Andrew Wilson vs. NotSoErudite HEATED MARATHON DEBATE | Whatever Debates 25

Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast, coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California. I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.

A few quick announcements before the show begins. This podcast is viewer supported, so please consider donating through Streamlabs. That's streamlabs.com/whatever. TTS is going to be $199 and up. There will be no instant TTS. TTS will come in batches at various breaks throughout the debate. You can see the description for all triggers and full details.

Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible. He is a blood sports debater and political commentator. Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so aerodite. She has an undergraduate in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics. She's a content creator, streamer, and is a political and social commentator.

You each have a about three-minute opening statement each, and then straight into open conversation. I believe you're going first, Kyla.

"Sure. Do we have any prompts we want to read first? Do you want me to just jump into it?"

"Uh, oh, yeah, sure. Well, I I'll read the prompts then. Uh, so that we're going to cover four prompts, time permitting. There's Christian nationalism is un-American. That's prompt one. Prompt two, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in US and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system. Prompt three, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because atheists have no moral basis for which to govern, excuse me. Prompt four. Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity."

"Modern."

"Oh, excuse me. Modern liberal values. My mistake. Go ahead."

"America is not a church, and that is not a weakness. It is one of the greatest strengths of America. The American experiment was built on a bold idea. Faith must be freely chosen. Conscience must be protected. Political power must be limited. Limited. The founders, men of inquiry, men of science, men who built universities and ran experiments, drafted a constitution that banned religious tests for office. That was not hostility to Christianity. That was confidence in its integrity. Because when church and state merge, bias corrupts the state. But more importantly to me, power corrupts the church. Separation does not weaken the church, it protects it. America's ethos is simple. We do what works. And how do we know what works? Science. We test. We measure. We build. We refine. If it fails, we discard it. If it succeeds, we scale it. That instinct, that relentless pursuit of truth through evidence is not anti-Christian. It is a reflection of intellectual humility. America is industry. America is laboratories and shipyards and production lines that outwork empires. America is a Manhattan project. Physicists racing equations against tyranny and winning. America is a P-51 Mustang. Not sacred tradition, but engineering superiority screaming across the sky. That spirit defeated fascism. It destroyed communism. It mapped the atom. It put satellites in orbit. It built the medical systems, infrastructure, and technology that shaped the modern world. My America fears no truth. It preserves through discovery. It does not shrink from paleontology, geology, or evolutionary biology. Truth is not an enemy of faith. If God is sovereign, then no discovery threatens him. Evolution and belief have coexisted for generations. Scientific advancement need not displace theological conviction. America did not fight a revolution to resurrect sacred hierarchy. It did not cast off empire to create another throne draped in religious conformity. It created a republic confident enough to protect the liberty of conscience for all people. Religious principles need safeguarding anyway. Christianity survived the Roman Empire. It persisted despite Nero trying to kill them. It grew to prominence and converted the known world, not by sword, but by the quill. I wish my Christian brothers and sisters today still had the same confidence in the gospel that they had then. My America's equal protection. My America is equal protection under the law. Freedom of speech, limits on state power. Those are not principles foreign to Christianity. They echo the belief that every person bears dignity, that coercion cannot produce genuine faith, and that moral transformation begins in the heart, not in legislation. Christianity has flourished for many of the same reasons that America has. They have thrived without subjugation, and they spread they have spread without war. And when they did either of these two things, people came to hate it. The American dream and the holy word persuade because people believe their truth, not because it is enforced. America moves forward. America builds. America competes. America leads. Not by fusing church and state, but by unleashing human ingenuity without demanding theological uniformity first. America is doing what works. And that is why it leads the world."

"Are you just taking the water break or do you"

"All done."

"Okay, perfect. Andrew, go ahead with your opening statement."

"I'm way too hung over for this [ __ ]. But I got a beer, so that'll that'll help me hear the dog a little bit. So, just to be blunt, some of the reasons that I don't particularly enjoy debating with Aerodite is because there's a specific style she has, which is called the pop quiz style. When Kyla gets in trouble around arguments and worldviews, she drops a pop quiz. Uh, do you know what X is? X usually being a random obscure fact which has little to nothing to do with the conversation and your inability to answer it's met with smug delight and upspeak as she explains some random fact. The reason I bring this up is because I want the audience to be aware that I'm really just I hate pop quiz the pop quiz debates. It's an old Twitch takes and it's just to me it's cringe. It's not the Socratic method. It's just I'm going to I'm going to introduce a pop quiz about some factoid that is completely irrelevant to the debate. But anyway, when leftists say anything is un-American, I'm forced to laugh about it. Progressives and liberals like Erodite here uh only have one single value structure ultimately and it's loyalty to an amoral liberal system. To progressive liberals, and I kid you not, let's give an example. The example of Bob. Bob can go buy a brand new deluxe PC for his 18-year-old daughter, put a camera on top of it, and manage her career as a porn star and Only Fans while he's upstairs with her former teachers fapping to it on his Oculus porn helmet. And there isn't a [ __ ] thing anybody can do about it cuz Bob pays taxes. Bobby gets up every stinking day and he goes to work and he rolls up his sleeves and he gets the job done. And by God, if Bob wants to fap to daughter porn with her former teachers, who the [ __ ] are you to tell him he can't? If Bob wants to loan his wife out to his friends for an all-night blitzed up legal drug field gang bang and then finish it off by snorting prescription painkillers so he doesn't come too early, then by God, that's his right as an American and a patriot. Who the [ __ ] are you sick fascists to judge Bob? He ain't breaking any laws. He pays his taxes and he's following the system, baby. And that's what matters. The liberal process of amoral systems rather than immoral. Everything's permitted. If the global hegemon of the world needs to put machine guns to the back of little Africans heads so they can dig out the special Sudin cell phone crystals, then so [ __ ] be it. Bob needs his perfect reception for his satellite-driven cell phone in order to get the perfect nude image of his wife being split down the middle like a piece of meat and an all-white bread sandwich. And who the [ __ ] are you to tell Bob [ __ ] Nobody. That's who. Just a judgmental little fascist trying to legislate morality in an amoral system uh which is oriented around a nonsense of a smorgasbord of moral buffets which boils down to a choose your own degenerate adventure. Nothing short of that is un-American. Here's a bunch of un-American stuff depending on when you were alive. Universal suffrage, pretty [ __ ] un-American. Abolishing slavery was pretty [ __ ] un-American. Homosexuality was definitely un-American. Age of consent laws were un-American. Incest laws were un-American. Income taxes were un-American. Sex outside of wedlock was un-American. Refusal to duel when being called out was un-American. Not being white was un-American. Co-ed schools were un-American. Black people in white schools, so un-American we needed the military involved. The list goes on and on. But according to Aerodite, Christian nationalism is un-American because America basically begins in the early 20th century based on Lincoln models of federalism. That's what's American. Part of that, of course, should be not listening to a person who grew up under a king in a constitutional monarchy like she did. Gross. Bunch of fascist bootlickers over in Maple Land. That's pretty [ __ ] un-American, too. Christian nationalism is as compatible with Americanism as the liberal order of amoral systems allows, which means perfectly compatible, because there isn't any ought to tell it no. The entire proposition from the liberal angle itself is self-refuting. It just goes like this. If people vote for Christian nationalists, what are they doing which is un-American? The answer [ __ ] nothing. If they vote in a KKK Nazi fascist Hugo Boss SS uniform wearing lunatic who packs the court, persecutes all non-whites uh all within the whim and the confines of the amoral system, then what's un-American about that? And the answer [ __ ] nothing. Because the progressive liberal system is built on nothing, just vague appeals to my rights and my freedoms and my own system, which allows you to get rid of the system. It's absurd and self-refuting. That's my opening."

"Cool. So, I guess um to clarify, maybe we should clarify Christian nationalism because I feel like that's going to be a bit of the crux of the conversation. So um how do you want to define it?"

"To the definition of Christian nationalism would just be the proposition that Christians uh utilize influence and authority to stay in the moral majority and that they adopt systems towards Christian ethics."

"When you say moral majority, what what does that mean to you?"

"It means that um most most laws and social systems confined around Christian ethics."

"Okay. So you would like to basically see a change of current statecraft to include more Christian policies."

"All Christian policies."

"To Can I ask to what extent? Like does this"

"To as much of a extent as liberalism allows, which is all extents."

"Okay. So would you when you advocate for Christian nationalism though, a lot I'm sure you and I would probably agree, probably if say the more of the moral majority becomes Christian, particularly in the way that maybe you're advocating for, we would probably move in the direction of reducing constitutional policy uh and increasing Christian policy, specifically probably all the way up to including theocracy."

"No, they're not incompatible."

"So you don't think that"

"Constitutional policies so under liberalism that this is the great thing about liberalism. So, do you remember like you had this conversation with a guy the other day? Um, I don't know how long ago it was, but he was like a fan of mine. He called in. It was about Christian nationalism. I think you got the clip on your channel. There was a point there where I started laughing because he said basically what I did, he was like, 'My proposal is that I want all the systems and this and that to kind of reflect the image of my preferences.' And you were like, 'Fuck that. You're not allowed to bastardize my religion by implementing policies uh against, you know, what my preferences are.' And I thought that's like the most American thing I can think of. The most American thing I can think of is that a Canadian immigrant is like, 'You know what? This is my country now, and you're not going to [ __ ] bastardize it with whatever your [ __ ] is because I don't want you to.' And the other guy's like, 'I don't give a [ __ ] what you want. We're going to do it anyway.' And then it goes vice versa and it's like that is liberalism ultimately. If we want to uh get rid of alcohol via an amendment, we can. If we want to bring it back via amendment, we can and have. If we want to get rid of guns, we can and have. We want to bring them back. We can and have. It's like everything is permitted."

"So yeah. So by your logic then, Christian nationalists not only are trying to win the culture, they're trying to win the state."

"To impose Christian policy on the state. Well, via well, not they're through Congress."

"They're imposing liberalism on the state actually."

"Well, spec well, in this case, let's Well, I don't want to I'm not I'm not going to equivocate. If Christian nationalists amend every single constitutional amendment within the confines of liberalism to reflect only Christian policy, by by your metric, that's liberalism."

"So, the issue is that I'm not like a a democratic absolutist, right? I don't believe in democracy in the state. I believe in like some level of uh limited democracy. In fact, even now we have what we have like electoral democracy. We don't have we have elected representatives. We don't have direct popular vote, which I think is good. I think that that's a better democratic system than for example uh pure absolute democracy like popular vote. So there's always limits on democracy. Right. So when you say liberalism, I think the issue is like liberalism to you just means it seems like what it means to you is we can vote for stuff."

"Is that what it means? What does it mean to you?"

"It's an it's what you outlined in your opening. Liberalism is just a sequence of systems. It's science, man. And it's building [ __ ] and it's industry and it's all of these isms which really are just confined to I want a system. So liberalism is an amoral system."

"Do you think science is liberalism?"

"No, but I think that liberals adopt science as part of their system."

"Well, yeah, they allow Do you think capitalism is liberalism?"

"I think they adopt capitalism as part of their system."

"Could they adopt other things?"

"Sure."

"Okay. So then what's liberalism? Liberalism is an adaptation of an amoral system."

"What what is this? Sorry. At a statecraft level, what does this mean?"

"That you have a system which is an amoral system."

"Why is the amoral piece essential to"

"Because that's what that's why you prefer secularism. You want a system which is amoral. So it's based on individualism. It's based on"

"Is individualism amoral?"

