Vollidioten

Ich wollte eigentlich gerade ganz ehrlich einen Post bei Erzählmirnix schreiben, dass man, wenn man denn – wie Nadja ja immer schreibst, freie Meinungsäußerung für wichtig hält – auch widerlichen Dreck wie den von Nomadenseele durchlassen sollte und sich schon wer finden wird, der den vernichtet, und ich es deswegen nicht OK fände, diese – mal ganz gendergerecht – Deppin zu sperren, — aber nach der im verlinkten Post aufgeführten Scheiße eröffne ich auch in der “rechten” Kiste meines kleinen, begrenzten Weltbildes gerne einen neuen Platz in der “heul doch”-Ecke, in der Nomadenseele gut aufgehoben wäre.

Es ist auch billig, Irgendwen, hier Nadja, mit was zu nerven, was denjenigen nervt. Trotz allem fände ich es interessant, wenn die dumme Dame ihre Gegenmeinung äußern könnte. Das könnte sie übrigens gerne hier, und ich veröffentliche das (über meinen VPN-Proxy nach – Moment – gerade Hongkong – Account natürlich), aber ich würde dazu halt auch meine Meinung kundtun, wo ich mich auf Nadjas Blog ja nun zurückhalte. Wegen EMNadja. Aber hey, @nomadenseele, wenn du mal richtig ordentlich hören willst, und gerne bis ins kleinste Detail zerlegt haben willst wie doof du bist – die Kommentarfunktion unten kennst du. Offenbar gut. Ich spare mir jetzt auch Kommentare bzgl. “Eier in der Hose”, die dir dafür rein biologisch schon fehlen, aber ich fühle mich gerade echt schlecht, auch nur ansatzweise für Dich Partei ergriffen zu haben, weil du halt mit einem nicht gänzlich dämlichen Punkt gegen gänzlich dämliche Punkte angetreten bist.

Keine bessere Welt

Mir fiel gerade nach Verfassen eines Kommentars zum Thema Fette Vorurteile beim Arzt auf, dass zu dicke schwangere Frauen in einem Land mit einem der besten Gesundheitsversorgungssysteme der Welt sich offenbar lieber an einen Blog als an einen Arzt wenden, wenn es darum geht, ob “es in der Schwangerschaft nicht empfehlenswert [ist,] bei 1500 Kalorien zu bleiben”. Nun könnte ich an dieser Stelle systemkritisch werden, etwa weil Ärzte offenbar inkompetente Trottel sind, oder hinterfragen, warum schwangere Frauen sechs Wochen vor und acht Wochen nach der Entbindung nicht arbeiten müssen (dürfen!), wenn ihr zentrales Problem eine Gewichtszunahme ist, aber bei meinen Recherchen zur dort geposteten, zitierten Frage stellte sich mir eine:

Es ist für mich nach der Lektüre der medizinischen Forschung zum Thema und einer Menge Halbwissen ziemlich offensichtlich, dass der Körper einer Frau auf eine Schwangerschaft dadurch reagiert, dass er alles mögliche für den neuen Menschen im Bauch tut und der Frau auch ziemlich schnell mitteilt, dass sie jetzt ein Mittel zum Zweck geworden ist. Ein Mittel zu dem Zweck, einen neuen Menschen in die Welt zu setzen. Biologisch macht das Sinn – Bestehen der Spezies und so. Meine Omas wussten das noch – also, dass ihnen als eigenständigem Menschen eine Schwangerschaft nicht gut tut, weil es ihrem eigenen Körper scheißegal ist, was mit ihnen passiert; Hauptsache, dem Kind geht es gut. Da kotzt man erstmal ein paar Wochen, wenn es dem Körper nicht passt, was man zu sich nimmt – was sich (gerüchtehalber) mit einer Fleisch- und damit eiweißreichen und Zucker- und damit kohlehydratarmen Ernährung verhindern lässt – aber wieso finde ich dazu keine Studie, die das be-oder widerlegt?

Denkt denn keiner an die Kinder?

Nein, natürlich nicht – wozu auch? Die denken schon an sich selbst, bevor sie das können.

