there is no possible way in which spelling errors would suggest a lower probability of me being right
In general this is false. For example, frequent spelling errors (which is not the case here) signal inability to attend to detail, and may thus indicate low intelligence or bad epistemic habits. There are alternative possible causes for that, but it's still evidence, unless screened off by knowledge of those alternative causes.
(Apart from that, probability of being right may be irrelevant when evaluating an abstract argument that is not intended to communicate new information apart from suggesting inferences from their own knowledge to the reader.)
O.K- that much could be true, so I was slightly wrong there. But even a moron can come up with an intelligent argument in theory. In theory, if the evidence suggested I was a moron but in other ways suggested I was right, then concluding I was right and got lucky would be the correct answer. Therefore, unless you're significantly unsure about the argument it shouldn't really apply- i.e. weak evidence at best.
My apologies if this doesn't deserve a Discussion post, but if this hasn't been addresed anywhere than it's clearly an important issue.
There have been many defences of consequentialism against deontology, including quite a few on this site. What I haven't seen, however, is any demonstration of how deontology is incompatible with the ideas in Elizier's Metaethics sequence- as far as I can tell, a deontologist could agree with just about everything in the Sequences.
Said deontologist would argue that, to the extent a human universial morality can exist through generalised moral instincts, said instincts tend to be deontological (as supported through scientific studies- a study of the trolley dilemna v.s the 'fat man' variant showed that people would divert the trolley but not push the fat man). This would be their argument against the consequentialist, who they could accuse of wanting a consequentialist system and ignoring the moral instincts at the basis of their own speculations.
I'm not completely sure about this, but figure it an important enough misunderstanding if I indeed misunderstood to deserve clearing up.