SIC EM 94 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Okay!

---

Boy you sure showed him and explained yourself with that response. I take it he was right?

---

Nope. He was wrong. She is being gracious in the face of insults.

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

BearN said:

---

That isn't even close to what she is trying to do with this tweet. She is trying to embarrass conservatives on this website, take conservative viewpoints from this website out of context, and twist them to suit her own liberal agenda.

---

66,000 tweets? That tells me all I need to know.

Think of all the meaningful face-to-face conversations she could have had with her young daughters!

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She thinks Baylor is a Christian university. That's her first mistake. It hasn't fit that bill since Livingstone took over. No Christian university would encourage a prayer delivered at graduation that attacked "straight white men" or invite an anti-Christian speaker to chapel to offer a prayer to "Mother Mystery." No Christian university would directly accuse white students of racism by recommending "students evaluate their own racism using, among other things, "Tema Okun's characteristics of white supremacy culture."" No Christian university would lay "the process of acknowledging our historical connections to slavery" at the feet of teenagers who have no reason to assume that guilt.

Actions like these are taken by people who want to wear the skin of the university they killed to keep up a pretense, allowing them to claim a morality they don't really believe in. Baylor hasn't been Christian for quite some time.

---

I think we have vastly different ideas about a Christian university.

When I was at BU, we were allowed to hear lots of different voices express different ideas. A Christian University isn't some kind of safe zone where people send their kids to keep them from being challenged.

I don't think Baylor is to be a Bible College where students are indoctrinated in Baptist Fundamentalism. It should instead be a university where students are exposed to a broad swath of ideas in a Christian environment.

I find it really strange that you think it's somehow unchristian to engage in the examination and confession of Baylor's role in slavery and segregation.

The fact that you think this changed under Livingstone reflects your complete ignorance about Baylor's history.

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

---

Yes. And I learned to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant.

All your points are irrelevant in relation to Chauvin's trial. And I think they need to be seen in the context of your generally unfortunate posts in relation to race.

Speaking of facts, you totally ignored the actual relevant facts that '

1. Chauvin's supervisors and instructors all testified that he behaved inappropriately and irresponsibly.

2. Medical experts certified that Floyd's cause of death was Chauvin's inappropriate actions.

And I'll also add that your personal attack against Amy was totally inappropriate.

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.

1. Drugs absolutely contributed to his death. I suspect he might have been loaded up on illegal substances when he held a loaded gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child during a robbery. Maybe not.

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

3. Laws/commandments are made for a very real reason. Obey them. Again, obey authorities and no harm will come.

Did any of you folks truly attend Baylor University?

---

Chauvin has had numerous (16?) complaints during career and is under investigation for tax fraud near $500K. That is significantly higher than a fake $20 bill which many of us have likely passed. (They get given to you, sometimes out of bank ATM machines and you pass them on).


Should he be placed in the same position for $10 minutes (as his fraud is greater than Floyd's fraud?)
https://minnesotareformer.com/2020/07/22/derek-chauvin-charged-with-tax-fraud-in-washington-county/

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She thinks Baylor is a Christian university. That's her first mistake. It hasn't fit that bill since Livingstone took over. No Christian university would encourage a prayer delivered at graduation that attacked "straight white men" or invite an anti-Christian speaker to chapel to offer a prayer to "Mother Mystery." No Christian university would directly accuse white students of racism by recommending "students evaluate their own racism using, among other things, "Tema Okun's characteristics of white supremacy culture."" No Christian university would lay "the process of acknowledging our historical connections to slavery" at the feet of teenagers who have no reason to assume that guilt.

Actions like these are taken by people who want to wear the skin of the university they killed to keep up a pretense, allowing them to claim a morality they don't really believe in. Baylor hasn't been Christian for quite some time.

---

That isn't at all what she is saying

---

Presumably she is saying Baylor is Christian, she just seems to also believe that acting like a Christian, expecting everyone to follow laws and not supporting anti-Christian behavior, is somehow UnChristian. Either way, she's incorrect.