"Yeah. Well, from from the liberal view it is. Yeah."

"How is li How is individualism amoral?"

"Um, because there's no ought there's no ought under a liberal system for you to do anything."

"Sure there is. There's often times, right? Like a liberal system doesn't impose any certain moral. Well, the most common consensual"

"Wait, what did you say? A liberal system doesn't impose any certain morals."

"That doesn't make it like so when you say amoral means amoral."

"Oh, so like they they're agnostic."

"No, they're amoral. It's worse than agnostic."

"How is that?"

"Because sorry. What's the difference between amoral and agnostic on?"

"Yeah. So you can be agnostic about uh something which is moral or immoral, right? That's true. But that doesn't mean you're amoral. But what you're looking for is a system which is amoral. So you're saying like, look, we're not going to make any moral prescriptions because that's not what the function of the state is."

"So do you think what the founding fathers did was amoral? Like it's not something to respect. It's not something valuable. What do you think about the founding fathers?"

"What does that have to do with anything? Uh, the founding fathers created the American world. You're saying it seems like you're saying America is liberalism and this liberalism is weak. Or do you think America is something else? Became liberalism when you destroyed the republic with universal suffrage in the 14th amendment?"

"That's I mean, the republic was just the language utilized to talk about a specific type of democracy, right?"

"No, it had a foundationalism. You're talking about 39 out of 50 signers. Only three of them were deists. And foundationally, the states under the 10th amendment were allowed to adopt their own religions and did. It was only until we got to the 14th amendment way later that this was no longer the case. And in your opening, you got that wrong."

"The establishment and free exercise clause specifically said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise"

"At the federal level. That's true."

"The federal level implied to the states."

"No, that happened later under the 14th amendment. In fact,"

"Under the Constitution. I'll show you. Brian, pull up. The 14th amendment stops states from adopting religion. I'll show you so that you understand how the process worked."

"So, do you think that the founding fathers established a religion for the"

"No, they established the 10th amendment, which says that all all uh rights which are not given to the federal government are given to the prospective states because the first amendment covered that federally. This was part of a compromise. That compromise happened because of the Articles of Confederation. So the Articles of Confederation initially were the libertarian wet dream, but they didn't work because states couldn't have uniform commerce or uniform dollars or a uniform military. So they adopted a form of federalism and compromised. The compromise was the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment stated that actually states could have their own religions and they did. Almost all the states had their own religion post constitutional ratification."

"Most people don't know that."

"By own religion, what do you mean? Do you just mean the test clause?"

"No, no, no, no, no, no. They had state religions."

"The test clause you had to be"

"No, not a test clause. They had actual state religions inside each independent state. They had their own religions minus, I think, two or three."

"So, why did the federal United States not have a religion? Why did it allow the states to make those choices?"

"Because of the 10th amendment."

"What what was the principle? What were the founding fathers trying to do? What do you think the founding fathers?"

"They were trying to separate the power of federalists between anti-federalists and federalists. So they compromised on two major amendments. The second amendment, which initially was way looser in language uh, and then they compromised on the 10th amendment as well because states wanted to have their own militias. They wanted to have their own militaries. They wanted to have their own currencies. Congress is like, look, we need to have the power to raise armies. We need to have the power to coin money. If you allow us to have those two powers, then all the other prospective powers we'll give to the states, which they did. That included religion. So if the founding fathers intended what for it to be a Christian nation to have some level of"

"They intended for each state to be able to govern as they saw fit in order to implement religions that they chose to"

"To the exclusion at a federal level, specifically of any religion. Right?"

"But that's not in what's in contest here."

"That is that isn't what's contest. Right? If we're talking about America, we're talking about the nation. We're talking about the founding fathers, the minds behind the founding of"

"The founding fathers put in amendment processes for us to amend things."

"Including the First Amendment, right?"

"Sure. Yeah. But why if they wanted to blend church and state, why wouldn't they write that?"

"They did blend church and state because under the 10th amendment, they allowed states to adopt state religions. It was only when the Supreme Court looked at the 14th amendment way later in our history that they decided, and by the way, that amendment had nothing to even do with this. That was about citizenship."

"State religions isn't the same thing as America having a federal religion. We realize this, right?"

"Who's who who ever postulated that we needed to have a federalized religion?"

"Well, I'm talking about separation of church and state. Yeah."

"For America."

"If states can have their own religion inside the state and it becomes the state religion, does that in your opinion violate that separation of church?"

"If there's a test clause, yeah, it probably potentially would violate that. So, if the state imposes a test clause for federal power, that would be an issue. And do you know when the last"

"It was super common at the time that most states had clauses. In fact, the founding fathers were so intense about ensuring separation of power that despite most colonies at the time having a test clause for holding power of being religious, they explicitly barred it in what was it? Article uh article six."

"Oh yeah. Then how come in Maryland you had to declare until the 1960s something, I believe, that you believed in God in order to hold office?"

"Because in Maryland they made that decision. But at a federal level, well, we're talking about we're not talking about Maryland. We're talking about America."

"Yeah. America."

"Is Maryland. America."

"America is a coalition of states which have federalized. That's what's going on."

"But don't you think that the Constitution of America maybe matters when we're talking about the ethos of America?"

"Sure."

"Okay. So, one, you mean that completely amendable thing."

"Well, completely amendable is very makes it sound way looser than it is. Amending and adding amendments."

"It is way look what's un-American about amending the First Amendment?"

"Nothing."

"Okay. So then inside of your worldview, it's completely constitutional to amend the First Amendment to get rid to get rid of the establishment clause. That would be totally appropriate under your"

"I think that would be a violation of the American ethos. I think it's bad. And well, here how"

"Because America believes America's built on these things. I think that the founding fathers,"

"You don't believe America Okay. Does America have"

"Do I get to finish my thoughts or you going to go ahead go ahead? Okay. Right. I think what's really important here is that like the founding fathers, I think are essential to understanding the ethos of America. I don't think they're the only piece. But if we want to look at like a litany of America over time, what we have, for example, is the founding fathers, despite the nation being dominantly Christian, despite the states having test religious clauses, the founding fathers looking at that going,"

"'No, we need a separation of church and state.'"

"That's not what happened."

"That is that is absolutely what happened."

"Not only is it not what happened, but within the framework that you're talking about, you just said it's not un-American to amend."

"How did it not happen?"

"Hang on. You just said it's not it's not in any way un-American to amend the First Amendment. The First Amendment is"

"I should I should have clarified that because when we say American, I'm meaning the ethos. What I should have said is it's not anti-constitutional. The Constitution would allow."

"So okay then let's follow that line of logic and see if that's true. Does American have any sort of like ethnic ethos?"

"Yeah."

"What is it?"

"Dominantly white culture, hegemonic."

"So that's part of the American ethos."

"Yeah. To some degree. Yeah. Significantly. Right. Like"

"Should it stay that way?"

"Uh I I like it. Yeah."

"So it should America should stay a white Protestant nation."

"Uh, but that's not the central piece of the ethos. You said does it have a cultural ethos? And I said"

"I'm asking if Okay. Should it stay white?"

"Um, no. I don't care about the whiteness."

"And that's not part of American ethos."

"How is that the case? Absolutely. Something that can be a part of the ethos and also change because the ethos here that's central isn't the whiteness that I was pointing to. It's some of the cultural values that come in. For example, Protestant work ethic, right? Taking value in the product produced that you in the product that you make as well."

"And if America no longer had any of that and became completely atheistic but still followed these constitutional amendments, that's still plenty American, right?"

"As long as they hold to central ethos of what I think the American dream and vision is outlined, for example, with the founding fathers at the Declaration of Independence."

"Well, then if it's not whiteness and it's not cult anything and it's not anything cultural $69."

"Oh my god."

"Oh my god. No idea what happened there. I apologize."

"If it's not So here's what I'm asking. If it's not ethnic,"

"What do you think American ethos is? Do you have any American"

"What do you think American ethos is? Do you have any American"

"Ethos?"

"And it's not cultural."

"I said, it is cultural."

"It's cultural. Yeah. Okay. So, what are the cultural things? What is American culture?"

"Uh, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, doing things that work, ingenuity, discovery."

"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness."

"Wait, what do you think? American"

"And what?"

"Hang on. What was the other thing you said?"

"I think ingenuity."

"Ingenuity."

"Those are some of them."

"So, as long as"

"Do you reject these as part of the American ethos? I do. So as long as none of these life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is violated, then it's in the spirit of America"

"Potentially. We would have to look at it in a relativistic, right? Like the e these ethos like things we have to understand like what we're talking about. You'd have to give me an example."

"That's what I'm asking you about is what we're talking about. So if any of these things"

"What do you think is American? I well, so I I think that what's core at the the central kind of product of Americanism is this idea of systemic liberalism. The system itself is what mean"

"What's that?"

"What is systemic liberalism?"

"Yeah. So that it's just the idea that like ah there's a secular separation. There's uh systems in in place within the constitutional confines. There's things which we're appealing to in law. Uh I don't think that liberals I don't think that liberalism and modernity is doing anything other than looking at those systems. I think that originally founders our founders wanted to have something which was much more akin to ethno-nationalism for sure. I think that they wanted to have something that was much more akin to nobody voting in universal suffrage at all because it didn't give anybody the right to vote. So I don't think that those things were foundational to the American experience because the founders didn't allow it."

"Why didn't they?"

"Because they they didn't want people to come over here who weren't uh western English, basically."

"That's not why."

"Yeah, it is why."

"No, you can read it in Federalist number two. Like the the uh argument for suffrage is very clear from Hamilton."

"Okay. Wait on. When have you read the Anti-Federalist Papers?"

"No."

"Do you realize there's there's Federalist Papers? There's the Anti-Federalist Papers."

"Yes."

"These were compromises which were made from the original Articles of Confederation."

"What did suffrage mean to"

"Originally? The 39, the the 39, I believe it's 39 out of 50 delegates who signed the Constitution, only three were deists. Most of them were Protestants, loyalist Protestants, by the way. And on top of all of that, most of them wanted only white states and made it very clear they only wanted white states. They put that into the very ethos of what they considered Americana. Do I think that modern liberalism is looking at any sort of people group is uh modern liberalism looking at any sort of like um uh cultural uh environmentalism in order to like say, 'Hey, this is what America is.' No. All you can appeal to is systems. That's it. That's all you have is a system. Liberalism is a system of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and ingenuity. Whatever the [ __ ] that means. Doesn't even mean anything."

"Of course."

"What?"

"What do you mean?"

"What is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? I could completely amend the First Amendment and still do all of those things. I think the issue is that most of the country would oppose you amending the First Amendment because the First Amendment is is foundational to what makes America great."

"So what so what if most of the country opposes it? That it's built into liberalism if all it is"

"The whole country opposes it is because like America is this consensual emergence of a bunch of people that believe in something."

"And what if we decide that we don't believe in the First Amendment anymore and amend it? What's un-American about?"

"Do you not believe in the First Amendment anymore?"

"That has nothing to do with the argument. What is un-American about amending the First Amendment?"

"Well, again, the American is this ethos. It would be technically constitutional, but I would argue that it would be a bad constitutional move, and I think it would violate the founding fathers. And I think the founding fathers were on to something when they made that first separation of free speech and separation of church and state."

"Is vi Do we should we adhere to everything the founders said or no?"

"No, not necessarily."

