From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/16/2026 8:55 AM, 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)