From: fedora@fea.st
On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 13:15:49 -0800, Dude wrote:
>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.
Maybe you should ask him.
>> 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.
Stop by the house. I will show you my degrees.
>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.
That's a pretty big we. We have some here who contest the use of such
we's.
>Natural law is the framework for human rights.
You mean the opinions of people who might enumerate 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.
--
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)
|
