Always put quotes around "vegan"
On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>>
>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.
>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. My
>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. It is my experience of you in Usenet,
>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. This
>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>>
>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,
>>
>>>> You are unqualified for it.
>>
>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.
>>
>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
>> the whole concept.
>
> I am not "any unqualified goof".
When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.
|