+Geraldine Lancaster Agree 100%

Geraldine, is that REALLY you? Any day now you'll be getting a birthday card from the Queen. And you're on KZfaq?

Martin, you might consider Geraldine Lancaster as 'fit' but I'm not sure it's appropriate to crack onto a lady in such advanced years. And what do you mean by slipping her a 'a crafty length'. You're going to do it while she's sleeping, once the effects of your Rohypnol have kicked in, you'll do so after she's died, or your length is so little she won't even notice during the act?

^ LOL, caught a good one there :)

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rdSVl86H182qdmQ.html You too!

Exactly.

+j reitano By her reasoning women should be looked over in favour of men given that in today's society women are overrepresented by enrolment at tertiary education levels. It's 60/40 female to male and widening in all first world countries and a lot of third world ones too. Yet we still keep hearing how universities are male bastions. Go figure

Haha, what facts?

@@lozzybozzy234 The fact that discrimination by gender, race, ideology or religion (positive or negative) of any kind should be illegal, insconstitutional and a crime

@@pedromeneses5661 I understand your principle, but it's not as simple as that. Society negatively discriminates, so how would you correct it? Or do you believe that society doesn't negatively discriminate at all?

@@lozzybozzy234 Then you outlaw negative discrimination, that's what equal rights and the constitution is for, discrimination is discrimination, there's no two ways about it, there is no "good" discrimination, and basing it off of gender and race is bound to backfire IMMENSELY (as we can see nowadays). You can only fight negative (and the desperate but naive wish for positive) discrimination with education. It's like the old proverb says, "don't fight fire with fire, or you end up with a larger fire than before". Positive discrimination is not social justice, it is social INJUSTICE, you cannot discriminate a white man negatively in favour of a black woman purely based on the argument of "we have too many white men already", because the white man is not at fault for being born a white man, so why must he suffer for it, why must he be discriminated against for it? I see this normalization of racism and sexism everywhere in western democracies now (moreso in America), and the consequences it's having in our democratic process. A liberal democracy can only be sustained if we follow core principles of equality, non-discrimination of any kind, not judging based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or political orientation, those are the basis of democracy, and if you violate those principles, you put democracy at risk. For there to be positive discrimination, there must be negative discrimination. The ONLY positive discrimination I tolerate is between poor and rich people, I believe that poor people need to be propped up into society yes, but discriminating based on gender and race/religion? You are bound to get a failing democracy that way, plain and simple, it is a democratic principle that of equality of *opportunity*, not equality of outcome (the latter is a principle that can only be enforced by a government in complete control of society, or as many call it, authoritarian). And when you say, "society negatively discriminates", who does it discriminate against exactly? And what society exactly? Are we talking America (U.S.)? African countries? Europe? You talk of society as if we are one country one planet. The USA is very obsessed with race, that is one thing any european can see, americans are very quick to divide people by ethnicity. When you say "african-american" or "asian-american" you inherently create a racial divide between people, and maybe that which you think is respect toward the existence of other ethnicities, is actually perpetuating the racial divide between people, we are all human, I cannot care less where your ancestors come from, I judge people by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin (this applies tot he gender debate). Anyway, this is a long rant just to tell you that we are all human, and that to beat social inequalities "the good way", you must not act out of spite and ill will, do not seek revenge for what happened in the past, because the people of today are not to blame for it. Racism feeds racism, violence breeds war. Sexism feeds sexism. Discrimination feeds discrimination. If we want to maintain peace and democratic values, discriminating people based on their gender and race is the last thing you want to do, I thought you Americans liked Martin Luther King, you repeat his words, but you do not act them out, you are to me (no offense) still a very racist country, and positive discrimination (or as you call it, affirmative action) is just proof of it. You seek social equality, but instead, your policies of positive discrimination only perpetuate a race/gender based point of view, you will never see eachother equally, because don't want to see eachother equally, instead of caaling yourself a proud american, you call yourself a proud black woman/man, instead of seeking to destroy physical barriers between humans, you enforce it, and glorify it.

@@pedromeneses5661 Firstly, I'm not American, I'm not sure why you assumed that. So on that basis, I can safely ignore most of what you talked about on America specifically, I'm no expert on America. Discrimination is not always overt, and it may often be quite subtle. I'm going to make an assumption that you are Portuguese (due to your profile picture) but I do not know what gender you are. Lets say you are male. Say that when you grew up, there was part of you that really wanted to be a politician. For arguments sake, lets say that when you grew up, only 15% politicians were male and the rest were female. You might then think that this wasn't for you, as being a politician wasn't for people of your gender. This is a subtle discrimination, the effect of under representation of a group. I don't completely disagree with you, that a better way would be to not see things in terms of race, gender, sexuality. But unfortunately by not acknowledging that these different groups exist, with their differing opportunities, the subtle discrimination continues. If certain groups represent the powerful positions in society, how do you aim to make this fair without positive discrimination? In the UK, where I live, Black people are more likely to be involved in crime, more likely to experience schizophrenia, more likely to be of low income. Is this because they are inherently more likely to do these things, or is it because their social conditions are much poorer than that afforded to other groups? What do you think?

