|
On November 23 2010 15:27 Risen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:12 Romantic wrote: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... Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:17 News wrote: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. http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126The 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. Men are more aggressive than women. A study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment((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... http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains.htmI 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 :/
You've shown men and women have differences. Congratulations, nobody disagreed with you.
Now, prove people do not have behavior, physical, or mental differences (DNA in general) that may affect their driving within their gender and thus there is not merely correlation (and aggregate sexism is acceptable instead of individual assessment) and people may begin to listen to you.
Edit: fixed a butchered sentence
|
I don't think he knows what any of this means^
|
On November 23 2010 15:37 Rebornlife wrote:
I find this really stupid as well. Women on average get in more accidents than men, yet our rates are higher? Bullshit.
It was already stated earlier in the thread that women as an overall group may get into more accidents, but we are focusing on a smaller target group (young). It has also been stated previously that men tend to get into more "expensive" accidents than women, so perhaps their rates are higher because of this.
|
On November 23 2010 15:10 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Now you ask: Why don't they ask your race, religion, etc? They don't because there would be a very negative backlash from the rest of society, and there would be endless lawsuits from overzealous civil rights groups. And this is the problem. Our society is at a point where one direction of discrimination is considered okay or even commendable (for example, the fact that black and hispanic students are ridiculously favored for college admissions and scholarships). Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
This apparent "discrimination" by insurance companies is a fact of life and you just need to live with it. Lol. "Life isn't fair" is never a good justification for anything. Ever. Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Please don't mistake it as you getting cheated because of who you are. ummm... but, it is me getting cheated because of who I am. That's more on the fact side of the spectrum.
The thing is insurance companies don't discriminate in the general sense of the word. They are using scientifically backed methods to produce a plan that will give them the most money. That's what I think people are missing, there is a fundamental difference between how an insurance company chooses what rates to charge someone and how a cop racially profiles someone. Its the same thing for affirmative action.
No you're not getting cheated because of who you are, you are simply playing buy the rules of capitalism. Insurance companies are trying to make money, it turns out that using math cleverly can make them a lot of money.
You pay insurance, if you're a girl you're less likely to cost the insurance company money. If you're a guy you're more likely to cause the insurance company money. This is a general trend, and by applying this trend to all costumers the insurance companies make money.
It would be very stupid of them to say "lol we don't want to be sexists durp durp" and lose BILLIONS of dollars. Plus the best way to get lower insurance rates is to actually drive safer, who would have thought.
And I never said "life isn't fair." To rephrase what I said last post: Big business will do everything they can to make money, that IS a fact of life.
People need to stop being so self centered, this actually isn't about you getting discriminated against, get over yourselves.
|
ughhhh this is so frustrating
people are still trying to make arguments without addressing the fact that it's straight up discrimination! Whether you paint a fence black, brown, or orange it's still a fence.
You can dress this up as much as you want but it's still discrimination.
|
On November 23 2010 15:43 Norway wrote:
ughhhh this is so frustrating
people are still trying to make arguments without addressing the fact that it's straight up discrimination! Whether you paint a fence black, brown, or orange it's still a fence.
You can dress this up as much as you want but it's still discrimination.
No, its not. Its a good business model. If you want to discuss semantics go elsewhere.
