On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. It's really all about the ego
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?
>>
>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.
>>
>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?
>>
>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.
>>
>>>>>> I thought it suited you.
>>
>>>>> You think a lot of things.
>>
>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. Among them are
>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.
>>
>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
>>> arrogant and egotistical.
>>
>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.
>
> I find that rather unlikely.

You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. We know
already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
- guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
thinking people.

I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
friends and acquaintances. A very common defect I've noticed among
highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. You very
plainly suffer from this defect. Another is that they think they're all
Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. You appear
to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it. It's hard to say which
is the more outrageously offensive defect. When someone suffers from
both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.