"Well, then how who cares if we violate it?"

"There's there's What do you mean who cares?"

"Yeah. If if you're like, look, if you violate the things that the founders wanted, that's not un-American. But this is un-American because it might violate what the founders wanted. You're in contradictions."

"P Not contradictions. Like pluralism allows for competing values, right? Obviously, right? And so what you're kind of doing right now is you're sitting here and you're being like, well, there's two children. They're your children one side and your husband's on the other side. Who are you picking? And let's say I pick the two children. You're going, why do you hate your husband? And I was saying, that's not what's happening here."

"I don't even know that that first of all, that's not the analogy. The analogy would actually be this. You have your husband and your children on both sides. You pick both. This other guy has his husband and children and he doesn't pick both."

"That's not how pluralism and monism work."

"Wait, wait a second. As long as you're saying that both of these sets are both moral behaviors because you have an amoral system, meaning you wouldn't restrict either of these things."

"That's not nec We absolutely restrict people's behaviors and we al we often restrict people's behaviors for the benefit of the state. Right. Laws exist."

"And who makes them?"

"Uh, the people that we vote elect."

"I see. So if we elect people who vote in different laws, how's that un-American?"

"So it would be against the American ethos if a whole bunch of Christian nationalists, for example, convince people that we should actually reduce things like liberty. I think that we would be moving away from"

"You wouldn't be reducing liberty. Absolutely."

"It would just be a different kind of liberty."

"If you start imposing church into state, for example, and the only religion that you can practice is Christianity, that would be violating liberty. How if we amend the process? How"

"Even if you amend the process? So you can amend the process to make us a less free nation. But what I would say is that would be wrong. That would be un-American. Yes. How?"

"Because America is built on life and liberty."

"America is built on the fact that you can amend America."

"No. America is built on why"

"Why do we have an amendment process?"

"Why wouldn't TJ when he's writing the Declaration of Independence, why wouldn't he, for example, say America is just what we vote for? It's just like consensus stuff, man. It's just like loosey-goosey. He says specifically an ethos that drives the dream. Right? And you're saying, well, this ethos, this dream, it's just silly. It's nothing. I mean, it's it's just not nothing, right? It makes me go foundational America on liberalism, on the liberal view, right?"

"So, you think America is nothing."

"Let each other finish."

"It's not built on any sort of ethnicity. It's not built on any sort of cultural union."

"Well, I did say culture."

"Well, but you just said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

"Is that not cannot that be cultural values?"

"Yeah. No."

"Why not? What's what does it mean?"

"What's an example of a cultural value?"

"What the [ __ ] does it mean? Let's learn."

"What's an example of a cultural value if not something like life and liberty?"

"A unison of cultural values are usually foundational to ethical systems."

"No, they're not. So, what what what's a cultural value that you would say that's a cultural value?"

"I just told you I would use I would utilize for culture some kind of glue. That would be a unison. Otherwise, it's not cultural."

"Okay. What's a Scottish cultural value?"

"Um"

"Irish. Sorry, you're Irish. That's an Irish cultural value."

"Yeah. So I think that Irish cultural values would again revolve around foundationalism, religious ethical systems"

"Like what?"

"Well, for that for uh Ireland, I think what the Protestant Catholic"

"So the cultural value is of being Irish is being Catholic."

"I think that the there's a union between the people group and the ethical foundations."

"So how are Irish people different than British people who are also al also on the back of Anglican or Catholic?"

"Well, because they're not right. So England has a completely different set of people groups which come from Britons. The Britons uh who came in settled all of England."

"Um, when the church came in and then they separated into Anglican, they have now a completely different set of value structures than other places do, including Western Europe."

"Anglican"

"What?"

"The British cultural value."

"So the only thing that makes British and Irish people different is one's Catholic."

"I said different people group. Let's Okay. Okay. Steel man."

"What's the cultural value?"

"Steel man my position real quick."

"I'm I'm asking you actually to steel man mine because you're insisting that when I list these ethos."

"How can I steel man your position when you're asking me questions?"

"I'm asking you questions because you seem to be unsatisfied with the answers that I have supplied because you're not granting me ethical."

"You're going if you're going to get someone interrupting, it has to be mutual. Okay."

"Yeah."

"So I I gave you an example of a couple of cultural ethos and you said what? This is nothing. It doesn't mean anything. Well, then I said, hold on. So then I said, 'Can you give me an example of let's say Irish culture?' Hold on. And you said Catholic. And I said, 'What makes them different then from just another group of people that are also Catholic?'"

"They have different set values."

"Like what?"

"Like for instance, they have different religious foundationalism. They have different values in their society that they honor."

"Irish cultural value. Give me one."

"Not life, not liberty, not pursuit of happiness. How am I wrong?"

"I don't know. I'm not Irish."

"Well, I don't just value isms. If it's just isms of like a cultural value is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then it's like, okay, then cultural values are also just not life, not liberty, and not pursuit of happiness. Then"

"Does that make any sense to you?"

"That's not what anyone's saying. I'm literally saying it is what you're saying. Let each other finish, please."

"I'm just asking you for a single example of an Irish culture."

"When you're talking, let each other finish."

"And you're just saying Catholic."

"Uhhuh."

"So, what's an example of an Irish cultural value? So would do you agree that Catholic would be an example of an Irish cultural value?"

"I wouldn't say it's unique to Ireland. No."

"So why would it need to be unique?"

"We're talking about"

"Is life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness unique to America?"

"So are you just saying that cultures don't really exist? They're just the religions. Like there's no difference between Irish people and let each other and another group that's uh Catholic as well, like Spanish people."

"So what a culture is going to be the grouping of the people,"

"The consideration of the value group of those people, and then the foundations of those people."

"So what's an example of an Irish cultural Catholicism."

"So how is that different than Spanish people who are also Catholic?"

"Because they have a different people group."

"So what emerges that's different between these two groups?"

"Language, customs, orders."

"Yeah. Values."

"Not just values. No."

"Of course not. Of course not. Just values."

"They can have actually they have a lot of shared values."

"Sure. Of course. Yeah."

"But again, you have to take the people group. Then you have to take the social orders. Then you have to take the foundationalism in order to create culture. For you, you're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Now I gave you concrete examples of cultural values. Can you tell me what this means? What does that mean?"

"So if we're talking about the culture of people,"

"I think one of the re relevant things for the American culture might be not excluded to the founding fathers and what they thought, you know, the founding of the entire nation kind of matters. So in the Declaration of Independence, for example, Thomas Jefferson outlines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But that is a unique thing, a unique hallmark of being"

"Jefferson didn't sign the Constitution."

"That doesn't mean that he didn't write the Declaration of Independence. We're talking about the Declaration of Independence."

"Declaration, the Declaration of Independence was a propaganda piece built on an axiom which said under God, right?"

"So as an American, you just don't care about the Declaration of Ind."

"I'm saying that when we're talking about foundationalism, the reason I bring up that Jefferson didn't sign the con, we are"

"We're talking about value structures. You're saying that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You're saying life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is the foundation of Americanism. Nope."

"Then what is"

"Um, the what is the foundation? It's the the foundation of America is the founding fathers. It's the Constitution. It's the Declaration of Independence. It's the entire idea."

"It's systems."

"Well, it's systems and its ethos."

"What's Well, you see what I mean though? That's circular."

"You say life, liberty, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. That is not the foundation of America."

"Right? I I suppose they can be foundations in that like they're irreducible. Life, liberty are kind of irreducible."

"Why couldn't they be reduced?"

"Because it's going to become circular eventually. Like most things will become circular. Say you have a culture that values work ethic."

"Yeah."

"How do you reduce that? What does that mean?"

"But that people work really really hard."

"Yeah. Isn't that kind of just like you're just kind of saying? So it's it's circular."

"I'm not sure that it's circular, but it's a heuristic."

"How is saying work ethic is people work hard, not circular. Well, you could give qualifiers for what hard work is."

"Well, you didn't. You just said hard work is you just asked me how and I explained it."

"So, this is one of the key talking about foundationalism. You said life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but then said that that's not a foundation and then only pointed to systems."

"I said it's no, no, no. I didn't say it's not foundation. I said it's not foundationalism. Cuz when I'm hearing that, and I could be wrong. When I hear foundationalism, I'm assuming that you mean the like the philosophical framework."

"Yeah."

"Yeah. So when I'm saying foundational, I just"

"What's the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system?"

"I'm not I'm not So when I'm saying the cultural ethos, I'm not talking about the philosophical framework necessarily."

"I'm asking you what is the philosophical framework of the United States other than a system? What?"

"Well, it is a system."

"Yeah, exactly. So all you're appealing to in your liberal ethical system is a [ __ ] is just systems. It's an amoral system. That's it. So statecraft systems. Yes."

"Yeah. So me. So here we can make this super easy. We can make this super easy. Then"

"Is changing the First Amendment immoral?"

"No. But I think it would make the country worse."

"So it's an amoral system."

"I would argue like it's probably immoral because probably the people doing it, right? Like which which people want to change free speech?"

"Who cares what would make it what would make it immoral?"

"Well, the context and the individual who's doing it might make it immoral or not."

"Yeah. Yeah, but in and of itself it's not"

"Uh, it might be right. Things are relative."

"Okay. So in and of itself is not relative anymore because it's just in and of itself."

"So I am a moral objectivist and a relativist, right?"

"What?"

"You're a P and not P."

"No, I believe in that morals are objective."

"Uhhuh."

"But also that they are relative."

"This is standard. This is like Aristotle stuff."

"What the [ __ ] What?"

"Okay, so uh stealing is wrong. Uhhuh."

"However, the guy whose family is going to die if he doesn't steal, relatively contextually might be okay for him to steal in that situation. Right?"

"You're just talking about pluralism."

"I'm not just I'm not What's the competing values here?"

"Because under pluralism, what you're saying is that there's many pathways to get to what the spirit of the thing is."

"That's not what pluralism is."

"It is."

"Nope."

"Okay. What is it?"

"Okay. I wrote it down cuz I It's when Google."

"It's multiple irreducible competing goods in moral pluralism."

"Multiple what? Irreducible competing goods."

"Meaning that there's multiple pathways to get to somewhere."

"Nope. That means, for example, that you have two moral systems that are both good. So, justice and mercy,"

"And there's multiple ways to use them to get to the thing we're trying to get to."

"Nope."

"In this case, they're competing against one another. So, in the case, for example, of somebody who's cheated on his wife, there's morals of justice that we would want to uphold, but there's also maybe morals of mercy or union of family. And so to make a decision, there isn't an obvious correct answer between justice or mercy. Usually we have to do some type of balance between the two."

"Or we could do no type of balance and utilize one in order to get to the same objective as the other."

"What would what's the objective?"

"So for instance, if we wanted to like prosecute a guy for a crime, we could say we're only going to prosecute him on this crime based on justice. That could be one value set which we adhere to, right?"

"Yeah. Sure."

"Uh we could also appeal to something else like dignity. I don't know. Let's just say we put that up and say that's what we're going to use instead. Well, the justice people and the dignity people, right? Neither one of them are wrong and they're both going towards the same goal, which is execution of guy just or execution of guy good or execution of guy fine."

"Well, I guess if the goal if you want to make this like pluralist, I guess if you're"

"Because it is virtue ethicist."

"Yes, of course."

"You're a virtue ethicist. Okay. So, you want to basically utilize and"

"Well, I'm a Christian ethicist, but virtue ethics is involved. Yes."

