From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid
On 2/16/2026 8:53 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 05:02:33 +0000, Creon wrote:
>> At Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:30:45 -0500, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 11:27:02 -0800, Dude wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/2026 9:52 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:27:41 -0800, Dude wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/13/2026 9:14 AM, 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It kind of looks like two informants are not smarter than a fifth
>>>>>> grader. Maybe they think communism is a better system. It's starting to
>>>>>> look like that because they don't seem to have any cogent arguments for
>>>>>> a closed society. YMMV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everyone that's been to school in the US and Europe learned that based
>>>>>> on international law and philosophical tradition, humans are considered
>>>>>> to have innate, inherent, and inalienable human rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Learned. Right that is how social structures get passed down. And
>>>>> true they must be learned.
>>>>>
>>>>>> These rights are not granted by governments, but are possessed by every
>>>>>> individual from birth simply by virtue of being human.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless they are not permitted by governments.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Including rights to life, liberty, and freedom, as established by the UN
>>>>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe they need to get some
>>>>>> smarts and read a history book.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, too bad the un is so toothless.
>>>>>
>>>> So, we are agreed. People have inalienable rights. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Nope. But you agree with yourself.
>>
>> I agree with a lot of what you say, Noah, but not this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> The idea that there are universal, inalienable rights is undone as
> soon as somebody disagrees with it.
>
>> Some rights are inherently part of a human being -- I use
>> the term "God-given", and perhaps I should star that with the
>> caveat that "God", to me, is mostly "Logos" -- the Logos of
>> Heraclitus, c. 500BCE
>
> That idea is part of the attitude of those of us who enjoy such govt
> given rights. It allows us to not pay attention to those who enjoy no
> such rights. It, after all, is not the fault of evil govt since they
> have no power to take away such rights, as they obviously do exactly
> that. So, of course, we have no duty to confront such govts.
>
> It is strange sometimes to watch the contortions of human thought.
>
>> He used "Logos" to describe the "divine order".
The idea of inherent human rights does not depend on whether people
agree or disagree with the principles. Likewise the universality of
those rights are not disproven by a government's power to deny them.
Upholding the idea of universal human rights gives the repressed a place
to stand and declare their dignity and liberty as they are fighting
against that repression. Even if the government wins the battle and
kills every one of them, the knowledge that there is a reality which
transcends our temporal lives gives hope to the people to continue on.
The awareness that there are principles which are very real, that show
humanity the best way to be, tells us that those ideas will never die
and someday will manifest. Because they are true, unchanging, and an
intrinsic part of all who live.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
