From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:56:08 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/16/2026 7:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 05:13:24 +0000, Creon  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> At Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:50:06 -0500, Noah Sombrero  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:14:08 -0500, 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   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Christian principles.  Not universal.  Although it might seem like   
   >>>> that to a true believer.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you feel about the "perennial philosophy" school of thought?   
   >>>   
   >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> I remember from my communal days, sitting in a room listening to some   
   >> guy talking about, jesus says this, buddha says that, rumi says   
   >> thisnthat.  And so putting together what feels like to him a coherent   
   >> something which is none of those.  I don't think that works.   
   >>   
   >Not sure you've thought this through.   
   >   
   >They were probably talking about Aldous Huxley's The Perennial   
   >Philosophy, where he goes to great lengths to demonstrate the common   
   >themes which are present in religions across the planet, and tie them   
   >together into what he terms the perennial philosophy.   
      
   Sure aldous you can do that, but when you jumble it all together do   
   you have more than a jumble.   
      
   Intent:   
      
   Do you refrain from killing because there is something wrong with   
   doing that or because killing things interferes with your spiritual   
   progression?   
      
   After learning the difference between good and evil, as he should not   
   have, is mankind now doomed to be ever obsessed with doing or not   
   doing evil?  Or was there something more important for him to do here?   
      
   One eternal message of all religions is said to be:  there is   
   something wrong with life and we know what to do about it.   
      
   Is that so?, the monk says to the mother giving away her baby.  Is   
   that so?   
      
      
      
   >We read that in philosophy class in college. It's required reading.   
   > >   
   >> In tone and intent, it seems to me that buddhism has nothing like the   
   >> 10 commandments.  Although buddha does sorta say that you should avoid   
   >> killing things because it interferes with spiritual development.  Adam   
   >> and eve were thrown out of eden because they disobeyed and learned the   
   >> difference between good and evil.  Buddha says forget about all that   
   >> and seek enlightenment one way or the other.   
   >>   
   >> Sure you can say that, in effect, they hold similar ideas, if you want   
   >> to forget about that tone and intent stuff.   
   > >   
   >In some Buddhist sects, the factor of intent is very important. For   
   >example, you are a Buddhist walking in the woods and you accidentally   
   >step on a beetle and crush it. What was your intent?   
   >   
   >According to Buddha, it's extreme to go about sweeping the ground before   
   >you, in case you might encounter an ant, walking to the store.   
   >   
   >   
   --   
   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)