On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> In your unqualified opinion
>>
>> No less qualified than yours.
>
> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.
>
> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> about it.

You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.