Die Forschungsergebnisse, die ich gefunden habe, zeigen hier leider kein eindeutiges Bild: Adipöse Frauen haben ein erhöhtes Risiko von Fehl-, Tot-, und Mißgeburten. Eine Seite. Mangelernärte Frauen hingegen haben ein enormes Risiko, bei der Geburt zu sterben.

Ganz, ganz simpel betrachtet kann das nicht ein und der selbe “Überleben der Spezies”-Mechanismus sein. Selbst in einem nordkoreanischen Arbeitslager bekommen Frauen Kinder – und sterben dabei, aber hey; das Kind braucht weniger zu essen als Mama, und so rein theoretisch ist das durchaus sinnig; der Embryo weiß ja nun nicht, dass er sowieso getötet wird.

Warum aber stirbt der Embryo von der dicken Frau? Da wäre ja genug zu holen?

Da denke ich dann an ein Experiment mit Mäusen: Die pflanzen sich fort wie doof (also, wie Katzen, nicht nur wie Hasen) – bis zu einem gewissen Punkt. Nämlich einem ziemlich klaren Populations-pro-Raum-Punkt. Egal, wie viele Ressourcen (Essen) man ihnen gibt, irgendwann hören die auf. Nicht, dass sie keinen Sex mehr hätten (auch wenn auch das abnimmt), da kommen schlicht keine Mäuse mehr bei rum. Die Population stirbt (fast) aus. Aber nicht ganz, irgendwann geht es wieder los mit der schnellstmöglichen Fortpflanzung. Und wieder. Und von vorne.

An dieser Stelle wundert es mich nicht, dass es hierzu keine Studien gibt, die die Übertragbarkeit dieses Phänomens auf Menschen be-oder widerlegen – schlicht, weil niemand je probiert hat, Menschen unbegrenzte Ressourcen zu geben. Das näheste, was da dran ist, ist der moderne “Westen”, in dem die Menschen zunehmend mehr aufhören, sich reproduktiv zu betätigen. Auf der anderen Seite sind die Länder, in denen es den Menschen dreckig geht, mit enormen Reproduktionszahlen. Denen dann der Platz nicht reicht, aber dann betreiben sie ja sehr krude Bevölkerungsdezimierung durch Kriege – etwas, was Mäuse nicht machen, wenn denn die Ressourcen reichen; Mäuse sind aber weniger anspruchsvoll als Menschen.

Warum ich das schreibe? Nun, einerseits, um die Welt zu fragen, ob irgendwo in den Gedanken offensichtliche Fehler sind.

Andererseits, weil ich nicht gleich sehr weitreichende Theorien aufstellen will, die (zumindest zu meinen Lebzeiten) kaum empirisch prüfbar und dazu noch sehr infernalistisch sind.

Mein Land ist zum Kotzen.

Bei Hadmut Danisch wird gerade besprochen, wie beschissen es für Männer werden kann, wenn feministische Gesetze erlassen werden. Das konkrete Problem ist wohl, dass in Indien eine Frau einen Mann wegen völlik willkürlich ausgedachter Sachen anzeigen kann (ok, dass kann jeder in jedem Rechtsstaat), aber der Mann dann erstmal ungefragt in den Knast geht (das wäre dann kein Rechtsstaat). Da es ähnlichen – wenn nicht ganz so schlimmen – Bullshit auch schon in ach so “zivilisierten” westlichen Ländern gibt – den Violence Against Women Act in den USA oder das Gewaltschutzgesetz in Deutschland, nachdem man seinen Partner (oder, ja, zumindest theoretisch seine Partnerin, aber das passiert halt nicht) einfach aus der Wohnung werfen lassen kann, auch wenn sie einem nichtmal anteilig gehört, lässt einen schon darüber nachdenken, was denn noch passieren muss, dass es einem “zu blöd” wird.

