From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:28:36 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >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!   
      
   I think you repeat lies.  Perhaps you were thinking that would   
   accomplish something.  I do not grant that you are too dumb to know   
   what you are doing.   
      
   >(That fucking nazi Wilson).   
   --   
   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)