On 3/23/2012 1:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 23, 4:02 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/23/2012 12:14 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.
>>
>>> I have not undertaken formal postgraduate study of the subject, no.
>>
>> You are not an expert in it. You are delusional if you think you have
>> either the intellectual or moral right to be wagging your finger in
>> anyone's face.
>
> I'm not wagging my finger in anyone's face.

Of course you are. It's the very essence of so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism.