From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/12/2026 9:14 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
   It's a debate. You have not made your point. You are either free or you   
   are bound. If bound, by what means can you free yourself?   
    >   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   You have a right to your own opinion, but you do not have the right to   
   make demands of others. It's a free country down here, you can say   
   anything you want to as many times as you want to.   
      
   It's a natural human right, otherwise you're racist.   
    >   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)