From: punditster@gmail.com
On 2/11/2026 7:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> 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.-
>
You have a right to die with dignity.
> > 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.
>
You have the right to off yourself, or not.
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
