From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/16/2026 12:20 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:55:05 -0500, Wilson    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)