From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid   
      
   On 2/16/2026 12:43 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   The connection is made: I think things, just like Goebbels!   
      
   (That fucking nazi Wilson).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)