From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 23:42:41 -0500, Noah Sombrero    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 19:55:00 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >   
   >>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.   
   >   
   >How about the person who is trapped in a car after a crash, and then   
   >the car explodes.  It seems to me that person is alienated from a   
   >right to death 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.   
   >   
   >Unless you try and fail, then many people in the world would tell you   
   >you had no right to do that.   
      
      
   What I mean is that governments can grant that they will not impose   
   certain situations on you, which they still might.   
      
   But as far as the universe is concerned.  You have no rights.  There   
   is no natural law to base social structures on.   
      
   It there were  natural laws that are inherent, universal, and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)