On November 23 2010 13:47 Risen wrote: Whoops was at a volleyball event. Anywho, when I said not physically different I meant that people from different ethnic backgrounds are all the same "mentally" in a physical way. As in we all have the same brains, so shouldn't be discriminated based on that. Men and women do not have the same brains, do not have the same controllers men do, and can be held to something different.
Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay?
It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race.
Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain
Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay?
It's relevant for the same reason we don't let dogs drive, and if we did they'd have STUPID high insurance costs. Wanna know why? Because they're different.
Men and women are not nearly as different as dogs are. It is inconceivable that any dog could be as good at driving as any non-disabled human. You can't say the same for men vs. women.
On November 23 2010 14:41 Risen wrote: Edit: And people STILL bring up race. Holy fuck people cmon... there is no mental difference between peoples of different ethnic backgrounds. THERE IS A MENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES
If there is a statistical difference between two demographic groups with respect to car accident rates, why do your unfounded conjectures on the roots of the difference matter? It's all just statistics and business, right?
People from the inner city are already charged more for car insurance than those in the burbs, so I'm perfectly fine with two different demographic groups being charged different amounts. Don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Last I recall, you got mad when anyone brought up race. (edit: removed silly inflammatory exaggeration by me)
On November 23 2010 15:06 Risen wrote: Edit: And just like the points made earlier by others, I'm using hyperbole to make a point.
On November 23 2010 14:20 vek wrote: Take your business elsewhere if it bothers you that much that insurance companies are (shock) trying to make money by having as competitive rates as they possibly can.
They all do it. There isn't some magical company that gives everyone equal rates that isn't also significantly higher overall (e.g. one of those shady low-coverage insurers like "The General").
Even if you had an alternative, it wouldn't justify the act.
On November 23 2010 13:47 Risen wrote: Whoops was at a volleyball event. Anywho, when I said not physically different I meant that people from different ethnic backgrounds are all the same "mentally" in a physical way. As in we all have the same brains, so shouldn't be discriminated based on that. Men and women do not have the same brains, do not have the same controllers men do, and can be held to something different.
Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay?
It's relevant b/c one of the points made earlier was that if you can change prices based upon sex, then you can change prices based upon race.
Differences in race are skin deep only, differences in gender go all the way to the brain
Why is this relevant? Why does it make discrimination okay?
It's relevant for the same reason we don't let dogs drive, and if we did they'd have STUPID high insurance costs. Wanna know why? Because they're different.
Men and women are not nearly as different as dogs are. It is inconceivable that any dog could be as good at driving as any non-disabled human. You can't say the same for men vs. women.
On November 23 2010 14:41 Risen wrote: Edit: And people STILL bring up race. Holy fuck people cmon... there is no mental difference between peoples of different ethnic backgrounds. THERE IS A MENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES
If there is a statistical difference between two demographic groups with respect to car accident rates, why do your unfounded conjectures on the roots of the difference matter? It's all just statistics and business, right?
People from the inner city are already charged more for car insurance than those in the burbs, so I'm perfectly fine with two different demographic groups being charged different amounts. Don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Last I recall, you got mad when anyone brought up race. (edit: removed silly inflammatory exaggeration by me)
On November 23 2010 15:06 Risen wrote: Edit: And just like the points made earlier by others, I'm using hyperbole to make a point.
and I explained why it doesn't apply here.
Demographic - the statistical study of human populations especially with reference to size and density, distribution, and vital statistics (from the definition of demography)
Please get your definitions straight. (I believe you are looking for something along the lines of black people in the inner city vs white people in the inner city, I don't usually argue semantics but I feel some people have to be dragged through an argument)
Also, you didn't explain why it doesn't apply here, all you said was dogs aren't as different as man v women. You are implying in your statement that men are different from women, ergo they can be held to different standards
Edit: I got mad when people were saying that sexism and racism were equivalent (when they are not)
On November 23 2010 15:04 Risen wrote: Your last point on gender is debatable. Your first point, the difference in the biological growth of various ethnic groups is debatable as well, as most scientific studies look at data gathered from groups in different areas, not in a controlled test group (because this would be unethical)
So again, please stop trying to pass off your social "science" statistics concerning different races.
Did you know your physical existence is debatable? Please stop trying to pass off your own deranged ideas, show me a study proving that chemical differences between males and females amount for females being better drivers.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also reported that from 1975 to 2003, female deaths in motor vehicle crashes increased 14 percent, compared with an 11 percent decline for male motorists during that same period. Insurance industry experts peg the rise in female deaths in vehicular crashes to more women obtaining driver's licenses than in the past and driving more miles than, say, 25 years ago.
Plus, it seems as if female motorists are getting more aggressive. "It's true that men do take more risks than women," says Carolyn Gorman, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute. "However, [women] are partaking in more risky behaviors than ever before. The gap is closing quickly."
You can throw some statistics at me and point out that men are usually involved into worse accidents but you will not get any closer to the subject of this thread: why is it okay to discriminate based on gender.
I wonder why poll taxes were removed in the 60's? because it discriminated against people of a certain group [poor + usually black]
But wait? Couldn't you make an argument that people with more money are more likely to have a better grasp of politics & business? So doesn't it make sense to have a poll tax? We don't want people who have no idea what they're doing voting for a guy because everyone else is or that's what they were told to do. Put a price tag on the ballot and maybe people will want to read up a bit on their candidate or make sure they get their moneys worth by researching who's running for local positions.
Whether or not it makes sense it's still discrimination. IMO no grey zone can be allowed.
On November 23 2010 15:00 BruceLee6783 wrote: It's a well known fact that life isn't fair.
