From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/16/2026 11:19 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:45:47 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > It obscures the fact that govt's repress or grant and are responsible   
   > for that.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And so you continue to contort and I continue to not accept.   
   >   
   > Underlying this is your belief that you know the best way to be, and I   
   > emphatically say you know no such thing.  Which conflict, if nothing   
   > else,  unsays what you want to say about universal principles.   
      
   Again you misrepresent and pretend to not understand.   
      
   I'm not saying that I know the best way to be (although I do have   
   opinions), I'm saying that there *IS* a best way to be and that can be   
   discerned and done.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)