"Okay. Gotcha. So in the case of um why are we here? Yes. We were talking"

"Because we're talking about systems. How is the United States something other than just a system?"

"You said in and of itself if we changed the First Amendment that would not be immoral. Finish, please."

"So you don't think America is anything but its system. There's nothing else that makes America unique that you can point to and say that's America"

"Under the liberal view. No."

"Under your view. I'm asking your view."

"Yeah. Well, under my view, I think that there was once upon a time a powerful idealism which was founded around Christian ethics that was foundational to America, which is now basically destroyed by"

"Foundational founding fathers or foundational in what way?"

"It was foundational to the moral the moral character of the people who lived here."

"So then why did they write it out in the federal papers?"

"Write what out?"

"Uh, the church from statecraft."

"They didn't."

"Yeah, they didn't."

"No, they didn't. They separated they separated in the First Amendment only that"

The federal government couldn't pass a religion on the people, but under the 10th Amendment, states could still maintain their religions. And then most states came to agree that actually the federal uh precept was better, right?

No, yeah. No, what happened actually was a lot of states were looking at moving back towards that, which is why this whole idea of the 14th Amendment being reinterpreted the way that it was to say that states couldn't do that happened.

Um, I I feel like we have a very different understanding of suffrage.

I'm not. That's not suffrage. That's the 19th Amendment.

14th Amendment.

Yeah. 14th Amendment, I think, is citizenship. It's about birthright citizenship.

You're right. It's about birthright citizenship. Yeah.

The 14th Amendment.

Yeah. Yeah.

It said the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying the First Amendment to them through the due process.

Read the 14th.

Uh, read it.

I just did. But uh, hold on. Wait.

There's. He wants you to read it in a way that goes to his argument.

I just wanted him to read the amendment, but I think that that's the case.

Besides, even if it wasn't, it's not dunk for you. You didn't remember.

Wait, it is. So the idea of remembering isn't what matters in a conversation of like, which idea is more true, right?

Yeah. Hang on.

So it's not about me.

Read the amendment.

I don't know why you said that.

Aren't we trying to talk about ideas here? Yeah. So whether I remembered or not, like, poo poo for me, I should have remembered 14th Amendment. But if the 14th Amendment says what I'm suggesting, that's point to my ideas, not me.

Different clauses. Should I read all all the clauses? Okay. One, citizenship clause.

Yes, there we go.

It declares that anyone born or naturalized in the United States is a U.S. citizen, including formerly enslaved people, overturning the Dred Scott versus Sanford decision. Two, due process clause. It says states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This protects individuals from unfair state government actions. Clause three, equal protection clause. It requires states to provide equal protection of the laws to all people. This clause became the foundation for many civil rights decisions, including Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Obergefell v. Hodges.

So these were all interpretations of the amendment. There's nothing in there about religion.

You're right. But you said that that was the 14th Amendment was saying that states could have their own unique religion. But in fact.

No, that's the 10th Amendment.

Wait, why were you citing the 14th Amendment?

Because I was telling you that most of the reason states wanted to move back to the idea of religiosity. It was through the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which had nothing at all to do with religion, had to do with birthright citizenship.

And due process.

They were they focused on that. And here's how they did it. What they were saying was, uh, basically states aren't going to be able to tell, uh, anybody who is or isn't a citizen. Okay? They're not going to be able to do that anymore, and it needs to be uniform. So what happened is the Supreme Court began to rule that, oh, well, since it has to be uniform, we'll apply the First Amendment there too. This is way, way, way late in the game, though. Okay. Early Constitution, remember, at this time, your founders are all dead, right? All these people are dead.

They didn't want anything to do with that. They wanted the states to be able to make those prospective decisions themselves, which they were doing.

Sure. So, there was a compromise, particularly the compromise was because they needed to unite the colonies, but a lot of the colonies had a lot of different predilections about how to run statecraft, right? And so, one of the reasons why they wrote out separation of church and state at a federal level, but allowed states to maintain it, is because they wanted states to still join. It was very important to them, particularly since the revolution was about to happen, that they had the states, none of that one another.

Well, again, so the 14th Amendment didn't s. None of that proved that you were right about.

Yes, it did. 100% did.

It has nothing to do with religion.

That was my point, not yours.

That was my point. I never said the 14th Amendment had anything to do with religion.

You did. You said I said the first. I haven't written. I've only said no, it was citizenship and you were like, nope, nope. Oh, wait. It is citizenship. And then Brian, he did a quick Google search. And what he was reading was an interpretation of it. When he read the actual amendment, no, I was correct.

I've never denied that it was about citizenship. I said, "What does the 14th Amendment have to do with religion?"

Read it so that it favors Andrew. But it did favor me, cuz I was right.

Well, he started reading it and had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with like, equal liberty.

No, it was the opposite. He was saying first that, hey, this was about religion when it wasn't. No, he was. What? No, he was not.

Yes. What was the first thing you read, Brian?

Okay.

It was the the citizenship clause.

Mhm.

Uh, there's the due process clause.

No, no, before that. The first thing that you read.

Oh, the first one. Uh, before I looked it up again. Oh. That the 14th Amendment prohibits states from infringing on religious freedom by applying.

Thank you. Infringing on religious freedom.

Thank you. He was saying that the 14th Amendment was about religion. I said, "No, it's not. That was about. That was literally about citizenship. I can look stuff up for you, too."

I appreciate that.

[ __ ] crazy.

Wait, nothing crazy's happened here.

Yes, it has.

So, would you agree that in this conversation, I brought up the First Amendment around religion?

You have brought up the 10th and 14th to justify why actually the states were given power to decide their own religion.

Just the 10th. The 14th was how it was reinterpreted to get away from the idea that states could have their own religion.

Okay. Gotcha. I see. So, can we read the 10th?

Yeah.

Yeah, sure.

Uh, one m one moment.

All right. The 10th Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Which is why post foundation.

Just state power. So none of that is states establishing a religion.

Yeah. No. You know.

This is saying the federal government respects the the state's right to make certain decisions. Like in suffrage, the state reserved the right to decide who is people, right?

How many states maintained a state religion post constitutional ratification?

I believe all of them did initially.

Then what is your argument?

My argument is that the states are not America. The founding fathers, what is America?

Well, the founding fathers are probably a lot closer than what Maryland thought.

That's not Maryland. The states.

Yeah. Well.

The states are would be all.

Is Maryland a state?

Uhhuh. But all states is different than one state.

Sure. And yet all states felt that religion and church should be unified, that they should have a state religion, that there should be a test for religion. And the founding fathers knew that and despite that wrote it in explicitly that Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion and prohibit the free exercise thereof.

That way the states could do it. Yes.

That they were not saying what the states were going to do. They were saying America.

Uhhuh. Which is federal.

Yeah. No, it's also state, which is why we have the 10th Amendment.

America is federal government.

And state government.

So Maryland is the is America.

America is a state or Maryland has a state government.

I didn't say that it didn't.

Great. And is that state government allowed to do all the things that the federal government can't do that it's not in the powers of the federal government via the 10th Amendment?

What matters more to what.

Now, what matters is answering my question. Is Maryland allowed to do whatever Maryland wants to do under the 10th Amendment? As long as that's not in the hands of the federal government, as long as those aren't things which are allocated to the federal government, can Maryland do what it wants?

Uh, by and large, as long as it's not violating any of the constit. Great. So if that's the case, then uh, there was actually no reason at all why states could not have their own state religions, and they did.

So if the So what do you think is more important for America? What a state did, like Pennsylvania, or what the founding fathers wrote into the founding documentation?

The founding fathers wrote the 10th Amendment into the founding documents.

Yes. To respect the state's ability to make decisions.

Like have a state religion.

Sure. But also multiple things like commerce.

And also state religion.

Sure. But then they also explicitly prohibited at a federal level any dispute.

Any involvement of a state religion. There's no federal state. No, there's no federal religion.

Uhhuh. And um.

That has never been in dispute.

Yep. That has been in dispute because the question here is what's more America, what's more American. What Pennsylvania did in like the 1700s.

The question is nationalism. That's my question to you. What matters more for America, the American ethos, understanding America as a country, what Pennsylvania did at the founding of America or what the American founding fathers wrote?

Both. Both are important.

Which matters more?

Neither one of them matter more than the other.

Equally valid. Equally mattered.

The system wouldn't work without the validity of both state and federal government.

That's not what we're saying. You're saying that the Pennsylvania policies are equally as valid as the federal.

Under the 10th Amendment. Yes.

No. To No, no, no. Hold on. You're you're equivocating again. How?

You're being naughty because you're pretending like what we're talking about is now statecraft. That Pennsylvania policy was valid under the Constitution. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I'm asking about the American idea. The idea of America. What matters more to the history and understanding of America as a nation?

Both.

Which matters more?

That's you're saying they're equal. When you say Pennsylvania matters just as much as the founding fathers, more or less, which is fine. It's just absurd.

Absent. How is it absurd? The system doesn't work unless you have the state governments. It doesn't work.

That's not what anyone's saying. Nobody here is denying that.

So, how could it be more important what the founders did when it was intricate that the states had the rights.

To America as an idea? I think what the founding fathers write kind of matters like the most. Yeah.

Why?

Because they're founding the federal government. They're founding.

Based on a compromise with the states.

Yeah. But they're founding a nation.

Based on the states.

But that the nation is not Pennsylvania. The nation is not.

The nation is a collection of states.

So why is it the case that if all the states had all these religious practice and all these religious law, why didn't the federal government, if they wanted to unify them, why didn't they just write in, you know, that America is a Christian nation? Why didn't they do that?

Because you had what was called pan-Protestantism. Each one of these states had different religious organizations in them. And some of them wanted to be this type of Protestant. Some wanted to be Catholic. Some wanted to be Quakers. So they gave them the 10th Amendment. And the 10th Amendment said that they could do that [ __ ]. They could be a Protestant state.

Why not just say they have to be Christian? Why not just say at a federal level that they can just be the Christian?

Because the states demanded that the federal government not step in to tell them what their state religion had to be. That's not true. Actually, the.

That was the compromise.

So, one thing.

Yes, it was.

So, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on. The compromise here is that states are allowed to make certain rules of law within state that don't that are not within the federal purview. That is the compromise, right?

Yes.

That's one compromise.

Okay. I don't know why you're interjecting there at all. Um, thank you for the clarification.

This is like being like, there's there's three ways of feminism and I like, there's four and you're like, three's within four. It's like, okay.

No, it's nothing like that. It's like saying this. It's like saying the states, the reason that this compromise happened in the First Amendment is because a Catholic state didn't want the federal government to tell them they had to be a Protestant state.

So why did they just have.

They did want the federal government to say that they could have a Catholic state, and they did under the 10th Amendment.

So why is it the case that within like the first uh federal address, all of the states were extremely upset because they mentioned nothing about God? There was no establishment of America as a nation of God. There are ways, for example, that they probably could have compromised between all of the religions so that it wasn't saying a Catholic leader, but just saying a Christian leader, right? They could have done that, but they didn't do that explicitly to the upset, actually to the upset of the religious leaders, to the upset of some of the founding fathers.

It's because.

So why did they do that?

Because Protestants didn't consider Catholics to be Christians. That's why.

That that's not why.

It is why.

