From: fedora@fea.st
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:58:35 -0800, Dude wrote:
>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.
That would mean a rule of public debate is that debaters must not lie,
or pass untrue information along.
>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.
> >
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
