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.
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?
66,000 tweets? That tells me all I need to know.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.
I think we have vastly different ideas about a Christian university.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.
Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.George Truett said:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
Yes. And I learned to distinguish between the relevant and the irrelevant.Thee University said:Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.George Truett said:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
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:Truth sometimes hurts my Baylor brothers and sisters.George Truett said:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
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?
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.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.
bubbadog said: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.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.
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.
Again with PeeWee? Vintage Golem.Canon said:bubbadog said: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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.JXL said:
Are all university message boards considered to be reflections of the university at large, or only this one?
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.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.
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:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.
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.Thee University said: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.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.
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.
Then why didn't Floyd go back into the store to resolve the problem when the owner asked him to do so?bubbadog said: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:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.
And why didn't the officers tell him they were calling paramedics when he said he was having trouble breathing well before he was on the ground with a guys knee on his throat? Could play that game all day long.Oldbear83 said:Then why didn't Floyd go back into the store to resolve the problem when the owner asked him to do so?bubbadog said: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:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.
2. Passing counterfeit money is against the law. Had he paid with a real $20 none of this would have happened.
That alone could have avoided everything which happened when the police were called.
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.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.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?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'm not crying about anything. You said nothing before that about Chauvin.Thee University said: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.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.
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.
This is the Chauvin thread, but to answer a couple of your points: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.
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.
I must assume based on your post that you would support Baylor if they decided to deny spousal benefits to previously divorced spouses. Surely.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".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 liked how she made several tweets about the evils of Christians and wealth while she is neighbors with Scott Drew.D. C. Bear said:I must assume based on your post that you would support Baylor if they decided to deny spousal benefits to previously divorced spouses. Surely.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.
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.
Yep, real mental gymnastics there. I give her a 5 for style and 1 for executioncurtpenn said: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".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.
Oh no!George Truett said:She was right.BearN said:
Former staff taking screenshots from this thread and posting it on Twitter:
It was disgusting.