No, the TJ writes about this. The reason why, right, and you have this in the Federalist Papers, the reason why is because they were breaching away from a king who was also a spiritual leader, right, in the UK. And they had a huge issue with it. They viewed this blend of church and state, especially at a federal level, as a problem. In fact, I suspect if you go into it, a lot of the founding fathers thought that all the states shouldn't have a state level religion. They just weren't going to comment on that because they needed to unify the countries. Correct. Over time, the colonies adopted the exact same framework. A couple of them let each other.

So, first of all, there was a couple a couple of them who didn't want to. That's true. But the thing is is like the entirety, the entirety of the federal. Well, I'm talking about there was a couple of founders who didn't want states to have a religion. That's what I'm specifically. You're.

Talking about the deists.

Not just the deists. There was others who weren't deists, but by and large, most of them were fine with the compromise. So a majority of the founding fathers.

Is it my turn now? So here's what actually happened because since you have revisionist history that I don't know where you came up with.

Okay.

You couldn't say in the First Amendment, uh, that this is to be a Christian nation specifically unless you gave a specific denomination because denominations did not recognize other ones as being Christian. So what they did instead was they said, "Look, Congress is not going to make an establishment of a religion, period. We're going to leave that to the states." Mhm.

And then they put in the 10th Amendment. That's exactly what the states did. They put in their own religions.

Why could they have So why do they ban religious test clauses? You could easily make religious test clauses.

They still have them in almost every state.

No, no, no. At a federal level, it's Article 6. It's explicitly banned. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Because there could be instances where you had people who were representatives of states who for some reason needed to operate at the federal level, right? They didn't want to be like, "Hey, you're a Catholic, so your oath is no good here." Or, "You're a Protestant, so your oath is no good here." Or, "You're a this, your oath is no good here." That was part of the compromise.

Why didn't they just use the Apostles' Creed? I all both Protestants and Catholics at the time acknowledged the Apostles' Creed.

Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians. So that doesn't matter. They both recognize the Apostles' Creed isn't Catholic or Protestant. It's just Christian, right? Whether or not they would fight about who's a heretic or not. Why not if you want a religious test clause that compromises between these two religions? Why didn't they just write in the Apostles' Creed? I'm sure they were familiar with it.

Because they didn't recognize each other as Christians. Meaning at the federal level, if you sworn in as a Catholic, let's say, right, in order to [ __ ] I don't know, help with some piece of legislation or do something that you weren't, you know, you were supposed to do at the federal level, the Protestant nations or states might be like, "We don't recognize that cuz that's an oath of a Catholic." So, at the federal level, they had to stay secular.

Would have said that the Apostles' Creed is Catholic.

What does the Apostles' Creed have to do with anything we're talking about?

The Apostles' Creed is like one of the central creeds to like what we say is Christian. So what? That has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Of course it does. Why would So you said if a Catholic takes the Apostles' Creed, why don't the federal government? It was not within the federal purview to make the determination of getting the states to compromise on the [ __ ] Apostles' Creed. It was under their purview to say, "Hey, what we're going to do is make it so that you don't have to swear any oaths from the Catholic or Protestant perspective, but rather we'll leave that to the states. The states can make it so that you can swear, uh, that you're a Protestant or you can swear that you're a Catholic or you can swear this or you can swear that. It was up to states perspectively under the 10th Amendment."

Right. But at a federal level, it was barred and you're saying nobody's disputing that.

Hold on.

I don't. We we're just like going in a circle.

We can keep going in the circle, but I'm not going to let this point go cuz I think that one of the issues is that what you're trying to do is say, well, because the states had this rule, that means that was the founding of America. And it's like, no, the founding fathers knew that this existed. Knew, for example, the Apostles' Creed existed and there, and they, and despite all of this, despite the standard of all of the states utilizing a religious test, they rejected. They not only did they reject it, they explicitly wrote it in in Article 6 that no test can be utilized. Despite the fact that the founding fathers were pretty smart, I imagine if they wanted a religious test in there that could satisfy both Protestants and Catholics, they probably could have found it like the Apostles did. So your whole position is why didn't the founders try to find some way that all of the different religious denominations could agree to some creed and enshrine it in the First Amendment? That's your argument.

My argument is that if.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Here's what they did instead. They went, "We're just not going to legislate any sort of formal religion on your states, and you can do that instead."

Classic Andrew, it's just absurd.

That is that's an actual absurd position. Answer. The founding fathers were pretty smart guys. I think that they could think about things. They wrote a lot. I think if they wanted to blend church and state intentionally, they would have done so. But instead, hold on. But instead, they explicitly wrote into the Constitution that they would not do so federally. And over time, all states agreed with that and wrote out religious clauses.

What was the 10th Amendment for?

I don't know.

Okay, we just hit the hour mark. Shall we.

You want to tell me?

Uh, shall we switch prompts?

The thing we've been talking about for the last. I assumed that you were going to give me more information about it.

What do I need to give you more information? You don't even know what it is.

We do have a TTS coming in. So, maybe.

Can I just pause? I think something. I don't I don't know what you're doing right now. Um, because I feel like we need to talk about these. Okay.

No, continue. Continue.

I'm going to wait for his tantrum to be over and then I'll go.

Okay. Well, let me I'll I'll let you know when it's over.

Okay. Are we done or are you still tantruming?

Me just sitting here as a tantrum.

You like were throwing in not willing to listen to me and throw your hands in the.

Air like this. That's all.

I'm doing cross eyes and like making fun of me.

Well, that was silly. It's silly to say that you think that the founders should have found some way that every single indiv independent pan-Protestant religion would find some kind of unifying creed they would all just suddenly agree to rather than them just saying, "We're just not going to impose any religious uh standards on states. You guys can do it yourself." Yeah, I think that if the uh founding fathers actually believed that the merging of church and state was important, they would have found a way to write it into the Constitution. They.

Did via the 10th Amendment. They did.

No, allowing states to have to have choice and purview is not the same thing as writing.

Are states are were states allowed to make their own religions or not?

Yeah.

Okay. That has nothing to do with for example saying that the church doesn't get a hand in statecraft, which is written exclusively into the.

Only at the federal level.

Yes.

Because they couldn't they didn't have a unification for things like oaths and other things that all the pan-Protestants would agree to at the federal level.

They just couldn't think of any. They they were like, man, we really.

This is your premise. This is your premise. The founding fathers actually really wanted to write in the merging of church and state. It was something that they really cared about, but they couldn't find a way to federally write these things in together. And so, don't interrupt me. And so, instead, what they did is they wrote it out and they just let states do so. They could sneakily blend in their their uh their blurring of church and state. That's your argument.

Truly, truly your intellect is dizzying. No, my argument is that.

Are we getting personal?

That the founding fathers.

Are we getting personal? Because you said no personal when we started this. Do you want.

Wait a second. You said my intellect. You can call me. Yeah, you can call me stupid. So the thing is is like I am so curious about this. I actually don't even understand the.

I just want to be clear that we're breaking the rules.

So the federal so the federal government was that was that really harsh? Like, truly your intellect is dizzying. That's harsh. That's a movie line by the way. That if we want to have a good engagement back and forth, we for example, agreed to things like not getting personal.

That's not personal. It's from The Princess Bride. It's a joke. So you only meant it as a joke. You weren't trying to call me stupid.

Well, this position's stupid.

Are you calling me stupid? Because when you say my intellect is dizzying, it feels like you're saying.

It is. It is dizzying. But the thing is here, I don't get.

I don't know why I wouldn't just that you're insulting.

It's like you go, you go, "Wait a second, Andrew. It would have been way better for a pan for the pan-Protestant and Catholics at the federal level for them to somehow agree on some kind of unifying creed." Didn't say better.

Or make more sense that they would agree to some sort of unifying creed. Even though Protestantism can also change, they can have like a new denomination which pops up that doesn't agree with this. And so they're like, "Wait a second. Instead of doing that, what we'll do instead is we'll leave it up to the prospective states and then they can impose whatever religion." Calm down, Kyla. I just want to finish. Okay.

Okay. The states can blend and always were able to blend church and state. Yes.

And yet the federal level can't and doesn't.

That was never in question.

So what is in question here is by your logic, the founding fathers.

Yeah.

They actually secretly wanted the church and state to be blended. They actually valued that because you're saying that they wrote it into the Constitution by allowing the states to do it. Which is implying then that the founding fathers did want church and state to be blended. They just couldn't write it in within the First Amendment clause. So they allowed the states to do it as a sneaky way to smuggle in church.

Lord, this is like the worst straw man ever. No, here's my actual position. The actual position is due to the Articles of Confederation and that not working, we knew that we needed to have a federalist nation. Otherwise, we couldn't have currency, a standing army, anything like this. Because of that, the states who were completely distrustful of having a federal government, cuz they had just fought off a massive [ __ ] kingdom, uh, were very distrustful. And so, they needed to sell it to them. The way that they sold it to him is they were like, "Well, since it's all pan-Protestantism, we can't figure out our foundationalism. We will take a secular approach at the national level and and what we'll do is institute the 10th Amendment and each of you can put in your own religions if you want to." That was the compromise. It has nothing to do with the motivation of the founders at the federal level wanting it, not wanting it, loving it, not loving it. It has to do.

Okay, that's great. But it you just said what you're saying is which infers that's my argument and it's not. My argument is there's a compromise between the states and between the feds. And the compromise was that the feds were not going to tell the states what religions they could or couldn't have. Period.

And was the compromise why are the fathers were the founding fathers compromising? Because they had a hope that the church and state would stay connected. They just couldn't write it in. Is that what you're saying?

At which level?

So they were hoping that the nation broadly would stay Christian within the statecraft, that there would be no separation of church and state. However, they couldn't write it in.

No, they they wanted at the national level.

To uh to adhere to the the idea that only the states could impose uh whatever their religious value structures are.

I'm asking, does it make more sense to conclude that the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state or that they did not want a separation of church and state?

At.

You have to explain express at which level.

I'm assuming that if they felt it at the federal level, they probably felt it at the statehood level. I don't know why a founding father would be like, I don't want it at the state level, but I actually do. You said compromise, right?

Jefferson, Jefferson didn't like that states had religions and he made that clear, but other other presidents made it clear they were fine with it.

So the majority of the founding fathers, do you think that they wanted separation of church and state?

At the national level, that was the compromise. Yes.

Do they want it though?

I don't know. I can describe you each of their motivations.

What's your presumption?

Some of them did and some of them didn't.

Do you think most of them did or most of them didn't?

I don't know if it's most.

Do you.

Well, you said well, you said a majority of the founding fathers. Well.

Theist. I said weren't.

Deists.

No, you also said that they were loyal Protestant Christian boys. So, my argument would be that these good old Christian boys all agreed that separation of church and state mattered. That's why they wrote it into the Constitution.

At the federal level.

They didn't even prescribe states having a state religion. They just didn't take the states' right.

They just didn't take the states' right away from them doing so. That's not the same.

So, the state So, they allowed the states to implement their own religions. At at a state level, but they would not at a federal level.

Then what are we arguing here?

We're arguing about whether or not the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state or not.

At the federal. We Okay, I don't know how else to make. Why would they want it not at the federal level?

At the federal level, they did not want a federal religion because states make a religion.

Why didn't they want a federal religion?

Compromising with the states.

Sure. But do you think that overall, if they didn't have to compromise, they would have preferred a a a federal religion?

Well, there wouldn't even be the whole framework of the nation would be so different. I don't even know how to speculate.