Und was “zu blöd” ist. Fefe fand es ja neulich einen Grund, “stolz” auf “sein” Land zu sein, weil nur 18% der Deutschen für ihr Land kämpfen würden.  Nun gehöre ich sicher nicht zu denen, die für den aktuellen sozialistisch-feministischen Sumpf, bei dem sich ein Drittel der Bevölkerung nichtmal mehr für die Bundestagswahl interessiert, kämpfen würde, aber ich sehe keinerlei Grund, darauf stolz zu sein. Ich finde das schade.

Und dann gibt es Inder, denen ein Gesetz raufgedrückt wird, was grundlegende Prinzipien des Rechts nach auch nur den grundlegendsten Maßstäben, die “Recht” als solches nunmal hat – also, hier die Präsumption der Unschuld – eben nicht gerecht wird. Und die Inder würden zu 75% für ihr Land kämpfen. So auch die Inder, die bei Herrn Danisch auf die Ungerechtigkeit eines (oder eher mehrerer) Gesetze aufmerksam machen.

Inder. Ich kenne nun wirklich viele Leute aus vielen Nationen, Leute, die viele, viele Länder bereist haben, habe selbst viele Länder bereist, und nachdem mein Boot in der türkischen Ägäis liegt, wo es die alten (deutschen) Weltumsegler hinverschlägt, auch genug Leute, die “überall” waren, und ich habe ehrlich keinerlei Bedürfnis, Indien zu besuchen. Ja, Indien mag kulturell interessant sein, aber alles, was mir Leute erzählen, ist, dass das Land ein kakerlakenverseuchtes Drecksloch ist. Nicht wie China, Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam. Da geben sich die Leute Mühe, die Kakerlaken unter Kontrolle zu bekommen / zu halten. Und für das Land wollen Leute kämpfen? Ja, gegen wen denn? Lt. der Umfrage (Fefes Link geht nicht mehr, ich biete daher den hier) vereinen sich da die schönsten Orte der Welt (Fiji, Papua-Neuguinea) mit – naja, Nachbarländern von Indien (Pakistan, Bangladesch) und Orten, die ganz, ganz unten auf “sollte man mal Besuchen”-Listen stehen wie Aserbaidschan, Georgien und Afghanistan.

Natürlich sei es den Indern vergönnt, “ihr” Land auch behalten zu dürfen, und in Anbetracht der bestehenden “Konflikte” in allen anderen Drecksloch-Ländern ist es verständlich, dass die Leute sich wenigstens ihre Eigenständigkeit bewahren wollen, aber ich würde nur für ein besseres  “mein Land” kämpfen. Und das wendet sich halt heutzutage immer gegen die Regierung.

Warum?

Es ist doch illusorisch, eine Regierung heutzutage dazu zu bringen, irgendwas zu “ändern”, wenn man keine achsotoll-gutmenschliche Supersache damit vertreten kann, die eine ach so demokratische Mehrheit findet – während in den meisten ach so tollen Demokratien weniger als die Hälfte der Leute noch Interesse an Wahlen hat. Und natürlich mag man sein Land – ich finde zB meinen deutschen Pass auch super. Grundsätzlich ist das Länderkonzept aber doch überholt. Das zu schreiben macht mich aber schon (fast) zu einem Terroristen; würde ich aktiv gegen den Quark ankämpfen, auch de facto.

So, und nun stehe ich – ob ich nun türkischer Tomatenbauer, Sinti-Straßenspieler, indischer Ingenieur oder deutscher Doktor bin – halt vor der Wahl: Will ich Terrorist sein? Denn, so weitermachen will ich nicht. Ich kann aber gehen. Wie die Sinti-Straßenspieler. Gutes Modell. Gegenüber denen habe ich den Vorteil, dass die schon in Rumänien keiner mag, während ich als deutscher Doktor eigentlich überall hin kann. Wie es übrigens die indischen Ingenieure auch können sollten. Wenn denen aber nun nicht erlaubt wird, zu gehen oder zu kommen – tja, dann gibt es nur die Möglichkeit, das System in sich zu zerstören. Und das wäre so einfach, wenn alle mitmachen würden: Wenn auch nur alle arbeitenden Inder in Deutschland morgen aufgrund der idiotischen indischen Gesetze politisches Asyl beantragen würden, müsste hier mal jemand nachdenken. Und global.

