From: fedora@fea.st
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:38:22 -0500, Wilson
wrote:
>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.
Not without attempting to discredit my motives and my sincerity.
--
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)
|