You're right. It would be completely different America if we didn't have separation of church and state because the founding fathers, despite mostly being Christian, despite being loyal Christians, they understood the necessity of separation of church and state.

Different America because there wouldn't then be states' rights, the 10th Amendment. There wouldn't be I the whole system would be totally different.

We're 10 minutes over.

So I don't I don't have any idea what you're even referencing.

If you want to like rewrite absurdism into it, that's totally fine. But it's pretty obvious that if the founding fathers wanted to have no separation of church and state, they could have done something. They could have employed in some direction.

I don't even know what she's arguing. How about this? We're.

Stealing over time on this prompt. You seem to be saying that.

You guys want to do.

I don't.

Was it the motivation? If it was the case that there was no, would the founders have preferred no religion?

So I've made already an affirmative claim which I said, well, the founding fathers, despite being dominantly Christian, despite valuing their Christianity, despite most of the nation being either Protestant or Catholic, went out of their way to write religion out of a federal nation, grounding America at a nation level as a non-religious nation. Nation-state. In fact, so non-religious.

So non-religious. Hold on. I'm not done.

Okay. Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Really quick before you go. Uh, we are a bit over time on this prompt.

It does give them some time to tantrum. So you can read your TTS if you want.

Well, do you guys.

What tantrum? I'm just sitting here.

You're eye-rolling and like getting upset, which is totally fine. Like it's an impassioned.

I actually don't understand what the [ __ ] you're even talking about.

That's kind of the.

I really don't. Do you guys want to continue on this prompt or do you want to move on to something else?

I just want to speak to that specific thing you said. That's kind of one of my issues with Andrewism. You're not attempting to understand what I'm saying in any way. And usually.

I just tried to steel man. You cut me off.

When I was trying to steel man your position, you cut me off.

I corrected you cuz you were steel maning me incorrectly.

Okay, got it. So here's the thing.

Well, if you're going to steel man me, you should probably be correct. Faith conversation. I want to understand you and you want to understand me. So let me summarize your position.

Okay, go ahead. My understanding of your position is that you don't know, you're agnostic as to whether or not the founding fathers wanted uh uh, you know, church and state to be blended, but you believe that essentially they allowed the states to do it so that the states could stay religious and they wrote it at a federal level because they recognized that they would have to compromise and they couldn't find a compro uh a good compromisation amongst the states because they were of different religions. Correct?

No.

How is that incorrect?

Well, the first part is what you're messing up.

Okay. It's irrelevant whether or not the signers of the uh constitution themselves would have ascribed for a state religion or not.

I think the founding election.

Is important. What's relevant is what they actually did with the states. The state itself, the prospective states are as much of import as the federal government. That's what anti-federalist thought. You have a federalist mindset for some reason. You keep on the I understand the disconnect. disconnect is you keep thinking that federal systems are as just are more important than state systems.

No, no, no. They're definitely not.

Finish.

There. Hang on. Not only are they definitely not, but that's where the disconnect is. Here's what's actually happening. There was a compromise that was done. The compromise was that there was no possible way that Catholics over here were going to recognize the oaths of Protestants over there. Not if the federal government was making the demand that you had to be ex thing in order to swear an oath or do a thing. So what they did instead was they said, "What we're going to do is we're not going to implement a nationalized religion. The prospective states instead are going to be able to implement whatever religious institutions that they want." They were perfectly fine with them blending church and state. Yes. Perfectly fine with it.

Do you think they preferred it?

Many of them. Yes.

So why didn't they write it into the federal Constitution?

I liter I don't know how else to explain it. Like I I.

So you're just saying the.

I don't know. I don't even know how to explain it.

Maybe a prompt switch. Maybe a prompt switch. I think we should probably do it. I want to clarify. Maybe a prompt switch could be good. Maybe.

Sure. The issue is I don't know if you want to have a good faith conversation or not. It seems like the answer is no. Because in a good faith conversation, we're both trying to understand the most like coherent version of one another's opinions. We're trying to actually understand.

Why did you just ask me explain it to me when I just explained it to you?

What.

You said? Then explain to me why they did that. And I'm like, I just explained to you why they did that. So again, then I was going to say my next argument against that.

Right? Which is that you're telling me that the founding fathers and all of their intelligence and all of their battling and their ability to do so much like found America, they couldn't figure out a way to compromise amongst the religions if they actually all dominantly preferred a blending, a church uh and state blending. They they just did find a way to do that.

So you're saying they actually did do that sneakily through the 10th Amendment.

It wasn't sneakily. It was up frontally.

Why wouldn't they just write that in the First Amendment? Why would the First Amendment bar the union of church and state?

Because at the okay.

If they wanted at a federal level.

Federal level, what they did.

Was they said, "Okay, we're not going to implement any religiosity on independent states. We're not going to do that ever." Because each independent state gets to have their own religion as part of the compromise that they made with the federal government due to the Articles of Confederation.

Or there's no or yes the well the or here is the more reasonable assumption. The founding fathers wrote in an explicit separation of church and state at a federal level because that's what they wanted. They understood that when you blend church and state, it corrupts not only the nation, which they had just separated from a corrupted nation that was utilizing statecraft and religion. And they recognized that it also corrupted the religion, which there was many issues with the corrupted religion of the Anglican and then Catholic and then Anglican uh Britain British Church.

No, that's not what happened. What happened first of all, they had not just done this, okay? They had the Articles of Confederation first. That happened first and what happened is they were just not able to govern as because each state was like a mini kingdom and they wanted their own currency and their own militaries. Okay. And so for like the common defense, they wanted to have some sort of federalism in order to do this.

Did they unify under one currency?

That was one of the primary reasons they wanted unification was because of a currency.

So why couldn't they unify under one religion?

Because uh what you wanted was you wanted to have trade between each state.

But when you're talking about their religions, they were this was uh pan-Protestant. So there was no unification there.

So they were willing to unify on a whole bunch of stuff, but they just couldn't for the life of them figure out a way to unify the religions because they actually did want the church and state to be blended. They wanted the church to have weight and say on statecraft. They just couldn't write it in at the federal level. So they just let state.

Well, who's the church?

The church would be the Christian church.

Who?

The Christian church.

Who?

Uh, there's multiple branches of it.

Oh, there are.

Yep.

Okay. So because of that, were there multiple branches which had different states they were in?

Uh, probably to some degree, although I imagine a lot of states mostly had a lot of everything. I suspect that a lot.

Of states had a lot of them had a lot of one thing.

Really?

Really?

Okay. So there was just like the Quaker state.

I mean, it was mostly brought up like that, the Mormon state, but it didn't. There was some, there was some delineation, but no. So the thing is, no. So the thing is, is like, look, uh, when you look at it, because of pan-Protestantism, each state independently is going to have their own religion. That had nothing to do with them being able to coordinate trade under one currency.

So say if one of those states happened to be Muslim, do you think that they would have been like, "Woo, they get to have their own religion"? Do you think that would have been okay?

No, I think I, I don't think so. No.

So, they did want a Christian nation.

Well, no. I think that they were banking on white immigrants not being, not being Muslim.

Sure. But they probably did want a Christian nation, and they had some feelings about the Catholics, but they recognized that they were more united than they thought, that most of the immigrants coming in would be Western Europeans, and so not Muslims.

Gotcha. So they had no. So but say, say the founding fathers did have an expectation that a lot of that a branch or a sect of paganism was about to be popularized in America. They'd be okay with a state just being some pagan religion, some Nordic pagan religion that a bunch of these white Europeans were appealing to?

There was, I don't even think that at that time they could have even. Hypothetically though, if there was, would they have been okay with that?

I think that you, I don't think there would have been a state-federal compromise if that was the case.

Oh, interesting. Why?

Because I think that the states would have been like, "We're not going to allow a Muslim state." So the federal government would have imposed a religion on them.

Except they wouldn't have imposed a religion necessarily.

They didn't do that. In fact, the federal government explicitly wrote that out.

That would make my point.

That would make my point.

How would it make your point?

Because if the federal government wouldn't be okay with a Muslim government, then they probably should have written in that you have to be a Christian government in some way. They probably could have found something connected amongst all the Christians to ensure racialism.

Okay. If that's what you want to.

Were they importing a bunch of brown people from Muslim countries when I wasn't looking or something?

Importing a bunch of black people for slaves? Yeah.

You mean the Christians? The ones that they turned into Christians.

A lot of them had pagan religions and African religions that actually, a lot of people. So it.

And then they put them all in churches and made them convert.

Yeah. Forced them to convert. That worked super great. That's awesome.

Well, whether it worked or not, they still were banking on Christian. Yes.

Yeah. They were forcing them in. But.

And by the way, they didn't even see blacks as being a people at the time.

You're right. So why? So one of the issues is, for example, they write about this. They don't want, for example, uh, black people voting because they were some of the states were worried about other religions getting in.

Yeah, because a lot of the black people held to pagan religions.

Wait. Okay. Who wrote about this?

Uh, I believe, uh, I believe this would have been in like Connecticut. There was a bunch of issues specifically in Connecticut around suffrage of women and suffrage of black people.

When I think like 1818. I don't have it on the top of my head. So long after what we're talking about.

Like 30 years after what we're talking about.

So long after what we're talking about?

Not really. I don't know why they really. Why would you think that that's not relevant?

Because what? How would that have any relevance?

Because the founding fathers at the time obviously would have known that the black slaves had their own pagan religion. Wouldn't they be worried, for example, that the slaves?

Why would they be worried about the slaves?

They were constantly worried about tyranny of any form. They were constantly worried about select interest groups rising up and taking away power from other people.

And that's why they put in the three-fifth clause.

Okay. Wait, what? Sorry. What are the three-fifth clause? Why don't you tell me?

Or is that a pop quiz?

That black people only count as three-fifths of the vote.

Right. Oh, three-fifths. I heard I heard a different word. I heard three. I didn't hear three-fifths.

Yeah. Problem solved. And they were banking on whites coming in from basically Western European nations, right? So they actually were a little bit worried about black tyranny. They just wrote it out of the constitution.

Well, they were worried about southern states being able to outvote northern states.

They were worried in general. So this goes back to suffrage, right? If you look, for example, at Hamilton's writing of suffrage, which is really important. It's one of the founding documents.

I don't know what the [ __ ] this has to do with what we're talking about.

Voting.

Yeah. What does this have to do with the fact that you still haven't acknowledged that the whole reason that there was this compromise which happened and that the federal government said, "From our perspective, we're going to leave this up to the states via the 10th Amendment," is literally because they wanted to allow the states to to put in whatever religious institutions they wanted?

Theoretically, no religious institutions, right? The Federalist.

No, they weren't. They, they, they didn't have the purview to tell the states that.

Yeah. So the federal government would have been opposed. Is that what you're saying? They would have actually been opposed to a secular uh state? Like if a state just got rid of um all the religious clauses that it had, they would, that be okay?

Under the purview of the 10th Amendment, states could do that.

Yeah, you're you're right. It's almost like the founding fathers didn't care about blending church and state. They actually cared about separation of powers. So if you want to ask me about the suffrage stuff, the reason why the suffrage stuff is relevant is because when they were talking about voting, voting is really important as far as like stakeholders. This is what uh Hamilton, Hamilton and Madison talk a lot about, right? The voter has to be somebody with a high stakeholder in the country. And they were constantly afraid that votes could get utilized in such a way that select interest groups could tyrannize other interest groups, right? Which is why they had lots of separations of power, like the separation of church and state.

At the federal level.

