From: fedora@fea.st
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 09:43:43 -0800, Dude wrote:
>On 2/18/2026 5:40 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> 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,
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