So lange sich die aber – wie ich – lieber im Internet auslassen und nichts machen, bleibt nur gehen. Und in Anbetracht der aktuellen politischen Lage überall kann ich das nur jedem empfehlen – nicht kämpfen. Gehen. Wenn man irgendwie gehen kann, und das Bedürfnis dazu hat, geht man. Noch ist es für mich in Deutschland erträglich, aber sobald sich das ändert, bin ich in der Türkei. Vielleicht. Ansonsten im Libanon; ich habe nur positives über Beirut gehört. Und wenn das nichts ist, bleiben ja noch Fiji und Papua-Neuguinea.

Ich muss mich aber nicht der “demokratischen” Mehrheit unterwerfen und Deutschland dabei unterstützen, ein kakerlakenverseuchtes Dreckloch zu werden. Ich kann gehen. Und das sollte jeder können. Und machen. Auch die Inder.

Exam Questions for going to Oxford being “World’s Hardest Test”

Blogger fefe mentioned today that it is supposed to be really hard to get a scholarship to Oxford. He did link the questionnaires published by the UK Business Insider, and while going through them, my opinion quickly turned to “These questions just check your political orientation”. They are not really difficult questions if you have some idea about the subject, and thus it is not difficult to write an academic text of any length about the topic. I’ll stick to very short texts on the questions, though, just to prove that any good academic writing can be summarized shortly if you are a good academic. I also want to assure you that I would be able to provide an academic text of any length on all mentioned topics which contains sources, examples and a lot of arguments, but in the end it will lead to the exact conclusion i give, which I will just summarize in short here. The points I will state are top-of-mind and “easy to argue” positions; I could argue the opposite as well, but I would like it less. If you don’t believe me – well, don’t.

1. Did the left or the right win the twentieth century?

While you might argue that the communist left in the form of the UdSSR lost, there is no prevailing politically-right state since the downfall of Nazi Germany. The lefotvers are increasingly socialist. The left won.

2. Should intellectuals tweet?

From a personal POV: only if they like to have counter-arguments in the form of “idiot”. Generally, yes, otherwise Twitter will only consists of idiots calling all non-idiots “idiot”.
3. Should states control their borders?

Due to this being a requirement in international law to constitute a state this is a really stupid question.

4. Is vegetarianism the future?

Vegetarianism was the past. Currently, we (in 1st world nations) enjoy a lot of resources and can live of a lot of meat. But vegetarianism is a great idea if the elite wants to keep the meat for itself and make the poor think it was their decision. The French Revolition could have been avoided through vegetarianism.

5. Should all citizens receive a basic income from the state?

No. Why? Someone has to fund this “basic income”, and to give a share of the population a “basic income” just to take it away afterwards is plainly crazy bureaucracy. Otherwise, it’s not financially viable.

6. Should airlines be permitted to charge passengers according to their weight?

If those airlines are private corporations, it should be their problem. It’s the farmers’ choice to sell lemons per piece or per kilogram, so what airlines should or shouldn’t do is none of my (or your) concern. If those airlines are state-subsidized, you should ask the questions “is that right”, but you did not ask that quesion.

7. ‘Secure people dare.’ Do they?

Not secure people have better things to do than to “dare” (in today’s times mostly stupid things). Though “secure” has a double meaning, with the opposites possible being “insecure” and “not safe”. This is a really stupid question

8. Should prisoners be allowed to watch television?

There’s like the UN convention on human rights on cruel and unusual punishment, and forcing people to bore themselves to death may constitute “cruel”. There being no downside to watching TV, that’s pretty straightforward.

9. What, if anything, is wrong with using drones in warfare?

That depends how you stand on “everything is fair in love and war”. Using tools to kill people in wars has a history of several thousand years, so I don’t see why drones should be special.

10. What are universities for?

Educating people to thing for themselves. Or so I understand Alexander von Humboldt.

11. What shapes urban landscapes?

This question has no greifbaren content. I could argue “the moon”.

12. Should scientific progress make us optimistic?

Not if it fails, so, as this is a general question, no.

13. Is France the sick man of Europe?

In a room full of dying patiens, it is not reasonable to pick one.