Which they cared a lot about.

At the federal level. You're right. The thing not in dispute.

Yeah. So when we're talking. So the thing that's in dispute here is I'm saying America and the founding fathers wanted a separation of church and state.

At the federal level.

Yep.

So what?

Uh, I think the federal level is pretty important. Is America important? Is America federal?

It's both.

So it, what matters, what matters more when we're talking. The system completely doesn't work unless you have both.

Does the federal government have hierarchy over the state?

No.

Yes. On everything that the federal government has decided has hierarchy over the state.

Yeah. So the hierarch, so the federal government has hierarchy over the state over everything. The federal government has the powers of hierarchy over the state.

Has decided to have power.

So by that same logic, does the state have hierarchy over the federal government?

No, because if the federal government, for example, decided to overimpose on the state, they would fight it in courts. Technically, the federal government has rule. It's obviously.

No, that's not the, that's not even how the system works. The states perspectively can override the federal government on all sorts of issues. When it comes to the 10th Amendment, that's what it's there for. That's that's the separation of powers you're talking about. What you just said was incoherent. If it's the case that the, that you say the federal government, yes, they have authority over the states based on everything they have the authority over the states with, it's like, sure, but the same thing applies to the state. What you're talking about when you say more or less important, that's not even a coherent question. That wouldn't even be the same system. It would be a completely different system. So, if the federal government decides to go to war and draft people, can the states do anything about that?

Uh, under the current law, I don't think they can.

Okay. Gotcha. And if the federal government, for example, decided to send the National Guard into Minnesota, have they been able to do that?

Uh, only to federal buildings. Yes.

Well, there's more than that, but yeah.

No, where.

The National Guard has been set in to just control riots generally across California. I mean, this year.

Only to federal buildings. I mean, they they go into crowds and disperse crowds like outside.

In front of federal buildings.

Okay. Gotcha. So the government, the federal government just can actually impose into a state.

In on federal property.

In like limited ways. Yeah. Of course.

Can they go in, can the federal government go occupy the state building?

No.

Okay. Then what the [ __ ] are you talking about?

I'm talking about a hierarchy of two things. Number one, the American ethos.

Yeah.

Right. This is where we all started. I was saying the American ethos is life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, ingenuity, creation, right? All these things. And you said, "Where is that?" And I said, "Well, in the Declaration of Independence as a start and what the founding fathers valued."

No, I didn't say where is it. I said, "What is it?"

You also said, "Where?"

Yeah. What is it?

And okay, I'm not quickly.

What is the philosophy of it? And you still haven't told me.

Well, you still haven't told me what an Irish ethos is, cuz all these things are searching. I did. Well, the liberty is the foundational piece.

Yeah. So, you're just referring. So, liberalism is just a reference back to a system. And if it's just a reference to a system and I can change the First Amendment liberalism and I can change the system within the confines of liberalism, you shouldn't have an objection because if I can change the First Amendment, the only thing you would be appealing to that I shouldn't is not the system. It's just your preference.

Uh, well, I would be appealing to what the American ethos is. Yeah. I I do not think America.

Which is what?

Free speech is one of them, right? The separation of church and state is a second one of them.

Also amending the constitution is one of them.

Yeah. With extremely high bar. And what's amazing is that Americans would probably agree with me that it would be un-American to remove free speech, right?

Unless we're go 20 years in the future where they don't.

Those people aren't American.

Okay. Do you think that the.

Wait, do you think most people agree with me that free speech is American?

Right. At this current moment, sure. Do you think most Americans listening would go, "Of course, free speech is American"? At this current future, 40 years from now, if our children don't believe that, they've lost what it means to be American.

Then how come they didn't have the same reference to it 55 years ago?

What do you mean? What?

Yeah. So, how come it wasn't, you know, if we're looking just a hundred years ago, we're talking about things like the First Amendment, Second Amendment, various things like this. You could go into a western town, they could strip you of your guns. That was totally legal. That was a violation of the Second Amendment, right? But the way in legal when you're talking about presentism.

It was a violation of being American, but they could just physically do it.

Well, at the time it wasn't ruled as a violation, was it?

Okay. Gotcha. So, but do you think it's more American to have access to guns?

I think that when you say "more American," it's incoherent. And here's why. Of course not.

You're just focusing on, uh, what do present people within the liberal system think is American?

No, I'm I'm actually creating.

Do you think in 1800 they thought it was very American to let women vote?

No, probably not.

Okay. Well, I don't. Do you think that right now that if I asked, "Do you want to take the right of women away to vote?" That people would say that that was un-American? Thank you. Thank you.

Wait, so do you think? Wait, so you're just saying America is nothing. America doesn't mean anything.

From the liberal perspective, it's just a system.

No, from your perspective, America.

Actually, you know what? I guess from my perspective, too, it is the case that liberalism, that the liberal identity, which is America, is just reduced to systems.

So, America doesn't mean anything to you. I think that it might have if you had something if you had some sort of like cultural glue or you had some foundational glue or something that we could appeal to.

Distinct American culture that we could point at, not just point to but see it historically. I did life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Those are slogans.

No, these are these are foundational values. Then how is it that if I change, uh, so in England, do they have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I think they, well, they don't have those specifically, but they do seem to have adopted a lot of liberal things like free speech. Uh, they have like.

They don't have free speech.

Okay. I'm not getting into UK. Uh, like.

Can you, you can go to jail for for insulting someone via text message.

Gotcha. So you would say that English people don't value free speech.

I'm just asking if they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I said no, they don't. That's that's they probably have different.

Is America the only place that has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

No, I think lots of cultures can have overlapping values. Which ones?

I mean, the same way that you just said that the Irish ethos.

Just tell me which one.

No, you stop and answer my question. Which one?

No, I'm going to answer your question. I am going to answer your question, but I'm going to answer the question the way that I would like to.

You're not going to answer it.

Do you just want to have temper tantrum after temper tantrum?

Answer the question. I'm asking.

Okay. I'm going to answer your question and then I'm going to have a meta conversation with you because I thought that we were going to have a good faith conversation because it's crazy. My favorite debate that I've ever had was with you when we passed a bunch of rules in the hallway. The one where we said, "Would you agree to being good faith?" And you said, "Yes."

Yeah. The.

So.

So you're just agreeing that you're being bad faith.

Brian, you know, Brian was there. That's not how the conversation went.

I said specifically that I was concerned about you making personal attacks about my husband and that you're not going to be good faith.

Yeah. But here's the thing that's funny about that. I went back and reviewed that conversation, right? It was no different the one I'm having with you right now. The only difference is that I'm actually holding you to the things you say. The difference is that in the. So for people who are unaware, when I say bad faith, I just want to be clear.

Forget the medical. Answer the question. You obfuscated. Not going to answer it.

I will answer it afterwards.

You're just not going to answer.

No. No. Write it down.

Just answer the [ __ ] question.

Write it down and I'll answer it afterwards. You can be an adult.

That's good faith. Is that good faith?

Yeah, it is good faith.

Yeah. I said I will answer your question afterwards. Write it down.

Just where else do they have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

I imagine lots of countries value things like liberty. I think most Western liberal democracies value liberty, for example.

So, Western liberal democracies have life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I didn't say life, liberty, and pursuit. I said liberty.

So, I'm I didn't ask you about liberty. I asked you about life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What other nations have that?

Uh, for example, so they wouldn't have the exact language, but liberty is held by most Western liberal democracies. Life, for example, is also in some version of the way that they would describe it, also valued by most Western liberal democracies because America's so great, we kind of set the tone of what the ethos of a Western liberal democracy generally looks like. In the same way, for example, that you said the ethos between Ireland and Spain is both Catholic and then their different culture. You're doing this like so when here's the sneak. I want to finish. The thing is is you didn't actually tell me if all western nations have. Just answer your question.

No, if you say all countries have. Because you did not say.

All western western.

I said most western liberal democracies share some. Give me one name. I said Canada.

Okay. Canada has life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Do they have free speech?

I said liberty.

Which I want a country that has life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

I didn't say that. Every single country shares every single.

Countries share that.

Yeah.

So in the case of liberty.

No. All of them together.

All of them together in the way that it's phrased is a uniquely American thing.

So, so just to make sure that answer, did you?

I just want to make sure I got this right. Only America, only in America can you pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's not what I said. And you know that that's not what I'm saying.

Where else can you do it?

Now, we're going to have the conversation about good faith versus bad faith. So, one of the things that has to happen when you have a good faith conversation is you have to actually try to understand the person. So.

Lecture the chair. I'm going to go off. Perfect. Actually, that's even better.

Really quick, let me let the two super uh TTS come through while we have you. All right, guys. Uh, we have Hail Pope. Thank you.

Hail Pope donated $200. It's Lent, so I'll be nice. She's confusing the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, which would also be wrong. Neither of those were unanimously accepted by the founders or their states populations.

Me when I make things up, I guess. Good job, Hail Pope.

Thank you for your message. We have one more coming through here. Uh, give me just one moment, guys. If you want to get a TTS in, that's streamlabs.com.

Oh, it triggered.

Hail Pope.

A second time. He's gonna pay double for that.

You got to send in another one. Hail Pope. Thank you. Thank you for. Thank you, Kyla. We have, uh, one coming in from Not Professor Dave. We there's a bit of a delay now because the Hail Pope one, uh, caught up our system.

Hail Pope.

Hail Pope.

He's raking in all those dollars.

There. There it is. There it is. But if you guys do want to get a TTS message in, you can do so. Streamlabs.com/ whatever. $199. There it is. Thank you. Not Professor Dave donated $200. Two truths, one lie. Attack of God is a social construct with an unverifiable existence. Ran through Rachel Wilson has a double-digit body count. Smoking increases the risk of lung disease and premature death.

I did not.

That's just in a Rachel attack.

Guys, rude.

Don't be rude to Rachel Wilson. Okay.

Rude. Professor. I sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't read it first.

That's between you and him.

Can I have a smoke now?

Yeah. Yeah, of course.

Okay.

Of course.

We can talk a little bit about good faith versus bad faith.

Are you done your TTS?

You want. Yeah. Yeah. We're all done.

I'm going to talk to the crowd. I mean, I can talk to you, too. Um, so one of the things that you're seeing me get frustrated by is that typically when you have, uh, good faith engagement, which the previous debate that we had with Andrew, that was one of the requirements that I talked about is specifically I was like, I don't really want to just do a debate with somebody who's just bad faith for like 6 hours straight. It's not super enjoyable. So when we say good faith, I just want to be clear when I say somebody's bad faith or good faith, it's not like moral condemnations. People are bad faith all the time. I'm bad faith some of the time. He's bad faith some of the time. But good faith typically means you're trying to hear the genuine version or what's reasonable to conclude from what they're saying and grant the and like grant some of their presumptions to build out whether or not that idea has flesh or not. So what happens though is that Andrew Wilson will often do this technique where he'll kind of straw man and pillary over like a couple of unique words and then refuse to actually understand what I'm saying. Right? So the obvious argument that I'm saying is wouldn't it make more sense? It seems a little funny that.

I don't know if it's fair. He can't respond.

He said, "I got to do it when I want." He said, "I don't want to do this. I'm going to walk away." He didn't grant it.