---

If I was told that Baylor is a Christian university, and this site was my only exposure to Christians, the preponderance of what I read here would lead me to think that Christianity is a religion of anger and hate.

bubbadog said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She thinks Baylor is a Christian university. That's her first mistake. It hasn't fit that bill since Livingstone took over. No Christian university would encourage a prayer delivered at graduation that attacked "straight white men" or invite an anti-Christian speaker to chapel to offer a prayer to "Mother Mystery." No Christian university would directly accuse white students of racism by recommending "students evaluate their own racism using, among other things, "Tema Okun's characteristics of white supremacy culture."" No Christian university would lay "the process of acknowledging our historical connections to slavery" at the feet of teenagers who have no reason to assume that guilt.

Actions like these are taken by people who want to wear the skin of the university they killed to keep up a pretense, allowing them to claim a morality they don't really believe in. Baylor hasn't been Christian for quite some time.

---

That isn't at all what she is saying

---

Presumably she is saying Baylor is Christian, she just seems to also believe that acting like a Christian, expecting everyone to follow laws and not supporting anti-Christian behavior, is somehow UnChristian. Either way, she's incorrect.

---

If I was told that Baylor is a Christian university, and this site was my only exposure to Christians, the preponderance of what I read here would lead me to think that Christianity is a religion of anger and hate.

---

Unfortunately, left wing posters do tend to post a great deal of hateful and dishonest things. It's par for a course where cultural Marxism has normalized hatred for caucasians into university curriculum, lectures and (at Baylor) corporate prayer. The alternative would be to ban them. That would be going too far.

laughngrin said:

---

SIC EM 94 said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Okay!

---

Boy you sure showed him and explained yourself with that response. I take it he was right?

---

Nope. He was wrong. She is being gracious in the face of insults.

---

No. She wasn't. There would necessarily need to be insults for that to be the case. There were none. There was only an observation based on her dishonest narrative building.

Canon said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Canon said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She thinks Baylor is a Christian university. That's her first mistake. It hasn't fit that bill since Livingstone took over. No Christian university would encourage a prayer delivered at graduation that attacked "straight white men" or invite an anti-Christian speaker to chapel to offer a prayer to "Mother Mystery." No Christian university would directly accuse white students of racism by recommending "students evaluate their own racism using, among other things, "Tema Okun's characteristics of white supremacy culture."" No Christian university would lay "the process of acknowledging our historical connections to slavery" at the feet of teenagers who have no reason to assume that guilt.

Actions like these are taken by people who want to wear the skin of the university they killed to keep up a pretense, allowing them to claim a morality they don't really believe in. Baylor hasn't been Christian for quite some time.

---

That isn't at all what she is saying

---

Presumably she is saying Baylor is Christian, she just seems to also believe that acting like a Christian, expecting everyone to follow laws and not supporting anti-Christian behavior, is somehow UnChristian. Either way, she's incorrect.

---

If I was told that Baylor is a Christian university, and this site was my only exposure to Christians, the preponderance of what I read here would lead me to think that Christianity is a religion of anger and hate.

---

Unfortunately, left wing posters do tend to post a great deal of hateful and dishonest things. It's par for a course where cultural Marxism has normalized hatred for caucasians into university curriculum, lectures and (at Baylor) corporate prayer. The alternative would be to ban them. That would be going too far.

---

Again with PeeWee? Vintage Golem.

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

Additionally, I try to ignore that this sub-forum even exists, because it's a pretty hateful place. It's a crying shame that (on the heels of one of our greatest athletic achievements) people who know little about Baylor might stumble upon this place and think it's reflective of who we are.

Are all university message boards considered to be reflections of the university at large, or only this one?

George Truett said:

---

Yes. And I learned to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant.

All your points are irrelevant in relation to Chauvin's trial. And I think they need to be seen in the context of your generally unfortunate posts in relation to race.

Speaking of facts, you totally ignored the actual relevant facts that '

1. Chauvin's supervisors and instructors all testified that he behaved inappropriately and irresponsibly.

2. Medical experts certified that Floyd's cause of death was Chauvin's inappropriate actions.

And I'll also add that your personal attack against Amy was totally inappropriate.

