From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:55:59 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 2/16/2026 11:21 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Log, eye.   
      
   Oh, I think you are quite aware of it when you post something that is   
   simply not true.  Gobbets was wrong.  Repeating a lie does not   
   transform it unless the truth is also silenced.   
      
   What love said about the effect on you of your commitment to your   
   ideology.   
      
   He was always more articulate than me, and did not agree with me on   
   much, but on that, yes, that comment is important to understanding   
   you.   
   --   
   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)