CVS Meta - 2022-05-09 - Kieran Responds to Brenda

[@ceceroxy2227]

Kieran is correct, Brenda contradicts herself on abortion and vaccines.

[@cvs-podcast]

Brenda is ready, willing, and able to fix a date with you later this week. Let's do it. ♥

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@cvs-podcast OK, send me an email, with a date and time, some time in the evening on the weekday is fine.

[@cvs-podcast]

@@ceceroxy2227 Done!

[@IAMFISH92]

❤️ forgive my jumbled thoughts. Maybe soon we can have a real discussion if I can keep my passions in check! Christ is risen! Holy Theotokos, save us and protect the little ones.

[@cvs-podcast]

No need to apologize, unless you want to lay claim to my "slopologetics" term which I coined--in which case back off! LOL

[@IAMFISH92]

@@cvs-podcast the coveted title 🤤

[@philgonzales1218]

I am not listening to Dave adjacent schtuff.

[@northernlight8857]

With all due respect Kieran this was a bit of strawmanning of Brendas views and even on science. Come on. You can do better than this. There is no problem having a moral system from a secular perspective and standpoint. Everyone can play the presupgame all day but it will not add anything of value. You got atl east one thing right. It was when you said you were rambling;) Have a nice day.

[@IAMFISH92]

There certainly is no problem HAVING a moral system from a purely materialistic standpoint. There’s just no way to justify it, nor will it be consistent (as shown by Brenda’s lack of applying the same principle of bodily autonomy to both women who kill their children and people who refuse or accept the vax). Brenda appealed to natural law constantly and yet denied it. Contradiction after contradiction. She’s not ok with the death penalty on the grounds that innocent lives may be taken…and yet she advocates for the killing of the most innocent lives of all. Just because it’s extraordinarily simple to see and call out the inconsistency doesn’t make it a “straw-man”. You’re free to make a response, my friend! I appreciate your thoughts! Have a good day as well!

[@cvs-podcast]

@Northern Light: Thanks for listening and for the feedback. You are one of my long-time listeners, and I'd love to chat with you and get to know you better. What would it take for me to get you on a livestream? You can use a pseudonym and avatar if anonymity is important to you. Ideally you would use your real name and show your face on video-chat, because there is nothing to be ashamed of when discussing one's sincere beliefs. Reach out if you are open to coming on the show at long last: [e-mail] Thanks! ♥

[@northernlight8857]

@@IAMFISH92 There is no problem in justifying it under a secular humanistic framework . I am guessing we are using the word justify differently and we may even have a different view on moral as well. I wouldnt defend a worldview i dont hold. I dont know Brenda that well and i dont know that much about her foundation. Brenda has some ideas i agree with and some i dont. Even abortion we differ a bit.

[@IAMFISH92]

@@northernlight8857 To clarify: when I say “justify” I am referring to the system utilized by which one derives morality (right and wrong/good and bad). Simply saying “morality can be had from a secular standpoint” doesn’t justify that that’s the case. You need to show a logical reason as to how morality is possible and the mechanism by which that system can account for morality as a whole.

[@northernlight8857]

@@IAMFISH92 Oh..great! That was easier than i feared. Then I have no problem doing that. Thank you for clearifying.