---

I ignored nothing. I stated 3 FACTS that I felt strongly about. They did not fit your narrative so you start crying and post 2 new issues you believe in.

You and those like you have created a world where anything goes. It is always someone else's fault when something bad happens to them.

You and your kind cry "racist", "white supremacist" or whatever else is the phrase for the day to take the blame off your back and onto someone else.

Chauvin was wrong. I've NEVER said he was correct. He was a big part of Floyd's death but was not the only factor. Lawyers can dig up medical experts to testify to just about anything that benefits their case.

Personal attack on the author of nearly 66,000 tweets????? You have to be kidding me! You liberals are a funny bunch. You say "look at me" or "I'm so smart" but when someone gives you back a bit of your own medicine you cry wolf and curl up into a fetal position and cry racist or whatever the liberal buzzword is for that day.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

---

One can always find people with whom to disagree on a particular issue and use them as a rhetorical brush to paint all of one's opponents on other issues as evil. One should recognize, however, that those who oppose your position would have no difficulty finding hypocrisy your "side" and posting their righteous outrage. It's a bit tiresome, but I suppose it gives everyone involved a feeling of righteousness and vindication.

Your point isn't particularly logically sound in this instance. Your claim is that Baylor is denying rights based on sexuality. They are not. They are declining to provide spousal benefits to individuals that they do not consider to be married because they consider marriage to be between a woman and a man, not between two women or two men. They would also decline to provide spousal benefits for a heterosexual couple who were not married to each other.

Basically, you are suggesting that a religious institution should set aside its religious convictions and substitute your own religious convictions in their place, and you are using the rantings of a few Internet posters on an entirely unrelated topic to support your idea. Your religious convictions on this matter may be right, or they may be wrong, but for Baylor to provide provide spousal benefits to same-sex couple would, by definition, require them, based on the definition of the word condone, to condone same-sex marriage.

JXL said:

---

Are all university message boards considered to be reflections of the university at large, or only this one?

---

When you go to a football game and have negative experiences with the other team's obnoxious fans, it colors your opinion of the university, even if you know those people don't represent the university in totality. Who here doesn't have a lesser opinion of Texas Tech or TCU than they might otherwise, on account of their fans. They don't necessarily think of themselves as ambassadors of their university, but in a real sense they are because their behavior affects the opinions that others have of their entire community.

Message boards seem to operate somewhat the same way. Just look at the number of times on the basketball and football boards that posters bring up what's being posted on other fan sites.

I would argue that being a reflection of the university at large goes double for a school with a stated Christian mission. Christians have always invited themselves to be judged by the fruit they bear (e.g., they will know we are Christians by our love), so it follows that people will draw conclusions about the university's Christian character if they see that a preponderance of the content on boards populated by its fans behave in ways that look and smell like bad fruit instead of good.

If Christians accept the call that they are to be witnesses, then they have to accept that they are always on stage, being watched by others.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

Additionally, I try to ignore that this sub-forum even exists, because it's a pretty hateful place. It's a crying shame that (on the heels of one of our greatest athletic achievements) people who know little about Baylor might stumble upon this place and think it's reflective of who we are.

---

It's always lovely to read someone with such a keen insight into Christian values. Your point is indeed simple...simplistic....incorrect. What it is not is logically sound.

You conflate not supporting sinful behavior (homosexual lifestyle) with denying rights. What is relatively clear from your post, is that you believe it's a "right" to have one's chosen lifestyle approved of with financial support or perhaps government redefinition of a millennia old religious institution. You then assume people aren't horrified by extrajudicial killings, as if you are speaking about those which only occur sans any physical violence or resistance from those who died. You take all agency away from the (mostly men) people who ended up dying as a result of the physical conflicts with police they started. You treat them as though they were children and the police as though they are demigods and everyone who disagrees with you as some spectator at the Coliseum. You are somewhere between begging the question and proving too much.

