Is Theresa May really going to spend the next six weeks repeating the terms 'strong

[Peter]

There's just different *kinds* of intelligence (and stupidity), not just the one.

Ok, I will clarify. People who are recognised as being formally intelligent (ie with PhDs and such) and who believe this is an important thing in people tend to be boring ****s who I would generally try and avoid drinking with (at least partly because they never get their round in).

For instance, someone might be a bit ignorant but a good laugh. These guys tend to get the beers in.

[Ash]

It sounds like our priorities are pretty much the same to me.

"We will both have developed reliable techniques for discerning the levels of intelligence of people that we meet."

"When I meet and interact with people I don't try to identify how stupid they are, but in which ways they are intelligent [...]"

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend.

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

[Peter]

I'm not sure that's any less ethical than you "screwing over" the other blokes and blokesses who were interviewed along with you for your current job by using your superior skills, experience, etc.

Apart from the fact that a job application process is necessarily competitive whereas a round system is designed to be socially inclusive and cooperative.

Not getting your round in makes you a selfish ****.

[Peter]

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend.

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

Interesting that you look for the positives in people. I think, to some extent, we all do. If I am forced to have a conversation with someone I don't know then the natural reaction is to find common ground and talk about something where you can both make a contribution to the conversation. To do the opposite and start talking about something that upsets or completely sidelines the other person would be an odd way to behave.

I think we all try and interact with what we see as he positives in other people, it is just that some of us don't like to admit it.

For one thing, it sounds a bit gay

[Monty92]

You have missed my point and twisted my words, my friend.

There are various ways of being intelligent, and various ways of being stupid. I try to look for the positives in people. (Even the capitalists and their lickspittle running dogs!) If you do the same, you don't talk about it much on here. I only see you banging the drum about about how stupid people are.

I agree that there's an imbalance, but you can't say I am somehow reluctant or unwilling to talk about people whom I respect intellectually. Whenever I have cause to do so, I will promote or talk about something or someone I admire. If, for example, by mentioning the wonderful Sam Harris in a recent post, I learned that a few Awimbers had googled him and discovered his work, I would be absolutely delighted.

[redgunamo]

The Americans have a word for this, which is 'smart'. Smart meets not getting your round in because you are cleverer than everyone else and have uniquely worked out that if you don't ever get a round in you get you keep all your money and can go on to enjoy wealth and status. This makes you smart.

See also many other ruthless examples of fiscal cùntery whereby screwing people over is something to aspire to because it shows how smart you are.

Fine margins though. When does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

[Ash]

I'm not sure that's any less ethical than you "screwing over" the other blokes and blokesses who were interviewed along with you for your current job by using your superior skills, experience, etc.

Eh? Getting a job is the same as not finding your way to the bar? You need to recalibrate your ethics-detection instruments, mate.

Anyway. As a matter of fact I wasn't interviewed, I was hired directly by the CEO who I had worked for at another company.

[Monty92]

Eh? Getting a job is the same as not finding your way to the bar? You need to recalibrate your ethics-detection instruments, mate.

Anyway. As a matter of fact I wasn't interviewed, I was hired directly by the CEO who I had worked for at another company.

I was comparing it to you belittling the fact that people using fiscal c*ntery are considered 'smart'. I don't recall mentioning anything about getting a round in.

Or as Red says, when does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

[Ash]

Fine margins though. When does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

Here's an example: Ten years ago I was screwed over on a property deal. The value of that loss to me is now nearly a quarter of a million pounds.

They clearly did well for themselves there.

[Ash]

I was comparing it to you belittling the fact that people using fiscal c*ntery are considered 'smart'. I don't recall mentioning anything about getting a round in.

Or as Red says, when does "doing well for yourself" become "screwing people over"?

I think I had been relying to Peter.