Seeker

My stack is mostly SF. I've recently finished re-reading 40,000 in Gehenna by C J Cherryh. Not her absolute best, but pretty decent. The story of a failed colony deliberately planted across battle lines to tie up enemy resources. The long abandonment gives rise to interesting interactions with the local wildlife. (For CJC fans, it fits into the Alliance/Union sequence alongside Cyteen, etc., but works as a stand-alone.) Now re-reading Galactic North - a semi-linked collection of short stories and novellas by Alistair Reynolds. Highly recommended. I think he is one of the best hard SF authors writing at the moment. This volume fills in a lot of the early history of the Cojoiners and Demarchists and provides background on many of the characters who appear in his other novels. Despite these links, any of the stories reads well in isolation.

Somewhat off-topic, but do you folks with a Catholic background have any particular concerns or insights on Francis I?

All universal rules are wrong.

I think he had his own agenda, which is distinctly different from what we know of Jesus'message.

We are part-ape, part-angel. Let's just try to be the best of both, not the worst.

There is a pinned topic in the legal FAQs for non-US marriages. Please note that Scotland has different laws (see http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/regscot/getting-married-in-scotland/index.html)

& is just a way of writing & in html (in contexts where & would otherwise be used to indicate the start of a special character or sequence).

Make that 3+!

Sound like it's time to slaughter the 3-legged sheep! I hope you all have a good new year, in many different ways.

Merry yuletide, one and all!

Sounds like a pretty accurate characterisation of the Right to me.

I do not see that that follows. For example: A wild animal is typically unowned, but you do not have licence to do as you please to it. And for Mithrandir: a) Only with their informed consent. b) Only with their informed consent. c) Yes, although in the second case consent may be harder to establish because of the dependency.

I'm with Kimmy on this one. Yes, yes and yes.

This is a very informative and stimulating series. Thank you very much, and please keep 'em coming!

When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.~ Martin Niemöller

One incantation I think well worth teaching is the Litany against Fear from Dune...

I'm glad things are looking up.

And yet many great works are produced in response to constraints.

Although it's implied, I think you need to add "so far" to the question - I hope and expect we'll do even more weird and wonderful things in the future. I have 2 candidate answers, one obscure, one more widely known. a) Proving the undecidability of the continuum hypothesis. b) The scientific method.

Although that should work for this specific instance, surely it's better to take some action on the underlying problem. Who maintains the code for the site?

I would feel pretty uncomfortable about it. I think any belief system which supported that would be suspect, and would not hesitate to express my opinion on the matter. I would still think that they should be welcomed within the ULC, and were entitled to their beliefs.

Hello and welcome. Thank you for the explanation of your path. I look forward to hearing more from you. Blessed be.

A very interesting topic, thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see 3 questions... 1) Are there any here among us who would defend [Cannibalism]. 2) Should the ULC support those who embrace cannibalism [or other taboo practices]. 3) If there is a line to be drawn, how can we justify excluding some [possible] faiths. My own views on each of these... 1) Cannibalism is a term which covers a wide variety of acts. I generally think that circumstances alter cases. I do not believe that eating human flesh is in itself absolutely wrong. There is a world of difference between killing someone for food (which I would consider wrong), and reverently eating the already departed as you describe; or using corpses as a food supply in a survival situation. This is a different question from whether cannibalism should be legal. In a society where people may become food, there is an added risk (however slight) that people may be murdered for the dinner table. Would "I was starving" become a valid homicide defence? The cost of that risk needs to be carefully weighed against the loss of freedom in making it illegal. 2) I think we need to draw a clear line between belief and practice. I think all people are entitled to believe anything at all, however repugnant or stupid I may think it. Since the ULC was founded as a Universalist church, I would hope that it is open to all, too. When it comes to practice, though, I do not think that there is an inherent right to act out your beliefs. As (I think) Oliver Wendell Holmes said: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Mutual informed consent is the gold standard here. Above and beyond that are the legal issues, but Dorian has already covered that very well. 3) My answer here is largely covered above: I see a line in acceptable practice, but not in acceptable belief. The one case I might have a problem with is a belief that informed consent was not necessary for acting in ways which would harm another. There are many other beliefs which I consider wrong, but that one seems to me to undermine the foundations of moral behaviour.

I've never tried it. You may find this helpful... http://archive.org/stream/HammondOrganServiceManual-ModelsMM2M3M-100/M100Mm2m3SvcMan_djvu.txt

Good or evil is not something you are, it is something you do. We are all capable of both. We we can choose to do either. I think most people see themselves as good, and try to do the best they can. For many, though, there are other competing goals. Good is not their main focus. In particular being seen to be "good" is often mistaken for genuinely striving for good.