Homosexuality in practice is a sin. That is an immutable Christian doctrine. To the extent you disagree with that doctrine, you disagree with Christ. And yes, He did address homosexuality, both by defining marriage and by the fact that neither He nor is disciples abrogated it as a sin. It was and remains a sin. Again, your use of the word "rights" as regards someone's chosen sexual proclivity is patently absurd, particularly from a religious point of view.

While your last statement is largely incorrect, your choice to ignore this forum is probably for the best. It would be unfortunate if you were triggered or traumatized by rational discussions about things you appear to believe should be thoughtlessly celebrated.

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

---

Just an fyi on this point, in case it makes any difference: The store clerk testified that he did not believe Floyd knew the bill was counterfeit.

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Yes. And I learned to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant.

All your points are irrelevant in relation to Chauvin's trial. And I think they need to be seen in the context of your generally unfortunate posts in relation to race.

Speaking of facts, you totally ignored the actual relevant facts that '

1. Chauvin's supervisors and instructors all testified that he behaved inappropriately and irresponsibly.

2. Medical experts certified that Floyd's cause of death was Chauvin's inappropriate actions.

And I'll also add that your personal attack against Amy was totally inappropriate.

---

I ignored nothing. I stated 3 FACTS that I felt strongly about. They did not fit your narrative so you start crying and post 2 new issues you believe in.

You and those like you have created a world where anything goes. It is always someone else's fault when something bad happens to them.

You and your kind cry "racist", "white supremacist" or whatever else is the phrase for the day to take the blame off your back and onto someone else.

Chauvin was wrong. I've NEVER said he was correct. He was a big part of Floyd's death but was not the only factor. Lawyers can dig up medical experts to testify to just about anything that benefits their case.

Personal attack on the author of nearly 66,000 tweets????? You have to be kidding me! You liberals are a funny bunch. You say "look at me" or "I'm so smart" but when someone gives you back a bit of your own medicine you cry wolf and curl up into a fetal position and cry racist or whatever the liberal buzzword is for that day.

---

I've never heard of her, but 66,000 tweets? Is that all she does, post on twitter every 12 seconds? She's worse than Trump - wow.

Seems like another woke liberal that lives their life on social media. Another millennial whose self worth is in how many likes, retweets and shares they can get. I wouldn't be surprised if she had 1,000+ facebook friends, most megalomaniacs do.

bubbadog said:

---

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.

---

Just an fyi on this point, in case it makes any difference: The store clerk testified that he did not believe Floyd knew the bill was counterfeit.

---

Then why didn't Floyd go back into the store to resolve the problem when the owner asked him to do so?

That alone could have avoided everything which happened when the police were called.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

Additionally, I try to ignore that this sub-forum even exists, because it's a pretty hateful place. It's a crying shame that (on the heels of one of our greatest athletic achievements) people who know little about Baylor might stumble upon this place and think it's reflective of who we are.

---

I really had no idea what you were referring to when you said Christians were denying healthcare based on sexuality. On the surface, I would tend to agree that this is wrong, and wrong for Christians to be espousing this.

But, reading others' comments here, I learned that you were referring to spousal healthcare benefits for same sex married couples. You were framing the issue in a deceitful way by eliminating important context and dismissing the key Christian component of the issue. I know now to dismiss you as yet another intellectually dishonest tool of the left.

If anything is more harmful to the Baylor image and more importantly to Christianity, it's the dishonest leftist hack job you pulled to push a narrative and agenda. "Hateful", this here forum? I'm not surprised to hear that. The left views standing up for Christian principles as hate. Always had, and nothing here is gonna change that.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

Additionally, I try to ignore that this sub-forum even exists, because it's a pretty hateful place. It's a crying shame that (on the heels of one of our greatest athletic achievements) people who know little about Baylor might stumble upon this place and think it's reflective of who we are.

---

There are a lot of nuts here (it's a politics board). But you can be equally hateful on Twitter.

I see two levels of ethics on this matter.

On the one hand, it is becoming clear that Mr. Floyd was already experiencing the effects of the drugs in his system. Whether or not he would have died from those drugs without the police action, it is apparent that Mr. Chauvin did not cause Mr. Floyd's death, so the most serious charges are not supported by the evidence.

