From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 11:05:45 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >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?   
      
   Neither of us has made his point, nor will we.   
      
   > >   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
      
   Certainly, and I have a right to tell you it is a worthless tactic. If   
   you have nothing new to say, don't say it.  I have a right to say   
   those things.  You have a right to continue making my point.   
      
   >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.   
   --   
   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)