From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 14:40:04 -0500, Wilson    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   There is a difference between thinking differently and lying.  I don't   
   grant that you do not know the difference.   
      
   >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 have been providing discourse all day including evidence.  But when   
   I point out the fact that you don't seem dumb enough to believe your   
   own words sometimes, I am accused of always impugning and never   
   discoursing.   
      
   I agree I have not heard a lie from you all day.  Even though I have   
   disagreed.   
      
   >I think you do these things because your ideas are weak and cannot   
   >support the weight of inspection and open debate.   
      
   Will rogers went to see the pope.  When he came back he was asked what   
   the pope said.  Will said, "we agree that there is something wrong   
   with the world and neither one of us knows what it is."   
   --   
   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)