021 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resume (Post 13410424)
As one example.

MTG is neither a psychologist nor a gender researcher; she is a cement-headed bigot who is attempting to legislate her bigotry against the LGBTQ community.

What anti trans legislation has she proposed?

Resume 26th February 2021 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410507)
What anti trans legislation has she proposed?

Opposition to legislation promoting LBGTQ rights by a bigot amounts to the same thing. Voting no to a bill is still legislating, doancha know.

Especially from this bigoted hypocrite who pisses and moans
Quote:

BE VOTING NO TO THE DISGUSTING, IMMORAL, AND EVIL #EqualityAct!!!

RecoveringYuppy 26th February 2021 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410507)
What anti trans legislation has she proposed?


https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...flags-n1256796

Distracted1 26th February 2021 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410523)

From the link:

"The only flag Greene specifically called out in her statement backing the flag legislation was the Black Lives Matter flag. She slammed “past, rogue members of the State Department” for flying “the flag of the radical Marxist group, Black Lives Matter.”


Seems it actually bans any flag other than the American one at American embassies.

Weak-sauce if it is supposed to be an example of "anti-trans" legislation.

RecoveringYuppy 26th February 2021 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410526)
From the link:

The only flag Greene specifically called out in her statement backing the flag legislation was the Black Lives Matter flag. She slammed “past, rogue members of the State Department” for flying “the flag of the radical Marxist group, Black Lives Matter.”

Seems it actually bans any flag other than the American one at American embassies.

Weak-sauce if it is supposed to be an example of "anti-trans" legislation.

And the other parts of that link??

Matthew Best 26th February 2021 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410528)
And the other parts of that link??

Greene insisted she isn’t playing politics, adding, “this is about Patriotism, and we need more of it.”

She's wrong - we need less of it.

Steve 26th February 2021 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Best (Post 13410533)
Greene insisted she isn’t playing politics, adding, “this is about Patriotism, and we need more of it.”

She's wrong - we need less of it.

Seems to be a common trait of American "patriots" to deny rights to people who are not exactly like them.

Distracted1 26th February 2021 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13410528)
And the other parts of that link??

The second example is a bit better.
Seems she would propose legislation that bars men, and trans women (biological men), from participating in Women's sport. Certainly opposed to the trans agenda, and on that basis could be called anti-trans, yet it is not punitive towards the trans-gendered, nor does it deny them rights.

smartcooky 26th February 2021 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410310)
By "her position" are you asking about the sign she put up which read simply "There are two genders, Male and Female" ?

You don't find that a supportable position?

Nope, I don't! While there are two sexes, sex is not the same as gender.

Sex is a biological construct, a physiological state.

Gender is a social construct, a psychological state.

If her sign had said "There are two sexes, respect the science", I would not have much of an issue with it.

Resume 26th February 2021 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13410537)
Seems to be a common trait of American "patriots" to deny rights to people who are not exactly like them.

It's Trump's humping of the flag. It's self-serving, pandering theater that plays with a certain segment of U.S. voters.

Minoosh 26th February 2021 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13410539)
The second example is a bit better.
Seems she would propose legislation that bars men, and trans women (biological men), from participating in Women's sport. Certainly opposed to the trans agenda, and on that basis could be called anti-trans, yet it is not punitive towards the trans-gendered, nor does it deny them rights.

She is telling trans people they shouldn't exist. In fact she's saying they don't exist - they are mistaken. To me, that's a pretty hateful message.

Meanwhile she claims to know the mind of God.

Lurch 26th February 2021 10:42 PM

Well, wouldn't hermaphrodites possibly qualify as a third? They're at least something of a hybrid.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.