From: Wilson@nowhere.invalid
On 2/16/2026 1:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> 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.
Just because you think a thing does not mean someone who thinks
differently is lying.
You denigrate and accuse rather than discourse. You use deceptive debate
tactics instead of dialog. You imply and impugn character when providing
evidence to support your ideas would be more honest.
I think you do these things because your ideas are weak and cannot
support the weight of inspection and open debate.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
