From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:05:27 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   So a person might think who finds what they want to believe repeatedly   
   confronted with arguments they can't answer.   
   --   
   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)