On Mar 23, 7:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.
It's not a question of being "entitled" to talk about it. You have not
undertaken formal postgraduate study of moral philosophy either but
you obviously think you are "entitled" to pontificate about it here.
If someone offers me some paid work giving a talk about ethics because
they think I might have something interesting to say, and I do not
misrepresent my qualifications at any stage of the process, then I am
perfectly "entitled" to take on the job.

The simple fact of the matter is that I have quite a good knowledge of
moral philosophy and can do that job just as well as someone who has
undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, just as I would
be in a good position to give lectures on mathematical logic and set
theory even though I am entirely self-taught in those subjects. You
can choose not to believe that if you wish. Your beliefs about the
matter don't strike me as being very interesting.