> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Justinian will get the "respect" of eating gravel while his wrists are broken by a traffic cop as 100 people watch from their cars and grin

Frenzy the day your boss holds you out as an example of a fubar loser to your coworkers, is a day you should think about leaving on your terms

I dont know what that means so ill just smile

Frenzy
My President is black, infact hes half white so even in a racist mind hes half right

humi got pwnd at school

> Justinian I wrote:

> My point being that fulfilling the model of a "man" is not selected for or beneficial in this world. Most of the most powerful people in the world became powerful because they were ruthless in many ways, taking leisure in ethics and law. Their power has made them arrogant and even licentious. If being a "man" had a return, then more powerful men would do it. In fact, more men would be "men," but since it doesn't have a return only fools try to be "men."

the smartest people in the world arent the richest and most powerful men  in the world, so obviously your immense value on power and wealth is ill placed. it is brainwashing that has turned you into a consumer that has made you value wealth so highly.

> avogadro wrote:

> > Justinian I wrote:

> My point being that fulfilling the model of a "man" is not selected for or beneficial in this world. Most of the most powerful people in the world became powerful because they were ruthless in many ways, taking leisure in ethics and law. Their power has made them arrogant and even licentious. If being a "man" had a return, then more powerful men would do it. In fact, more men would be "men," but since it doesn't have a return only fools try to be "men."

the smartest people in the world arent the richest and most powerful men  in the world, so obviously your immense value on power and wealth is ill placed. it is brainwashing that has turned you into a consumer that has made you value wealth so highly.

I don't see the problem with that. MIT doesn't have thousands of dollars to throw at its profs every minute they work. Besides, a professional academic career is highly rewarding, writing books to sell to your captive audience, easy hours, good pay. I'd lose my sight beyond that job completely. Its cozy.

> EliteInternetWarrior wrote:

> > xeno syndicated wrote:

> Teachers get respect; students give it, because teachers have earned it while students have not.

Depends on the teacher. I didn't respect my history teacher who said Kasserine Pass was an American victory. Moron.

I go by what I see, not what people tell me. If he acts like an educated and knowledgeable person, then sure. But you have plenty of bachelors/masters level people who are morons or who act like children when their viewpoint is challenged.

Sure, but generally speaking, that is why teachers tend to get respect automatically.  They HAVE earned it by completing their degree / teachers' certification.

This doesn't mean every teacher deserves the respect they get.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Avo,

I'm not sure what your point is about the most intelligent people not being the wealthiest in the world. You seem to presume that all intelligent people have the potential to become wealthy, but since they aren't they must value something else. But if that is your reasoning, it's fallacious.

everyone has the potential to be wealthy, any poor sap can become wealthy, doesnt take incredible drive. if you look at one of the smartest people alive; being intelligent means he would be able to see through all meaningless distractions, such as "being a man"; the geniuses in today's world, the people considered to be the smartest, had to be extremely motivated to accomplish what they did to be considered one of the smartest people alive. So someone is better equipped then anyone else, because they're smarter then everyone else, cant get side-tracked by meaningless shit, and are extremely motivated. what are they lacking, thats needed to become extremely wealthy and powerful? obviously the people that we as a society, consider to be the smartest, dont put the value you do on power and wealth. All the Great minds, of the modern day arent in the millitary, arent politicians, arent people in the top 100 of the fortune 500, if your value of wealth and power was rational, that wouldnt be the case.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Avo,

I'm not sure what your point is about the most intelligent people not being the wealthiest in the world. You seem to presume that all intelligent people have the potential to become wealthy, but since they aren't they must value something else. But if that is your reasoning, it's fallacious.

Correct, Justinian.  It doesn't take much intelligence to become rich.  Take stockbrokers, drug-dealers, inheritors, politicians, etc. as examples. However, becoming wealthy while keeping one's self-respect takes a great deal of intelligence.  However, more often than not, most intelligent people, if faced with the choice, would prefer retaining their self-respect rather than sacrificing it for wealth.

Hence, those who are either willing to sacrifice their self-respect in order to garner wealth are, generally, of less than average intelligence; those who choose to retain their self-respect rather than sacrifice it to attain wealth are in a situation whereby they cannot discover a way to attain wealth and retain their self-respect and are thus generally of only average to slightly above average intelligence; and, finally, those who somehow attain wealth while retaining their self-respect are, generally, of superior intelligence. 

Savants (those of exceedingly rare high-intelligence), however, have a more difficult time with attaining wealth than that those of superior intelligence.  They tend to have personality disorders or eccentricities which interfere with their inter-personal relationships, and, because inter-personal skills are often essential to wealth creation, it goes without saying that such savants are disadvantaged in their ability to create wealth. 

Genius-level individuals, however, never have to worry about money, in spite of any inter-personal deficiencies they may have, as their genius is often proven beyond any doubt, and are rarely if ever left beyond the arms reach of any of their various sorts of pocket-picking "groupies".

I can't answer your question until you answer mine. It's a matter of understanding what your logic is, which right now makes no sense.

No. Keep it clean.

> avogadro wrote:

> Physicist / Engineer Kim Ung-yong
Bouncer Christopher Michael Langan
Engineer Philip Emeagwali
World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov
Sir Isaac Newton
Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire)
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Leonardo da Vinci
Actor James Woods
Albert Einstein

ect. 

these people were extremely motivated and made impressive works, but these people were not motivated for power or wealth. you know what desires wealth and power at all costs? common black culture in the US. you're just a [..].

(as for any mods stumbling on my use of the n-word; this use is obviously not done with excessive hate, and racist/offensive remarks are allowed in the politics forum when its ontopic, which my remark is)

you could say negro...

Voltaire was a kiss ass