14. Is gardening art?

Vomiting in a corner is considered art, so obviously everything can be considered “art”.

15. Is globalization undermining democracy?

Democracy is a method of coming to political decisions practiced very little around the globe. Globalization refers to international trade practiced a lot around the globe. I do not see how those two conceps are intertwined.

16. What role should disgust play in our moral decision-making?

Disgust being an emotion and morals being an abstract concept on pseudo-rational concepts of “good” vs. “bad” emotions, the same as every other emotion.

17. Is it wrong to change your accent?

I have no idea what this question means.

18. Is the middle class a force for good?

For themselves? Sure. Overall? Not more or less than any other social class.

19. Defend kitsch.

It’s childish. And fun. (This one was easy)

20. Should tackling corruption be the first priority for developing countries?

Considering China, probably building an economy pruducing something of value should be more important, thus no.

21. ‘Fiction’s about what it is to be a fucking human being’ [DAVID FOSTER WALLACE]. Is it?

Not since women started to write books.

22. How should we listen to music?

However you like. It’s art (see #14 above).

23. What will become of the English?

They will die as all other human beings do. If that question was meant otherwise, it’s racist.

24. Can travel writing be literature?

That depends on your definition of “literature”. If you define “anything written” as literature, then yes.

25. What’s wrong with doping?

It is harmful to your body, as scientifically proven, and makes you a cheater in sporting contests by all standards set by the sporting organizations.

26. Can there be a purely aesthetic appreciation of religious art?

I am pretty sure carpets in mosques have no deeper meaning and can be pretty artsy, so yes. Maybe I am just ignorant of muslim religious culture, but that would just prove my point.

27. Devise a new punctuation mark – and defend it.

痴 at the end of a sentence to state you consider yourself or your counterpart an idiot. 痴 being Chinese and meaning “idiot”. Usage example: Devise a new punctuation mark – and defend it痴.

Ok, this was fun. The Business Insider then turns to economic questions. That should be easier:

1. Is there an economic case for limiting pay bonuses to twice annual salary?

If you are a communist, sure. If you think free markets are a good idea, no. This is just a political question.

2. Is the concept of ‘equilibrium’ useful for understanding real-world economic behaviour?

If you are a communist, no. If you think free markets are a good idea, sure. This is just a political question.

3. ‘Gary Becker is the greatest social scientist who has lived and worked in the last half
century.’ [MILTON FRIEDMAN in 2001] Do you agree?

Why would you ask a sociology question in the economics section? But having read a lot from Becker and plenty of bullshit from other scientist, and adding that to the fact that he got a Nobel prize and no one proved him wrong in 60 years, my tendency would be “yes”. But I’d never say such a thing because Myandamraha Raschiputistan may have been a lot better, but with her killed all her works destroyed by the Red Khmer and thus never published, we will never know. Am I supposed to tell fortune next?

4. What, if anything, can microfinance institutions achieve that other financial institutions
cannot?

Recipocive trust. Normally, financially institutions require security. Microfinance institutions do not.

5. Assess the evidence that modern management techniques increase productivity.

I wouldn’t know how. Modern laws destroyed productivity so much that any increase may just be an artifact.

6. Is there an economic basis for conglomerate companies?

Obviously, otherwise they would not exist. Is there anything about free-market economies you need re-explained?

7. When, if ever, should firms bear responsibility for their customers’ poor purchasing
decisions?

If they force them – with a gun – to buy their products. Or any other direct, bodily threat.

8. Can a privately-supplied currency, such as Bitcoin, be viable in the long run?

I consider this the wrong question, as no “currency” not based on something of value in the real life is sustainable in “the long run”. This one can even be proven: Show me a still-valid, fiar currency of 3000 years ago still worth more than it was then. Yo can not.

9. What economic issues have the potential to be resolved through the use of ‘Big Data’?

None. In a democracy, economic issues are settled by majority decisions, not by statistics. And you do not need “Big Data” to statistically determine that half the population are stupid (compared to the average).

