From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 12:39:32 -0500, Noah Sombrero    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   My spell check strikes again.   
   Gobbets->Goebbels.   
   --   
   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)