From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/11/2026 3:39 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:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   So much of the discourse from the left is pretending not to understand   
   opposing viewpoints and deliberate misrepresentation. As a tactic this   
   makes honest discussion impossible.   
      
   Pretending to not understand is a strategic debate tactic used to force   
   opponents to repeatedly explain their position, which is more like a war   
   of attrition than it is genuine dialogue. This makes it seem as though   
   the left is simply seeking clarity when actually the goal is to   
   undermine the argument without providing a real counter-argument.   
      
   Condescension is a recurring tactic. The leftist says dissenters are   
   uninformed, morally deficient, or acting in bad faith. Rather than   
   engaging with ideas, they employ a "talking down" tone where their views   
   are assumed as self-evident truths.   
      
   As Thomas Sowell noted, the left often denigrates opponents instead of   
   answering their arguments, which can be interpreted as a sign of   
   intellectual insecurity and a reliance on slogans over evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)