10. Should the state restrict what people do with their pension savings?

As were #1 and #2: This is just a political question. If you are a communist, yes. If you think free markets are a good idea, no.

We now turn to the “philosophy” section. That was a little harder as all I know about philosophy is Schopenhauer.

1. Is a person’s gender socially constructed? Is a person’s sex?

In my native language, there is just one word for those two concepts. Bearing that in mind, the first question is as stupid as asking “Is a pyramid’s shape socially constructed?” You can call a pyramid triangular or a tetrahedron and not be wrong, and you can state that Stonehenge (being round) is also an ancient relict, but equaling the shapes would be plainly silly. A person’s sex is biologically determinable in most cases, the few leftovers being statistically irrelevant.

2. Does anger have a legitimate role to play in politics?

I am getting that “philosophy” actually means “morally”. Ok. As emotions are what politics thive on, you could argue that on the good emotions-bad emotions dilemma with morals I mentioned above. With any argumentation based on an unsolvable dilemma, you cannot argue a conclusion (says logic). This question is stupid.

3. Does the status quo have any moral privilege?

De facto? In what society? Oh, morally, again. Who am I to decide? If I state my mind on this, you’ll have an equally unreasonable argument in just calling me “idiot communist”. Or “idiot nazi”. What is the point in pointless discussions – morally?

4. ‘What distinguishes actions which are intentional from those which are not? The answer
that I shall suggest is that they are actions to which a certain sense of the question
“Why?” is given application; the sense is of course that in which the answer, if positive,
gives a reason for acting’ [ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE]. Discuss.

This I can do rationally: Pretending to answer a hypothetical question about a vague term with another vague term and adding definition for the latter through only stating yet another vague term is useless. Morally and rationally, this is pretentions bullshit.

5. What can we learn about the mind by considering its disorders?

A lot, if we leave it to psychologists.

6. Can emotions be reasons for decisions?

De facto? Yes. Rationally? No. Morally? Depends on if you prefer emotions over reason and vice versa.

7. Is higher-order evidence just more evidence?

According to a quick google search, higher-order evidence is no evidence at all, but just good-sounding points meant to make the opposing party insecure. That is morally reprehensible and an intellectual statement of insolvency.

8. How do apologies work?

Through righting your wrongs and compensating.

9. Should epistemology be naturalised?

I cannot find any translations of those two words which gives a sense to that question.

10. Can there be substantive disagreement in the absence of fact?

Sure. Half the population is stupid, see above. Ok, the key word here may be substantive – well, not between people who know what substantive means.

11. What is it to beg a question?

A British figure of speech?

12. What is it to win a philosophical argument?

With philosophical arguments obviosly not requiring facts or any connections to reality, I guess “useless” would be a very close guess.

13. Should we seek to eradicate blame?

No. I cannot even think about any argument for that in a modern democracy. Of course, we could abolish modern democracy and blame the people too stupid to live up to the concept, but I’m not a big fan of civil war.

14. Are philosophers experts?

This question lacks the reference to “in what”, so, I’ll just add “in nuclear reactor safety” and guess “probably not”.

15. Is every consensual arrangement morally permissible?

That depends – political, again – on your view on the human being. If you thing everyone should be allowed to vote, then yes. If you hold the opposing opinion, then no.

16. Is Bill Gates a moral hero?

Bill Gates is a great businessman who took someone else’s work and made millions of it, grew a large company, making billions, and donates a huge lot to charity. To get a moral judgement for such rich people, maybe ask their peers. For me, a moral hero is one who states his moral standards and lives up to them. I do not know what Gates said and do not know of anyone else who stated and kept up to their moral standards, so the better question would be “are there moral heroes?”.

Okay, I’ll interrupt this – philosophy is not my strenght and my answers are getting repetitive. I developed  counter-question, though: What theoretical advances did the study of philosophy yield in the last 50 years and were they worth the money put into their discovery from a moal standpoint?

Let’s move on to politics:

1. Who should pay for the costs of educating and bringing up children?

This is an political economics question. You can (hardly) argue “those that make children” and easily argue “everyone” as uneducated children will most probably just become criminal nuisance.

