On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > talent.
>
> > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > talent or not.
>
> I do know, rupie.

As I say, this is the funniest delusion you've had yet. You know
absolutely nothing about mathematics, Ball. You couldn't possibly have
a clue what my level of talent is.

> I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> outside your expertise.
>

It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study. I have a friend,
John Hadley, who has a Ph.D. in animal ethics. He respects me as
someone with good knowledge and understanding of the field. The
director of laboratory animal services at the University of Sydney
runs a compulsory program for students who are about to do Honours
projects using animals whereby during one of the weeks of the course
two people come and speak to them, one person speaking about animal
rights philosophy and the other (my friend Siobhan O'Sullivan, who is
about to complete a Ph.D. in political science) speaking about the
politics of the animal protection movement. John recommended me for
the job when he was unable to do it himself on account of having
recently moved to Bathurst. I achieved excellent results in philosophy
during my undergraduate degree. I am well-read in many areas of
philosophy, especially so in ethics. I have a publication in a peer-
reviewed journal in the field of ethics (not animal ethics). I have
presented a paper about animal ethics at a conference which was well-
received. I recently attended a conference about Peter Singer's work
and had many interesting discussions with many people there, including
Peter Singer. I may well publish in animal ethics in the future.

Am I an expert? Well, I'm well-read in the subject and knowledgeable
about it, certainly more so than you. When I've actually got a few
publications under my belt, I grant you, then we'll have more to talk
about.

Anyway, to get to the main point: does your knowledge of my interest
in animal ethics give you any insight whatsoever into my level of
mathematical talent? Of course not, the idea is quite absurd. You
really are quite profoundly disconnected from reality, Ball.
Professional help could well be a good idea for you.


> I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> for it, nor for any Nobel.

There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40. Andrew Wiles was only
just too old for it when he proved Fermat's last theorem, so he
received another form of special recognition. An Australian, Terry
Tao, recently received it for proving that there are arbitrarily long
arithmetic progressions in the primes. Terry Tao is about my age. He
was in the International Maths Olympiad at the age of ten and
completed an Honours degree at the age of sixteen. His IQ was
estimated at 230. I met his brother in the Maths Olympiad training
program, I recently met him at a meeting of the Australian
Mathematical Society. Terry Tao is much more talented and accomplished
than me, I grant you. He is much more talented and accomplished than
just about everyone.

The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
get that one. What my level of mathematical achievement will be is
hard to say at this point. I am actually considering options other
than an academic career, in the event that I get a job in industry
that will certainly curtail my mathematical research activities. The
reason I am investigating this option is because I have been
influenced by Peter Singer's and Peter Unger's work suggesting that
there is an obligation to take the highest-paying job you can and use
the money to alleviate suffering in the poorest parts of the world. I
do not think that there is such an obligation, but studying the work
has led me to become more motivated to take advantage of opportunities
to alleviate suffering.

The fact that I probably won't get the Fields Medal does not mean that
I am not a talented mathematician, or that my Ph.D. is "worthless" or
that I am a "waste of educational resources". The Fields Medal is the
highest level of achievement possible.

I am a talented mathematician. I have always achieved at a high level.
I am very knowledgeable and widely-read, more so than my fellow Ph.D.
students. My research is interesting and important work which has been
well-received at conferences and has already caught the attention of
at least one academic other than my supervisor. So far it has one
citation, in a paper co-written by myself and my supervisor and three
other mathematicians (however, I did not contribute to the writing of
the paper, I merely provided some of the ideas in it and helped to
check it). The scholarship my university provided me with was money
well-spent. What my level of mathematical achievement will be no-one
can tell yet, least of all you. The idea that you, who knows
absolutely nothing about mathematics, have some sort of insight into
the quality of my work or how successful I will be as a researcher, is
the most amusing spectacle you have provided us with yet, and it's got
some stiff competition. I can understand your thinking you might be
competent to comment on my level of understanding of animal ethics,
but the idea that you have some insight into my level of mathematical
talent is an absolute scream. You're just too much. Keep it up, Ball,
it's very entertaining. Say some more funny stuff.