On Jun 13, 7:53 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > 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,
>
> > No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> > with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.
>
> Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
> worthless and I was a waste of educational resources.

Not quite worthless, but not worth what was stolen from the taxpayers.


> Now you're
> saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
> more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students.

And that's true.


> > You
> > wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>
> I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work.

So, you're shirking and stealing from your employer. That figures.
You're unethical in the extreme.


> I'm working in a
> telemarketing centre, because I need the money.

So, I was right: your Ph.D. *is* worthless, so much so that you've
sunk to <scoff> telemarketing! Jumping ****ing jesus!



> I spend almost all of my spare

!!!!!!!!!


> time engaged in study and research.

Isn't that special.


> > > > 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.
>
> > It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>
> This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge.

I am, and I am correct.


> > > > 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.
> > > 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.
>
> > It's a certainly that you won't.
>
> You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.

It is a certainty you will not win the Field medal.


> > You'll be some dull plodding
> > assistant professor at best.
>
> Again,

Always.


> > > I am a talented mathematician.
>
> > Probably not.
>
> Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
> "worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
> just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
> professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
> talented mathematician.