On the other hand, any indication of physical distress should be taken seriously, and while it is true that Floyd began to claim he could not breathe long before the hold in question, the statement is unusual enough that a reasonable person would seriously consider asking for medical attention.

The legal threshold for jail is not met, I believe, but the moral threshold to demand change is met and passed. The sad thing here is that I fear neither point will be seriously considered. Those who demand punishment will not be swayed by facts, and those determined to stand against the mob will miss the need and opportunity to improve procedures to avoid a repeat of this tragedy.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

Well, I'd hate to spend time arguing with people on the internet when I could be spending time with my "daughters."

But, yes, he was wrong. A lot of people are wrong. My point is pretty simple and also pretty logically sound. I'm very tired of people who are associated with my Alma Mater and people who profess Christ using Him to deny rights to others on the basis of their sexuality while not being horrified by extra-judicial killings.

Baylor, as a private Christian university, doesn't have to condone homosexuality or come out and say it's not a sin in order to love people and provide the same rights it provides to other "sinners." That's all.

Additionally, I try to ignore that this sub-forum even exists, because it's a pretty hateful place. It's a crying shame that (on the heels of one of our greatest athletic achievements) people who know little about Baylor might stumble upon this place and think it's reflective of who we are.

---

You need to find a better argument if you wish to appeal to sound logic. Where is there a denial of rights?

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

Thee University said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Yes. And I learned to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant.

All your points are irrelevant in relation to Chauvin's trial. And I think they need to be seen in the context of your generally unfortunate posts in relation to race.

Speaking of facts, you totally ignored the actual relevant facts that '

1. Chauvin's supervisors and instructors all testified that he behaved inappropriately and irresponsibly.

2. Medical experts certified that Floyd's cause of death was Chauvin's inappropriate actions.

And I'll also add that your personal attack against Amy was totally inappropriate.

---

I ignored nothing. I stated 3 FACTS that I felt strongly about. They did not fit your narrative so you start crying and post 2 new issues you believe in.

You and those like you have created a world where anything goes. It is always someone else's fault when something bad happens to them.

You and your kind cry "racist", "white supremacist" or whatever else is the phrase for the day to take the blame off your back and onto someone else.

Chauvin was wrong. I've NEVER said he was correct. He was a big part of Floyd's death but was not the only factor. Lawyers can dig up medical experts to testify to just about anything that benefits their case.

Personal attack on the author of nearly 66,000 tweets????? You have to be kidding me! You liberals are a funny bunch. You say "look at me" or "I'm so smart" but when someone gives you back a bit of your own medicine you cry wolf and curl up into a fetal position and cry racist or whatever the liberal buzzword is for that day.

---

I'm not crying about anything. You said nothing before that about Chauvin.

And I believe in personal responsibility.

And I certainly wasn't saying Floyd had any responsibility at all. We were talking about the trial, and your points are still irrelevant to the trial.

Nice try to evade responsibility on the personal attack. You didn't just say 66,000 tweets. You had to follow it up by making a snide remark about how much time she spends with her kids. That was the inappropriate part. You owe her an apology for that.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

---

This is the Chauvin thread, but to answer a couple of your points:

Yes, I'm sure Baylor doesn't offer coverage to a divorced spouse of an employee. As a matter of fact, should I get divorced, I don't know any business that would offer healthcare coverage to my ex-wife.

To point out that Floyd played a part in his death doesn't mean that the poster said the killing was justified, you're (at least) triggered to the point where you can't comprehend what was said or (more likely) being completely dishonest about what was posted.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see two levels of ethics on this matter.

On the one hand, it is becoming clear that Mr. Floyd was already experiencing the effects of the drugs in his system. Whether or not he would have died from those drugs without the police action, it is apparent that Mr. Chauvin did not cause Mr. Floyd's death, so the most serious charges are not supported by the evidence.

On the other hand, any indication of physical distress should be taken seriously, and while it is true that Floyd began to claim he could not breathe long before the hold in question, the statement is unusual enough that a reasonable person would seriously consider asking for medical attention.

