« first day (292 days earlier)      last day (4338 days later) » 

Stack Exchange
Stack Exchange
4:38 AM
0
Q: Ridiculousness of having to specify a tradition

brilliantThe need to specify a tradition when you ask a question seems to me as the most ridiculous trait of Christianity.se Why on earth should an OP specify a tradition? Especially, in those cases when he would want to hear an answer from all possible traditions in Christianity? I understand a case, i...

discussion
0
Q: Chat format is terrible

brilliantI have recently become more or less submissive to the rules of this site - well. to one of them, that is bringing the extended discussions from comments to chats. However, it is really inconvenient for me because in chat I can't write long passages - only few lines at each tie. It is so tiresome ...

discussion
 
 
8 hours later…
Stack Exchange
Stack Exchange
12:57 PM
Eschewmenical - The Christianity Stack Exchange Blog: The Source of Catholic Conscience
Peter Turner on June 11, 2012

This blog concerns Christianity in the workplace and mine is the Catholic stance on the subject. Right now, 40 some odd Catholic institutions suing the US government over a contraception mandate that the Catholic Bishops believe   will cause Catholic institutions to violate their individual consciences, collectively. So, it would be tempting to write about how paying out of your own pocket to facilitate your neighbor’s purchase of abortion inducing medication might violate a Catholic’s conscience. But, I’d rather leave that up to the moral theologians to debate so nuanced an …

 
 
3 hours later…
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
4:05 PM
When did good old fashioned human terms like "murder" and "marriage" become legal jargon? 1880?
Then substitute "smoking" for "marriage" or "murder" in those arguments.
Finally, replace "smoking" with "human" and consider whether or not it is a good idea to make arguments based on A: the dictionary (sans tradition) or B: positive law (sans morality).
 
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
4:49 PM
@PeterTurner I also see you get accused of lying when you state that you believe something or other that someone else disagrees with. That strikes me as an invalid red herring.
@PeterTurner These arguments do seem rather shallow. I think the problem is we all know there must me more to morality than human will, but sans God it's hard to know how to ground it.
It is literally an open question whether or not a skeptic can have any moral system that is not relativistic. To me (and many non-modern philosophers) this is a disability to be pitied.
 
Peter Turner
Peter Turner
5:07 PM
@JonEricson Heh, I asked a similar question on philosophy.se too, interesting how these things repeat themselves. The comments were in relation to me saying on programmers.SE that I woudn't program something I knew would be sold to planned parenthood.
I like how people say Moral Relativism isn't "Taught" in schools. It IS schools.
 
Jon Ericson
Jon Ericson
5:21 PM
@PeterTurner Oooh! Might need to borrow and expound on that idea. When I have some time. ;-)
 
 
2 hours later…
Caleb
Caleb
7:50 PM
Absentee Notice: I will traveling internationally this coming week, then out of town more locally after just 2 hours home. Expect very low involvement and late response times from me until the first week of July.
 
 
3 hours later…
TRiG
TRiG
10:51 PM
@PeterTurner Murder is, by definition, unlawful killing. That's what the word means. If you mean something other than that, you should use a different word.
That's why execution isn't murder. It's why all sorts of terrible, grossly immoral things that never should have happened are, nonetheless, not murder.
@PeterTurner And marriage, of course, is a legal term legally defined, and also a religious term, and also a social term. If we're talking about legislation, it's the legal definition that matters. In other contexts, other definitions would be more relevant.
All I'm arguing for here is clarity in language.
@PeterTurner And as far as I'm aware, murder has always been a legal term.
> the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
 

« first day (292 days earlier)      last day (4338 days later) »