From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/16/2026 10:22 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Yet I do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)