From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:59:37 -0000 (UTC), Tara    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Feb 13, 2026 at 12:50:06?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:14:08 -0500, Wilson    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 2/13/2026 12:53 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 2/12/26 9:15 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2/12/2026 9:29 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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   
   >>>>>> inalienable, derived from human nature and  reason rather than granted   
   >>>>>> by governments, to be inalienable natural laws, there would be no way   
   >>>>>> to not receive them.  Nobody would die, everybody would have liberty,   
   >>>>>> and loving spouses.  The truth is you have no right to such things,   
   >>>>>> and far too many around the world don't have them.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> To be natural laws that are inherent, universal, and inalienable, they   
   >>>>>> would have to apply to everybody in the world, not only americans. And   
   >>>>>> when suffering people come to america seeking a place where they can   
   >>>>>> have such things, we could not send them back where they came from.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That is a deliberate misstatement of what natural law is all about.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Which is: There are certain principles that work better than others.   
   >>>>> When human law and society aligns with those principles, the systems   
   >>>>> created within that structure perform better, allowing greater human   
   >>>>> flourishing.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> what worked last century, may not work this century, and will not work   
   >>>> next century   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> the "law" can change when as technology unfolds   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> #god   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> That's not how universal principles work.   
   >>>   
   >>> Things like:   
   >>> - Don't steal   
   >>> - Don't initiate harm to or murder other people   
   >>> - Don't deliberately speak untruth   
   >>> - Take responsibility for your actions   
   >>> - Don't envy or promote resentment for what others have   
   >>   
   >> Christian principles.  Not universal.  Although it might seem like   
   >> that to a true believer.   
   >   
   > "If you were suddenly plucked from your life and sent back in time to live   
   >with people in Indonesia about 15,000 years ago (or even Ethiopia 150,000   
   >years ago), you would be able to figure out what is going on. The basic social   
   >roles, responsibilities, and civil rules would seem somewhat familiar to you,   
   >and you'd fit in pretty fast. How is that possible?   
      
   You mean like societies structured around slavery?  Norse and germanic   
   tribes whose lifestyle centered around invasion and conquering?   
      
   Who was it that stormed into decrepit rome in the final days?   
   Barbarian tribes from the north, right?  Not to mention the moral   
   decay that rome shows over the centuries.   
      
   One story from a roman historian tells of a time when politicians out   
   of favor plus families were typically publicly executed.  So finally   
   it came to time to execute an unfavored politician's young daughter.   
   There was a taboo against killing virgin girls, so she was publicly   
   raped and then murdered.  It is true that the historian expresses   
   great outrage at this act, but it remains the act of a society at the   
   time.   
      
   More people should read Edward Gibbon.   
      
   >Cultural anthropologists have long recognized how all human societies have   
   >similar basic norms of moral conduct. Marc Hauser, professor of evolutionary   
   >biology at Harvard University, has just published a paper about additional   
   >studies showing that people’s moral intuitions do not vary much across   
   >different religions all around the world. From an evolutionary perspective,   
   >that means that human morality is very old — old enough to pre-date any   
   >religion that exists today. Furthermore, basic morality is highly resistant to   
   >religious influence — most people easily reject religious rules that violate   
   >their basic moral intuitions. Rather, religions all tend to confirm and   
   >support human morality, because that essential morality sustains our schemes   
   >of social cooperation."   
   >   
   >https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/morality_evolved_first_long_b   
   fore_religion/#:~:text=If%20you%20were%20suddenly%20plucked,viol   
   te%20their%20basic%20moral%20intuitions.   
   --   
   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)