From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:03:04 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/16/2026 10:20 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:13:23 -0500, Noah Sombrero    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 17:57:17 -0000 (UTC), Tara    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On Feb 16, 2026 at 12:20:53?PM EST, "Noah Sombrero"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 11:55:05 -0500, Wilson    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2/16/2026 11:19 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:45:47 -0500, Wilson    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2/16/2026 8:53 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 05:02:33 +0000, Creon  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> At Sat, 14 Feb 2026 14:30:45 -0500, Noah Sombrero    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 11:27:02 -0800, Dude    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2026 9:52 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:27:41 -0800, Dude    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2026 9:14 AM, 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   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It kind of looks like two informants are not smarter than a   
   fifth   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> grader. Maybe they think communism is a better system. It's   
   starting to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> look like that because they don't seem to have any cogent   
   arguments for   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a closed society. YMMV.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone that's been to school in the US and Europe learned   
   that based   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on international law and philosophical tradition, humans are   
   considered   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to have innate, inherent, and inalienable human rights.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Learned.  Right that is how social structures get passed down.    
   And   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> true they must be learned.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> These rights are not granted by governments, but are possessed   
   by every   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual from birth simply by virtue of being human.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Unless they are not permitted by governments.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Including rights to life, liberty, and freedom, as established   
   by the UN   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe they need to get   
   some   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> smarts and read a history book.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, too bad the un is so toothless.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> So, we are agreed. People have inalienable rights. Thanks.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> Nope.  But you agree with yourself.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I agree with a lot of what you say, Noah, but not this.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Thanks.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The idea that there are universal, inalienable rights is undone as   
   >>>>>>>>> soon as somebody disagrees with it.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> Some rights are inherently part of a human being -- I use   
   >>>>>>>>>> the term "God-given", and perhaps I should star that with the   
   >>>>>>>>>> caveat that "God", to me, is mostly "Logos" -- the Logos of   
   >>>>>>>>>> Heraclitus, c. 500BCE   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> That idea is part of the attitude of those of us who enjoy such govt   
   >>>>>>>>> given rights.  It allows us to not pay attention to those who enjoy   
   no   
   >>>>>>>>> such rights.  It, after all, is not the fault of evil govt since they   
   >>>>>>>>> have no power to take away such rights, as they obviously do exactly   
   >>>>>>>>> that.  So, of course, we have no duty to confront such govts.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It is strange sometimes to watch the contortions of human thought.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> He used "Logos" to describe the "divine order".   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> The idea of inherent human rights does not depend on whether people   
   >>>>>>>> agree or disagree with the principles. Likewise the universality of   
   >>>>>>>> those rights are not disproven by a government's power to deny them.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Upholding the idea of universal human rights gives the repressed a   
   place   
   >>>>>>>> to stand and declare their dignity and liberty as they are fighting   
   >>>>>>>> against that repression.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It obscures the fact that govt's repress or grant and are responsible   
   >>>>>>> for that.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Even if the government wins the battle and   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)