From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:00:27 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Refusing to accept is not pretending to not understand.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Impulse towards repeatedly explaining your position means that you do   
   not accept objections to it.  Repeating is a worthless tactic.  If you   
   have nothing new to say, don't say it.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Above you see my counter arguments.  It is not my problem if you don't   
   accept them, but it is dirty pool to accuse me of attempting to   
   undermine the argument.  The argument stands, we have both said what   
   we think.  It should be enough to let it go at that.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Strange, I don't remember saying any such things.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Well, tommy, that is your tactic to allow you to refuse to answer   
   their arguments.  Muchly dishonest of you, I'd say.   
   --   
   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)