From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:26:37 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2/11/2026 12:13 PM, 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.   
   >   
   >That is once again the exact opposite of what I'm saying.   
      
   You want to say that social structures can have some natural law as a   
   basis.  Natural law being your opinion.   
      
   I say the universe does not work that way.   You cannot make a natural   
   law out of libertarianism.  Or any other human ism.  Natural law has   
   nothing to do with the welfare or not of humans, except that nature   
   wants more babies and wants them to reach breeding age.   
      
   Whether your property is protected against those who think you don't   
   deserve it has nothing to do with anything that moves through the   
   eons.   
      
   Tyrannosaurus rex did not think it was entitled to anything except   
   dinner if it were able to catch it.   
   --   
   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)