2. Is the deliberate targeting of named civilian leaders ever justified in wartime?

As to international law, no, and the question is thus silly. It is especially silly because the context changes when the “cicilian leaders” have the authority to send an army to war. De facto, there are no “civilian leaders”, thus making the quesition completely irrelevant.

3. If oil wealth hinders democracy in some countries but not others, why is that so?

Socialism. Socialism needs a lot of money no one needs to work for, You do not need a lot of people to make a lot of money from oil, and people not working like money just as much as everyone else,

4. ‘To date, no stable political democracy has resulted from regime transitions in which
mass actors have gained control even momentarily over traditional ruling classes’
[TERRY KARL 1990]. Discuss, either solely with reference to Latin America or more
generally.

Defining the oldest “political democracy”, which is – respecting core changes – not even 70 years old, as “stable” is plainly silly in a historical context. See: Roman Empire.

5. ‘Transparency and accountability connote not only different but also opposing versions
of constitutionalism’ [KANISHKA JAYASURIYA]. Discuss.

You can write whatever you want on any piece of paper titled “constitution”. Silly.

6. ‘Laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt’ [TACITUS]. If
there is a link between the number of laws and the level of corruption, does it also apply
to anti-corruption laws?

Wuh – a rational question. Do you need more anti-corruption laws if you have more manifestations of corruptions? Well – no. Necessity for laws are just an indicator for your old laws being useless. Proof: Logic.

7. ‘Negotiated settlements are the best way to end civil wars because the more quickly
violence can be halted the more lives can be saved, and allowing former combatants a
say in the postwar configuration of the government makes it more likely that durable
democracy will be established.’ Discuss.

This historically never worked. With foreign influence (as popular in the last 70 years) it factually does not solve fuck. About “durable democracy”, see “political democracy” in #4 above.

8. If the potential for voting cycles is such a fundamental discovery of social choice
theory, why are such cycles so rarely observable in practice?

I have no idea on what this is about, but the possible reasons are (a) the theory is wrong and (b) voting cycles are bad for the ruling people.

9. Is political participation in decline in Western societies and if so what explains the
decline?

As to the decline, statistically, yes. As to the “why” part – based on #8, my educated guess would be ignorance by the electorate.

10. ‘The conditions for a justified revolution are the same as those for a justified
humanitarian intervention.’ Discuss.

A revolution is about standing up against your own oppressors. A “humanitarian intervention” is about helping others to do so. There is a big difference between “you” and “others”. Silly.

11. Does the median voter theorem adequately explain the political support for
redistributive policies in democracies?

No. But the “vote-for-more-money-for-nothing” theorem would do (and be more solid).

12. ‘No global governance organization can make everybody happy, and the organization
that strives to do so is likely to disappear’ [JONATHAN KOPPELL]. Discuss.

These two statements contradict each other. As the first is a true (or untrue) statement, and the second just mentions “striving” as opposed to “doing” the second is worthless, As you cannot disagree with my statement “the first is true” without proving yourself wrong, logically there is nothing to discuss.

Okay, this was interesting. And long. But claiming it were “difficult” is somewhere between stupid and silly or at best indecisive. Personally, I would conclude that getting that scholarship is simply based on the political views of the applicants, otherwise I see no reasons to ask these questions. If you want to test for intelligence, one simple question would suffice:

Are you more intelligent than everyone else on our applicants list? If so, prove it.

(You can only write an individual answer to that, and even an idiot would be able to spot any idiocy in the response. If he can not, that qualifies you).

Take the Pledge

Lollipops for Equality is a true soliarity movement for gender eqality for all races and ethnicities, skin colors, creeds, and religions or worldviews, political preferences, sexual orientations, ages, abilities, and species.

The movement for equality of all human genders was originally founded by women and a few select men as a struggle led by genderqueer women for women only. Only in recent years men, transsexuals and other queer people and species have begun to stand up in adressing inequalities, unfairness, discrimination and hate suffered by not only women, but other sexes and genders as well.

It is time to unite our efforts. Lollipops for Equality is a soliarity movement dedicated to end oppression by patrirarchy for all those affected by it, foremost those who self-identify as women. We hope to bring together about half of humanity and most other species in order to archieve true legal and social equality for all humans and other species, for the benefit of all.

