On 3/23/2012 12:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > 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.
>
> You think that the be-all and end-all is whether you have formally
> studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
> mathematical logic and set theory but

Bullshit. Those are fields you necessarily would have had to study to
obtain a Ph.D. in mathematics. If some medieval French literature twit
were to make that claim about mathematical logic and set theory, it
would be plausible (although not very believable), but not a Ph.D. in math.