From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/11/2026 12:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   Did Wilson say that? Maybe you just made that up.   
    >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   Not sure where you went to college.   
      
   Most everyone accepts the core premise that there is a universal moral   
   order, discoverable by reason, independent of human-made law or specific   
   religious doctrine.   
      
   Natural law is the framework for human rights.   
      
   There are exceptions: nihilists and dictators.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)