From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/15/2026 9:02 PM, 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.   
   >   
   > 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   
   >   
   > He used "Logos" to describe the "divine order".   
   >   
   Thanks for clearing this up!   
      
   There are striking parallels between the historical Buddha (c. 5th   
   century BCE) and the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 535–475 BCE).   
      
   The similarities are centered on the concepts of universal impermanence.   
      
   Both teachers emphasized that reality is constantly changing, with   
   Heraclitus’s "flux" theory closely mirroring the Buddhist doctrine of   
   impermanence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)