From: fedora@fea.st
On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 12:13:13 -0500, Noah Sombrero
wrote:
>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.
So far as we can know such things.
>>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)
|
