From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:43:07 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2/10/2026 11:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 22:59:09 -0500, Noah Sombrero    
   >> wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:12:36 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/10/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:49:10 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the   
   >>>>>> belief that life is meaningless. YMMV.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's the thing.  Moral principles need not be meaningful.  It is   
   >>>>> enough to have them and understand their worth to a meaningless human   
   >>>>> being.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> We studied this at the community college: Political Science (a required   
   >>>> course).   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Natural law proponents, from Aristotle to John Locke, have argued that   
   >>>> laws enacted by governments are only valid if they conform to a higher,   
   >>>> natural, and moral law. It's the basis for inalienable rights such as   
   >>>> life, liberty, and property.   
   >>>   
   >>> You snuck that last one in yourself, didn't you?   
   >>>   
   >>> I think that statement is far too idealistic.  Social structures need   
   >>> laws that detail what happens if I kill your dog or you kill my cat,   
   >>> metaphorically.   
   >>>   
   >>> Happenings that are too trivial to require a natural law, but for   
   >>> which there must be consequences.   
   >>   
   >> Because social structures can arbitrarily be anything at all.  And,   
   >> when in rome...   
   >>   
   >> So social structures cannot be the basis for natural law or any   
   >> universal principle.   
   >   
   >You have it backwards. Natural law is the basis for useful well working   
   >social structures that actually benefit people.   
      
   Social structure cannot be the basis because they are random.  While   
   natural law would, of course be unchangeable.   
      
   >useful well working social structures that actually benefit people.   
      
   It is interesting how you think your opinions would do that.   
      
   >Laws and social standards that run counter to natural law do not work to   
   >the overall benefit of the people.   
      
   People who study such things tell us that social structure was the   
   thing that allowed humans to rise above other ape types, because   
   structures make decisions so much quicker and easier, which is a   
   crucial advantage.   
      
   The example given was a male chimp, a banana, and a female chimp in   
   heat.  Which does the male chimp choose?  Observation shows that the   
   chimp dallies with no decision until the female looses interest and   
   wanders away, then the male goes for the banana.   
      
   Humans suffer no such confusions.  The decision in this case depends   
   on whether the social structure is anally fixated or orally fixated.   
   If orally, go for the banana, by the time you are finished with that,   
   the female will probably still be around.   
      
   The natural law involved then would be that it really doesn't matter   
   as long as decisions can be quickly and easily reached, right or   
   wrong.  And given that babies are more likely to get born and reach   
   breeding age.  There is the source of natural laws.   
      
   >Universal principles exist.   
      
   Unfortunately you have assigned your opinions to them.  No, you have   
   no such power.   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)