Thus, we would welcome you to sign the Lollipops4Equality Commitment by signing with a name of your free choice (we do not discriminate against anything) in the comments box below, thus confirming you agree with this simple, true and helpful to all argument:

Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a species rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action by handing out lollipops to anyone who needs one to speak out against any claims of violence or discrimination faced by not only women and girls, but all human and other beings.

Lollipops for Equality founded

As men living in the modern western world, we can no longer tolerate women being oppressed by patriarchy. Constant attention by mainstream media continuously reminds us of the sexist oppression of women, diminishing their identitites and individuality. These experiences, shaped by historical context and sociatal prejudices in a climate of inequality are no longer tolerated. It is time to finally give women the means to overcome oppression by patriarchy and men in general. It is time to give women the power they need to peacefully live in an equal-opportunity environment.

It is time to close the gender pay gap. It cannot be that in a market-oriented economy women are paid less than men for being equally productive in the same field of work. It is time to make sure the “glass ceiling” preventing women from reaching higher managerial positions in corporations and the public sector does not exist.

Women are still portrayed as “weak” or “submissive” or even “sexually available”, all being understood as signs of female inferiority attributed to sexism. Even worse, women are accused of being “bitchy” when they do not meet up with commonly agreed-upon societal standards. This sort of gender discrimination results in women experiencing anger and sadness, which can lead to long-term effects of depression and suicide. This is a very real problem for women from all cultural races and ethnicities and of various faiths and beliefs.

It is time to end rape culture and make women feel safe when walking public streets or going to a complete stranger’s apartment drunk and drugged in the middle of the night. Women are not only subjected to sexual, physical and mental violence, but even accused of making it up, thus being blamed for being the victim of a crime, makeing women the perpetrators. This has to stop immediately. Society has to take responsibility as a whole for the actions of criminal individuals and punish such heineous acts timely and just.

So if you, as a man – or if you identify as a man, we all know that gender-based sexism is a problem for genderqueer humans or penguins around the world – want to help women overcome patriarchy and oppression, join us on March 8, 2015 in the largest square of your hometown for the Lollipops Against Patriarchy Rally.

We have learned from years of feminism that it is wrong to hold women responsible for their own actions, in terms of that they have to fight patriarchy and oppression themselves. They don’t. We, as self-identifying men, are responsible. But talking is not enough to change the minds of people around the world. It has brought us a long way in the western world, we managed to come a long way in terms of equality in women’s rights. But that is not sufficient, it is time to end patriarchal oppression forever. Which requires only a small action for men living in western countries like the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Canada or Australia.

Remember how it was when you were a child and hurt yourself and your mother gave you a lollipop and you immediately felt better? We live in a time where people think that it is more important that lollipops are bad for your teeth than they are good for your psychological well-being, but this is just how patriarchy tries to oppress women.

All it takes is a lollipop. Give a woman a lollipop, and she will immediately see all oppression being gone, will have equal rights as the man who gave her the lollipop. She will not live in fear in a rape culture and instead be surrounded by nice, equal men and women enjoying lollipops. She will earn as much as a man doing her job earns, and she will not be victim to domestic violence any more than men are. She will have the right to bear or abort children without even thinking about the father’s interests, and be given opportunites to balance work and family life at levels men would not even dare to dream of. All this can be achieved with one single, cheap cherry-flavoured lollipop. So, don’t hesitate any further, start helping women overcome patriarchy NOW!

Edit: There have been some voices claiming we are wrong. This opposition consists mainly of misogynic, homophobic, radical-islamistic or puritan christian or satanistic extremists or right-wing conspiracy theorists. Haters gonna hate, but they cannot win. We have scientific and bulletproof evidence  that the Lollipop System works. It’s just 5 cents. Try it and you will see for yourself, and make one woman happy and free of oppression by patriarchy. Not giving women lollipops means supporting patriarchy and oppression.

We thus call for party members and state officials to support our movement by providing free lollipops for those who cannot afford them by their own means.