From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   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,   
   > or pass untrue information along.   
   >   
   >> So, I'm wondering if he's just playing the devil's advocate, bu in a   
   >> clumsy way?   
   >>>   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)