Right? So, when I say, for example, uh, in the case of States versus Federal, he's saying, "Well, the federal government did want church and state to be united, they just couldn't write it in because they couldn't find a unifying clause of of faith." That's what he's saying. And therefore, they allowed it in through, uh, allowing states to make decisions. But the 10th Amendment doesn't say states should make a religion. It just allowed them to because at the time that the constitution was written, almost all states had a religious clause for holding office. The issue is that if the federal government wanted, which is absolutely America, wanted to establish some sort of, uh, you don't want to be on screen when I say this, right? I said you don't want to be on screen when I say this. Hey, um.

What do you mean?

Oh, you just you just swapped it over to.

That's just a better angle.

Okay. Um, when, uh, when there's there there's a reasonable argument here to be made of what did the founding fathers intend, what was their actual vision and principle? Because I think it's a pretty good principle. And if their principle was they actually wanted no separation of church and state, they would have found a way to write it into the original constitution, even at a federal level, but they didn't. In fact, not only did they not, they explicitly wrote it out. So just because they allowed states to continue the practice that they rejected at a federal level is not them saying, "We want church and state to be united." They said explicitly in both this document and at multiple points throughout the, uh, Declaration of Independence, especially the original version that TJ wrote, that there is a strong intention of separation of church and state. This is talked about in the Federalist Papers. This is something valued by many religious people. And part of why so many religious people, the majority of whom were founding fathers that signed, signed this and agreed to the separation of church and state is because they had seen what happened in England. They saw the erasure not just of the state but also of the faith in the in the bonding of these two things, which is bad. It's bad for the religion and it's bad for the state.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good times. Good times. Uh, I just wanted to say, uh, Rachel Wilson, if you're watching, I'm very sorry. I apologize for letting that TTS go through. Usually, if there's something that's insulting to overly insulting to one of the guests, I will hide it. But that was a mistake. I didn't read the whole thing. I got I got baited and I read the first sentence. I was like, "Oh, it's probably pertinent to the discussion." Uh, Rachel, if you're watching, sorry, let that one come through. I'll have to. Andrew is back. Andrew is back.

Yeah. Why is there confusion? I think.

What do you mean confusion?

There's no confusion.

I'm I'm not confused. Oh, what do you mean? Uh, I was saying, uh, apologies for letting that TTS come through. I didn't.

Yeah, he was apologizing to you for the TTS coming through.

I didn't read it prior. I read the first sentence. I was like, it's probably fine.

Whatever.

I apologize. So, sorry, Rachel. Guys, Debbie's in the chat for Rachel. Um, shall we switch prompts or do you guys want to continue? We've been on it for an hour and 30 minutes.

No.

We can at this point. Let me read you at least before we, if you do choose to dive in the other prompts that we do have. Modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity. Sec another prompt, secular states are destined to likely revert back to religiously informed governments because atheists have no no moral basis for which to govern. And then the other prompt, Christians should attempt to maintain political power in the US and rule through Christian ethics as it is the superior system, which maybe we talked a bit about in from the first prompt. We've I think that's what the prompts are a little bit like slidy between them all, cuz they're they're decently related.

Interrelated. Yes.

Um, yeah, but I'm I'm happy to pick up wherever Andrew would like to pick up.

Andrew, do you have any insight on.

Whichever one you want to go with.

It's up to you, boss.

Let's do modern liberal values are not compatible with Christianity.

Oh, we're going to the last one. Okay.

Yeah. Well, I mean, if again, if you guys have a preference over something.

That one's fine with me.

Sure.

So, there are no Christian values in modern liberalism. It's just an appeal to a system. Sure, but the system doesn't have to be. So my argument basically say I don't think that Christian, uh, rule should be utilized as statecraft. I think separation of church and state is one of the most fundamentally important things not just for a state, but more so for a Christian.

That's an O claim. You agree?

Sure.

Okay. Were you driving that?

Uh, from my faith.

So your faith tells you that Christians should be liberal.

No, I said that the separation of church and state.

So your Christian values tell you that Christians should not be in charge of states. Yeah.

Okay. And, um, do you think that Christians who were in charge of states before were wrong?

Yeah.

You do.

Mhm.

Okay. Which ones?

Um, all the ones that came after Jesus and did it.

So you, you think that historically they just got it all wrong?

Yeah. I I think that like if you look for example at like if you I mean, we can get into the typological argument here, but if you look at like all of the history of the Bible for example, um, what we see over time is when we go from the Old Testament to New Testament and for those, cuz I'm not trying to do a pop quiz, just for those who are listening that don't know what a typological, it's just like a type. We're looking at types typically from Old Testament to New Testament. It's a pretty standard like apologetics or a theological argument that kids made. So when you look for example through the Old Testament, we have multiple periods that I'm sure you would agree to. Judges, kings, priests. Agreed?

Mhm.

Okay. So what we see is basically a blending, a high blending of of statecraft and faith that gets reduced over time with the, uh, final answer of Jesus, who actually actively and aggressively rejects statethood, rejects politics, and rejects any kingmanship. In fact, that's a large reason, not the only reason, but a large reason why the Jews felt that he was not the Messiah is because they didn't see a physical political kingdom unifying, um, the northern and southern kingdoms.

Okay. So, back to the O claim, Christians ought not, uh, be in charge of governments and government systems.

It depends on what you mean when you're saying that.

Well, you said that, uh, that Christians ought not do that, right? I don't think that Christians should try to push for a blending of church and state.

Okay. And does state need to be a nation?

When I say state, I mean a nation.

So how come it's only at the n national level?

Well, I, it would be at the, I guess when I say, so when I say nation, I guess I should say governmental level. I don't want, uh, and when I say this, I don't mean that Christians can't be a government official. Christians should not impose Christian ethics into rule of law. I have not, I don't know, I haven't thought about tribes.

But there's governments, right?

Not really. Not like meaningful.

Why is that not meaningful?

I would not say that anyone who's like a political philosopher would look at a tribe and call that a government. Usually, when we mean government, we mean post the invention of the nation.

What about a nation city?

Yeah, nation-state.

That's not. Well, a nation city, let's say.

The city itself.

If there's like a formalized Roman like to some degree, like if there's a formalized actual government, not just like a.

Sure, potentially. But again, I would need to know what we're talking about here. I need like more specific examples.

Like you have a city that has 100,000 people in it and they they have a government there, right? That government should not, uh, mix church and state.

Yeah. They shouldn't rule with Christian ethics as a thing that makes laws.

Okay. What should they rule with?

Uh, consensus. Cuz I like democracy.

Consensus.

Yeah.

Okay. And and more importantly, laws have to be what works.

And what happens when the consensus says kill babies?

Well, that would be against like what works, right?

No.

Yeah. It's a nation is not going to work very well if they kill other babies.

A nation would work just fine if they kill other people's babies.

Uh, no, because that nation would be then a target for probably war, not just from that nation, but probably neighboring nations because it seems like in general, most people have this emergent value of not killing babies.

Okay. I don't understand. Let's say that for like 100 years, a nation kills every third baby that comes up in the nation. It's like overpopulated. So they just take a rock and bash its [ __ ] brains in. I don't have China as an example.

How's that not working?

Oh, it seems like it was really, really bad for China. It seems like it was really bad for the fact that people don't like seeing dead babies cured everywhere. Uh, it seems like it crushed their population.

As long as the nation though consents to that.

Well, it's not just about what the nation consents to, right?

Yes. You said and your exact words, I wrote them down. They should rule via consent because I like consent because I like democracy.

Yeah. So when I say rule by consent, that doesn't mean that statecraftsmen aren't imposing laws that are reasonable and work, right? The law is about like what makes a state work.

Yeah. But there's no contradiction in how the state would not work if they killed every third child.

How would that state logistically work? I feel like that state.

It would work fine. They used to do it all the time. They used to sacrifice children all the time inside of Rome, inside of many states. Sure. And it worked just fine.

Well, not really. Like I would argue. Well, I would argue a lot of the. Where are Where are those nation states?

They lasted a lot longer than America, some of them.

Where are they?

Well, are you saying that? So, that's a fallacious argument. You're saying because this didn't continue in perpetuity, that means it didn't work? That I could just say, well, don't you agree that America as it exists right now is not going to exist in perpetuity? Therefore, it doesn't work.

Probably because there theoretically and hopefully there'll be better systems that emerge.

Okay. So, then it doesn't work.

Uh, by and large, no. Not by what I mean.

What? Okay. So, I just want to make sure.

So, Rome didn't fall, right? Just because of one thing. But when we look at, for example, a nation that kills every third baby.

Can you grab me another beer while you're up?

This probably wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Number one, citizens don't like killing their babies.

But if they did.

They don't.

Yeah. But if they did.

They don't. Yeah, but if they did.

What what what person enjoys killing their babies?

Like a pagan nation, let's say.

I I would basically argue that they don't enjoy killing their babies either. Usually, like even when you look at pagan nations where babies are killed, right, often times when you can find evidence for it, the mother of that child, for example, or the father of that child are completely opposed to it. It's usually forced upon them, right? They don't enjoy it necessarily. And usually the child sacrifice was occurring.

But if there's consensus, what grounds would you oppose the consensus?

What makes the state work best for most of the people?

Yeah. And most people have now given you consensus that this is working best for us.

They, you can't give consensus that this is working for us. We actually have to look at like material like outcomes, right? So for example, how we know that America's law system works pretty well, although there are problems, is the fact that our military is the strongest, we have the most amount of scientific output, which is awesome, right? That we are the number one currency in the world, the largest like thing. So we know, okay, the system that we consentally kind of erected around for the most part works pretty well. It's a pretty competitive system.

Okay. But that's post hoc. Does do you agree with me that it takes time for you to gather data on a system which is implemented?

Yeah.

Okay. Great. So we've seen over history. So for 5 years, we have a consensus that we kill every third baby and the people go along with it and they adore it. They think it's great. We don't have the data to show them how wrongheaded they are yet.

I don't think that would emerge.

So okay, but it has emerged.

I I think it's.

But it has. No, it has not.

Yes, it definitely has. There's definitely been many nations where they kill their children, including China. So, I don't know what you're talking about.

But it didn't work. In fact, one of the.

Yeah, it you that's post hoc. That's you post hawking. It didn't work after the fact. We're talking about in the fact.

That's how you develop state.

In the fact though.

In when it's happening.

Yeah.

What are you appealing to to oppose it?

Me personally.

Yeah.

Oh, me personally. Well, I'm a defined command theorist. I would say that murdering babies is wrong.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.

No, it's just relativistic.

Well, why is consensus good? It's not ontologically good.

Okay. Good. So.

I think it makes the most. I think for the most part. Well, I can answer you.

All right.

Breathe. You're going to be okay. So, for the most part, I think that for example, consensus is good because it's worked. I think it's worked in so far as America mostly has a democratic consensus type system, which has worked pretty damn well. I think the world outside is pretty good. There are a lot of problems that people will point to, but I think America overall is a pretty good nation. And I think most Western liberal democracies are better than we've ever developed any at any time in history.

So the grounds that you would oppose a consensus of killing every third baby would be Christian ethics, right?

Well, it would probably be multiple things. Yeah. That I would appeal to. Like I would use multiple evidences for it.

Well.

The reason I personally wouldn't kill babies is because I think it's wrong to murder babies.

Okay. Gotcha.

Yeah. So the consensus would be wrong.

Uh, against my morals. Yeah.

Okay. So you hold so you hold a form of dualism.

Uh, no, this is it would be relativism.

Well, d well, not really.

Not relativism. It's relativistic is probably the better.

Relativistic perhaps, but it's this sounds like dual ethics.