HOWEVER, if you're one of those types that goes around spouting off "Life isn't fair, get over it", then why not realize that life COULD be more fair if people didn't just shrug their shoulders at issues like this and let these things slide.
Nothing pisses me off more than those types of people, and I certainly don't feel like it's fair that I should have to pay for the mistakes of my male peers when I myself have never driven like a maniac. Press down harder on the people who give the males a bad name by charging them even more to recoop any lost income not earned by unfairly charging innocent male drivers.
Wanna know where to put your statistics? Bend over, and I'll show you where.
You need to calm down a bit... Think about it from the insurance companys point of view:
- New customer wants insurance - Look at age group, location, type of car, length of time with license, sex, criminal offences (basically any information they can get since they have no personal information on you yet). - Compare this information to people - Determine average premiums based on the "risk category" they end up placing you in.
I don't know how it is in the US but in Australia pretty much all car insurance companies reward things like not having any claims in a certain time period, being a long time customer etc. You have to remember that before they know anything about you personally they have to guess based on the data they currently have available to them.
Once a company "gets to know you" through hard data that they collect they adjust the premiums accordingly.
Sure they could do per person interviews but everyone will say "I am a perfect driver, I only drive to church on Sundays ololo". Insurance companies are running a business, they do what is right by them.
The reason they don't just bump up the cost of insurance for female drivers is pretty simple to see for me. It would have started out as one company realising that female drivers are involved in less accidents/make less claims so they drop the premiums to entice females from other insurance companies to switch. The other companies match this because they don't want to lose customers.
They would do the same with males but it is not profitable. This is just capitalism hard at work
On November 23 2010 14:20 vek wrote: Take your business elsewhere if it bothers you that much that insurance companies are (shock) trying to make money by having as competitive rates as they possibly can.
They all do it. There isn't some magical company that gives everyone equal rates that isn't also significantly higher overall (e.g. one of those shady low-coverage insurers like "The General").
Even if you had an alternative, it wouldn't justify the act.
I know they all do it They all do it because it makes good business sense.
vek, this isn't about why they do it. This is about why they shouldn't do it. It' called discrimination. And it is no different than, say, racial preference on a real estate market.
On November 23 2010 14:59 Risen wrote: there is a concrete difference between men and women that is lacking between blacks and whites.
)
I hope you've never passed a biology class. Really, I do.
Yes, he did school you by pointing out aggregate statistics regarding correlation do not mean causation >.<
How nice of you to drop in and try to point out that OMG BLACK PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT SKIN COLOR THAN WHITE PEOPLE I HOPE YOU FAILED BIOLOGY LOLOLOL. Read all previous posts before you jump in. Continuing...
On November 23 2010 15:04 Risen wrote: Your last point on gender is debatable. Your first point, the difference in the biological growth of various ethnic groups is debatable as well, as most scientific studies look at data gathered from groups in different areas, not in a controlled test group (because this would be unethical)
So again, please stop trying to pass off your social "science" statistics concerning different races.
Did you know your physical existence is debatable? Please stop trying to pass off your own deranged ideas, show me a study proving that chemical differences between males and females amount for females being better drivers.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety also reported that from 1975 to 2003, female deaths in motor vehicle crashes increased 14 percent, compared with an 11 percent decline for male motorists during that same period. Insurance industry experts peg the rise in female deaths in vehicular crashes to more women obtaining driver's licenses than in the past and driving more miles than, say, 25 years ago.
Plus, it seems as if female motorists are getting more aggressive. "It's true that men do take more risks than women," says Carolyn Gorman, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute. "However, [women] are partaking in more risky behaviors than ever before. The gap is closing quickly."
You can throw some statistics at me and point out that men are usually involved into worse accidents but you will not get any closer to the subject of this thread: why is it okay to discriminate based on gender.
((There is still debate as to whether men are truly more aggressive than women, look at the critiques listed within the wiki article. Insurance companies use male aggressiveness as a justification, so there's your example))
Also, you want me to prove a chemical difference between men and women? Sigh...
I enjoy being told by people that I need to pass a biology class, and then I'm confronted by people trying to argue that there is no difference between male and female brains :/
Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly calm, I am just trying to speak from the heart.
I don't want people to act like nothing in the world is worth getting angry over, because there are many things that are definitely worth getting angry over.
Being treated unfairly is definitely worth getting angry, especially if you believe that there is a way to make it fair. There's got to be a better way to screen for bad drivers, other than just being lazy and using statistics as your justification.
Don't ask me how to make it better, because I honestly don't know, but if these companies can pay math experts to research their stats, they can also pay some people to find a better way to screen for bad drivers.
On November 23 2010 15:29 News wrote: Risen, you are undereducated in general. I'm sorry Rinse and repeat and you'll get it.
Did you even read the post RIGHT above this?
Edit: The true sign of defeat is when you start to break down and insult a person's character.
I'll let you reread my post with that "show me a study proving that chemical differences between males and females amount for females being better drivers" line before trying to convince me that "there's chemical differences between men and women". You've never addressed my points relevant to the topic, you are just continuously arguing out of your own stupidity.
On November 23 2010 15:29 News wrote: Risen, you are undereducated in general. I'm sorry Rinse and repeat and you'll get it.
Actually I just clicked on your link. You never went to college and never will. "Study on bobo dolls(1961)".
Are you serious? Does the internet give you so much license to be a dick? Grow up and argue my points not my "pedigree" because you CLEARLY have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me. Did you click on the second link? Or are you going to pick a study from recent history and say it's invalid because it was done under 5 decades ago. Suddenly all studies from before 2010 are irrelevant? Where is the cutoff so I can find you something more recent than such
EPT
Rinse and repeat and you'll get it.