Yes I totally agree with you...I'm a guy in engineering and wish more girls would join haha..

they should just do what they do..give test interviews and exams and pick the best regarldess of what they are. dont pick gender or race pick grade thst is bs

If people who decide on the matter are as ignorant as you are, then yeah, you would make the perfect case for misunderstood positive discrimination. Hopefully they won't get any idiot into engineering, no matter the gender, or we are doomed

In a case of two identically qualified persons running for the same thing, there will always be a case of discriminating one over the other, if both can't be hired for the same thing, the question is what criteria will you use for discriminating between the two. Congratulations on being one of the few who actually went through the video and then some more congratulations are in order for actually understanding the break-tie concept associated with it.

@@janespright yes but proof is in the pudding , by over benefitting a minority we are at risk , look at the state of america because of this . cringe jean peire the whitehouse press speaker is clueless , she was hired on her identity not her skills

@@girlsdrinkfeck "proof is in the pudding" My dude, you must be eating the wrong pudding. Please be careful not to get poisoned. Idk any jean peire, if someone gets hired on their identity and not their skills then you have a totally different understanding of applying positive discrimination. You act like I was promoting over discrimination, please stop projecting, thank you. I'm also sure you were arguing in honesty and not at all in bad faith

ohmygod the blatant amount of lies you told is obnoxious, first of all caste system and atrocities have a very deviant history of atleast 1500 or so years. 2. please tell me the names of private instuitions which are being forced to adopt qouta system or any other kind of affirmative action. 3. only approx 2% of job market is obliged to qouta sytem, only the public setor ones. 3. caste is sooooooooooooooo prominent in india that i cant emphasize enough, in every strucural and aocietal instituitions . 4, reservations in promotion is a protective measure to sheild LC people from further discrimination in promotion, as most of the executive and decision making bodies and still under the hegemony of Upper Caste hindus. 5, the talk about your everlasting reservations, in the first place reservations were never demanded by ambedkar but it was given as a alternative to separaate electorate for LCs, to preserve the political status qou which is still prevalent in 21st century india also its not the responsibility of lower caste indians to strip the caste its the responsibility of UCs to let go of their surnames and all the priviledges that come with it. TO ABOLISH CASTE BASED RESERVATIONS, FIRST WE HAVE TO ABOLISH CASTE. as simple as that. period

If your objective was to appear pretentious, congratulations.

She’s using her privilege to speak out why would she give up her spot she’s using it for good lol

@@sarahadeniyi1654 Because that's all these activists ever do, speak out, well how about actually making a difference and practicing what you preach?

@@sarahadeniyi1654 "No one should control each other... That is democracy... We do not need a dictator! "Then why are you a dictator ?" "Because i must control the society to it's greatest good!" Sounds the same in my opinion

+JackAmero meh

mhm

Amero: and her puta shoes

She's beautiful

That is such a rare if not a non-existant phenomenon. I'd like her to provide examples. I bet we can always find another attribute to use to distinguish applicants other than demographics.

-_-

+debbie webbie she's doing a debate at Oxford ... Pretty sure she is bright . But alright that's your opinion

Aye she's well tidy. Sounds bright to me. Don't tend to have dummies debating in the Oxford Union.

+Jordan Bolduc Because she is stupid? Nothing holy about this little fool.

+Jordan Bolduc ikr? damn. like a sexy vampire.

And also think about what it feels like to be that person. Imagine knowing that you got into one of the best schools or universities, not because of your skill, but because of your skin colour or gender. The only thing that would be oppressing them, would be the system of positive discrimination. The only people who should represent a person, should be the individual. Skin colour or gender does not make me similar to another person.

I believe you misinterpret the conditions... I believe she aimed at, as an example; a situation where there are limited spots to an University, and two applicants of different gender - who have the same qualifications and both a decent set of personal skills - apply, then the spot will go to the one with the less privileged position. The condition must be that they are both at or around the same level skillswise, yet, her or his lower social-economic status works beneficial for them within the system of positive discrimination. It is quite different from the example you presented; a situation where someone gets in without the right set of qualifications, over someone who does. That's just not it. They both have to have them.

Neil McIntosh overweight really who the duck are you like David Beckham