From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/16/2026 11:40 AM, 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.   
   >   
   One of the rules of public debate is that the minute you accuse your   
   opponent of lying, you've lost the debate, because that's your ultimate   
   argument.   
      
   So, I'm wondering if he's just playing the devil's advocate, bu in a   
   clumsy way?   
    >   
   >   
   > 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.   
   >   
   Plus he hates your guts! That's been obvious for at least two decades.   
    >   
   > I think you do these things because your ideas are weak and cannot   
   > support the weight of inspection and open debate.   
   >   
   It is kind of weird, for a guy to debate the idea of innate human   
   rights. It kind of sounds like an argument against America because Trump   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)