Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[mcrit]

mcrit wrote:

reality check wrote:
Why?

Prove it so that I can either confirm or refute my suspicion that you are not much more than a coffee house intellectual. You have made a claim. You have said that you know that God does not exist. That is fair enough. Now produce the goods; that is what separates thought from opinion. Show me how big your mind is.

......ahhhhhhhhh............I got nothin'........

Enjoy the skim latte.........

[. ._]

Maybe you're just stirring the pot here, Heddster

Never!

If one assumes that someone with a high IQ is "smart"
and someone with a low IQ is "dumb" (not sure I fully
agree with that, but let's run with it) ...

It stands to reason that a smart person wouldn't have
to work very hard to earn the same amount of money
as a dumb person.

If you agree with the above, then ...

If that smart person was motivated to do so, if he worked
very very hard indeed, he could accumulate considerable
wealth. If that's how he chose to spend his time. Hint:
read Warren Buffet's biography, "Snowball" to learn a
little bit more about him.

The IQ's of the three richest men on Forbes' list
tend to confirm this theory.

For a counter-point to disprove this theory ... could
you find me a single person with a measured IQ well
to the left hand side of the bell curve - say 70 - that
has personally accumulated (and kept) a billion dollars
in his lifetime?

I planned a big Marxist response to this, then I thought, aw @#$! it. I'll read "The Snowball" (This is the one you mean, right?)

http://www.randomhouse.com/bantamdell/snowball/

If I got into a pissing match, it would just end up like a conversation on a motorcycle.

Whaaaaa??? Yeah!!!! NO! Whaaa??? NO, YEAAAAH!!! OH!!!! Noo!!(shake head) Whaaa??? OK!!! (hand gesture)

-istp

[reality check]

Enjoy the skim latte.........

Are you hitting on me?

[Hedley]

You will enjoy "Snowball" - at least, I did

a big Marxist response to this

I thought that Karl Marx rejected entirely the concept
of personal ownership of material goods - wasn't everything
supposed to be owned by the state? - so the concept of
success in the pursuit of personal ownership wouldn't really
make much sense in the context of Marxism, since it
is entirely invalid.

But I may be mistaken. So many "ism's", so little time!

[mcrit]

Are you hitting on me?

Post a video of you eating an ice cream cone and then I'll decide.......

[reality check]

It's funny you should ask. I just had a quick bite last night!

iphone-wallpaper-vida-guerra-icecream.jpg (114.57 KiB) Viewed 449 times

[mcrit]

Yep, I'd for sure hit that.

[Hedley]

Don't! I know for sure she has genital warts. Don't
ask me how I know ....

[mcrit]

Don't! I know for sure she has genital warts. Don't
ask me how I know ....

So.......just double wrap Mr Happy.......what's a little latex between friends?

[ottawa,kan]

Well Hedley old boy, assuming you were serious, cuz like ol ISTP I have my doubts, you really haven't provided any evidence of the actual IQ of your three rich guys. I mean we might as well promote Forest Gump as the stupid rich guy. How about a Nobel Prize in Science as an IQ stand in. Short of the prize money were any of those guys/gals rich? For instance the only person to win the prize twice in science ( obviously Peace doesn't count, economics shouldn't but I'll allow it and there isn't one for Math) was Madam Curie. Not rich. Einstein? Not Rich. Nils Bohr? Not rich. Can't actually think of a rich Nobel Science winner. Lack of motivation maybe?

[OhKiE DoHkIe]

KNEEL BEFORE YOUR GOD, BABYLON!

..and while you're all at it...read a little.



It's actually very interesting (and drôle) to read the many delusional opinions.

[OhKiE DoHkIe]

What? No Creationists on here care to reply to the work of Richard Dawkins?

Hell must be serving ice cream.