From: fedora@fea.st
On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:10:42 -0800, Dude wrote:
>On 2/11/2026 1:39 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>You said he said that but he didn't say that you made it up ask him if
>he said that.
You are the one who wants to challenge my honesty. So you check up on
me. I am not feeling insecure about the whole thing.
> >
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>Anyone can print up degrees.
Anything can be faked. Ultimately, in personal relationships, those
who refuse to trust are unworthy of trust.
> >
>
>>> 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.
> >
>The key words are "We the people..."
And that statement did not preface propounding a universal moral
order.
> universal moral order, discoverable by reason, independent of human-made law
or specific
> religious doctrine.
How do you detect when a person thinks they have discovered such, but
have not really? They are the ones who proceed to tell you about this
"universal moral order".
> >
>We have some here who contest the use of such we's.
>>
>You may be on to something there! We does not include China: A one-party
>state with a "socialist-oriented market economy".
>Cuba: A "socialist-oriented market economy," balancing state control
>with markets.
>Laos: A socialist republic, often grouped with China, Cuba, and Vietnam
>as officially communist.
>North Korea: A hardline, centrally planned command economy with extreme
>state control.
> >
>
>>> Natural law is the framework for human rights.
>>
>> You mean the opinions of people who might enumerate human rights.
>>
>the concept of a natural law of human rights holds that certain rights
>are inherent, universal, and inalienable, derived from human nature and
>reason rather than granted by governments.
Like right to life? How many dead people are there in the world? It
does seem to me their right to life was alienated.-
When you are in the womb, there is no guarantee that you will be born,
or that once born, you will live 5 minutes.
But when you are 100, the guarantee becomes ever more sure that you
will not see 101 or 102 or 103.
You have no right to life. Witnessing a few deaths teaches us exactly
how fragile we are.
>
>>> 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)
|