The legal threshold for jail is not met, I believe, but the moral threshold to demand change is met and passed. The sad thing here is that I fear neither point will be seriously considered. Those who demand punishment will not be swayed by facts, and those determined to stand against the mob will miss the need and opportunity to improve procedures to avoid a repeat of this tragedy.

---

To whom is it apparent that Chauvin did not cause Floyd's death? Both autopsies concluded that he did.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/05/read-george-floyd-autopsy-report-with-cause-of-death-and-other-factors/

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

---

I must assume based on your post that you would support Baylor if they decided to deny spousal benefits to previously divorced spouses. Surely.

Earlier you said that Baylor didn't have to condone same-sex marriage to provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples. For Baylor to provide spousal benefits for same-sex couples would require them to condone those relationships. That's what "condone" means.

Good luck with your Tweeting. I hope that it brings you the fulfilment you seek.

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

---

So, now you resort to false equivalence between homosex and divorce. More logic fail. Try harder. The point is not "the Biblical view of marriage".

D. C. Bear said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

---

I must assume based on your post that you would support Baylor if they decided to deny spousal benefits to previously divorced spouses. Surely.

Earlier you said that Baylor didn't have to condone same-sex marriage to provide spousal benefits to same-sex couples. For Baylor to provide spousal benefits for same-sex couples would require them to condone those relationships. That's what "condone" means.

Good luck with your Tweeting. I hope that it brings you the fulfilment you seek.

---

I liked how she made several tweets about the evils of Christians and wealth while she is neighbors with Scott Drew.

Hello Amy;

You don't know me, so I expect my post here won't sway your opinion, but I would like to make a defense of the "rants" as you call them here on this forum.

I take a position opposite yours, I believe, because Twitter - as you observed - takes only seconds and judging from some tweets even less time to think about what they blast to the world. The posts here invite debate and discussion, and some are worth re-examination later in the face of new information.

More, I am a rather strong-opinioned person here, and have butted heads with many of the forum members. But 98% of our membership is good, solid people who care about doing the right thing, and the "rants" you see here are honest expressions of that effort. Also, when something happens in the Real World to one of our members, you often see unanimous expressions of support, well-wishing, and often real help when needed. We are like an extended family, and like many families we bicker among ourselves but care about each other too.

Please do not judge the forum by just what you read from a limited look.

Thanks for reading my rant.

curtpenn said:

---

Amy Pagitt said:

---

When Baylor chooses to deny health insurance coverage to same-sex spouses because it does not believe it reflects the Biblical view of marriage, I assume Baylor also denies coverage to previously-divorced spouses as well. Surely.

The overarching point of my tweet was to point out the hypocrisy of Baylor people who would justify extrajudicial murder by blaming the victim but then use Jesus and the Bible to justify exclusion.

Baylor doesn't have to condone homosexuality, and Baylor doesn't have to recognize homesexual marriages. I just think it's crappy policy for a Christian institution to tacitly say to people "We think you are sinning and will probably suffer eternal damnation THEREFORE we are going to make sure we don't provide you with healthcare coverage that would enable you to live a longer life and have more time to repent."

I'll get back to tweeting, now (which takes mere seconds), and leave the message board rants to y'all. Also, I have one son and one daughter, and I appreciate the implication that the sole purpose of my existence is to engage with them and stay off the internet EVEN WHEN they're asleep or at school.

---

So, now you resort to false equivalence between homosex and divorce. More logic fail. Try harder. The point is not "the Biblical view of marriage".

---

Yep, real mental gymnastics there. I give her a 5 for style and 1 for execution

George Truett said:

---

BearN said:

---

Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:

---

She was right.

It was disgusting.

---

Oh no!

Someone having a different opinion on the internet?

You and amy can both get bent you fascists.

Freedom of speech and thought still matters and still exists everywhere liberals don't yet have total power over the discourse.

I think the killing of George Floyd was a crying shame and a crime...but I am willing to hear people out on both sides and let them make their arguments without shutting them down.