From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/15/2026 11:46 PM, Creon wrote:   
   > At 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:   
   >>>>>>> On 2/10/2026 2:12 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 12:49:10 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Nihilism is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in   
   the   
   >>>>>>>>> belief that life is meaningless. YMMV.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> That's the thing.  Moral principles need not be meaningful.  It is   
   >>>>>>>> enough to have them and understand their worth to a meaningless human   
   >>>>>>>> being.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> We studied this at the community college: Political Science (a required   
   >>>>>>> course).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > I was confused by that as well -- Noah seems to have not read   
   > your paragraph accurately.   
   >   
   > Regarding objective ethics, I submit that study of Game Theory   
   > (part of Information Theory, part of Mathematics) can be used   
   > to develop a system of ethics.   
   >   
   > And:   
   > "Morals are the ethics of conscience." -Anon   
   >   
   > Just as we have "God-given" Rights to Life, Liberty, and the   
   > Pursuit of Happiness; we also have "God-given" reason, conscience,   
   > and a sense of justice.   
      
   I think you're being too kind, Noah's apparent lack of understanding is   
   almost certainly a debate tactic designed to wear out the other side by   
   repeatedly misstating what people are saying and pretending to not   
   understand.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)