|
On November 23 2010 15:40 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:10 matjlav wrote:On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Now you ask: Why don't they ask your race, religion, etc? They don't because there would be a very negative backlash from the rest of society, and there would be endless lawsuits from overzealous civil rights groups. And this is the problem. Our society is at a point where one direction of discrimination is considered okay or even commendable (for example, the fact that black and hispanic students are ridiculously favored for college admissions and scholarships). On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
This apparent "discrimination" by insurance companies is a fact of life and you just need to live with it. Lol. "Life isn't fair" is never a good justification for anything. Ever. On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Please don't mistake it as you getting cheated because of who you are. ummm... but, it is me getting cheated because of who I am. That's more on the fact side of the spectrum. The thing is insurance companies don't discriminate in the general sense of the word. They are using scientifically backed methods to produce a plan that will give them the most money. That's what I think people are missing, there is a fundamental difference between how an insurance company chooses what rates to charge someone and how a cop racially profiles someone. Its the same thing for affirmative action. No you're not getting cheated because of who you are, you are simply playing buy the rules of capitalism. Insurance companies are trying to make money, it turns out that using math cleverly can make them a lot of money. You pay insurance, if you're a girl you're less likely to cost the insurance company money. If you're a guy you're more likely to cause the insurance company money. This is a general trend, and by applying this trend to all costumers the insurance companies make money. It would be very stupid of them to say "lol we don't want to be sexists durp durp" and lose BILLIONS of dollars. Plus the best way to get lower insurance rates is to actually drive safer, who would have thought. And I never said "life isn't fair." To rephrase what I said last post: Big business will do everything they can to make money, that IS a fact of life. People need to stop being so self centered, this actually isn't about you getting discriminated against, get over yourselves.
They wouldn't lose billions of dollars - they would just target the bad drivers on the male side and the bad drivers on the female side - and the actual good drivers would get breaks - regardless if they are male or female. Start everyone at the same rate when they get a car and whether they fuck up or do well is up to them.
|
On November 23 2010 15:44 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:43 Norway wrote:
ughhhh this is so frustrating
people are still trying to make arguments without addressing the fact that it's straight up discrimination! Whether you paint a fence black, brown, or orange it's still a fence.
You can dress this up as much as you want but it's still discrimination. No, its not. Its a good business model. If you want to discuss semantics go elsewhere.
You just replaced discrimination with "good business model" then told SOMEONE ELSE not to discuss semantics? Lord Mercy.
|
On November 23 2010 15:40 MadVillain wrote:
The thing is insurance companies don't discriminate in the general sense of the word. They are using scientifically backed methods to produce a plan that will give them the most money. That's what I think people are missing, there is a fundamental difference between how an insurance company chooses what rates to charge someone and how a cop racially profiles someone. Its the same thing for affirmative action.
No you're not getting cheated because of who you are, you are simply playing buy the rules of capitalism. Insurance companies are trying to make money, it turns out that using math cleverly can make them a lot of money.
You pay insurance, if you're a girl you're less likely to cost the insurance company money. If you're a guy you're more likely to cause the insurance company money. This is a general trend, and by applying this trend to all costumers the insurance companies make money.
It would be very stupid of them to say "lol we don't want to be sexists durp durp" and lose BILLIONS of dollars. Plus the best way to get lower insurance rates is to actually drive safer, who would have thought.
And I never said "life isn't fair." To rephrase what I said last post: Big business will do everything they can to make money, that IS a fact of life.
People need to stop being so self centered, this actually isn't about you getting discriminated against, get over yourselves.
How come you can discriminate just because you have a statistical evidence to back it up? Why men but not Asians then? Or Mexicans?
Once it comes to singling people out it doesn't matter what statistic a company is employing. If both genders are legally protected from being discriminated it should be unlawful to do otherwise.
|
On November 23 2010 15:44 MadVillain wrote:
No, its not. Its a good business model. If you want to discuss semantics go elsewhere.
Not doing business with a black man is a good business model. Come on, I feel like you can almost grasp it.
|
On November 23 2010 15:44 MadVillain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:43 Norway wrote:
ughhhh this is so frustrating
people are still trying to make arguments without addressing the fact that it's straight up discrimination! Whether you paint a fence black, brown, or orange it's still a fence.
You can dress this up as much as you want but it's still discrimination. No, its not. Its a good business model. If you want to discuss semantics go elsewhere.
Discrimination is never a good business model. Why would I go elsewhere? This is practically all about semantics!
|
On November 23 2010 15:46 Norway wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:40 MadVillain wrote:On November 23 2010 15:10 matjlav wrote:On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Now you ask: Why don't they ask your race, religion, etc? They don't because there would be a very negative backlash from the rest of society, and there would be endless lawsuits from overzealous civil rights groups. And this is the problem. Our society is at a point where one direction of discrimination is considered okay or even commendable (for example, the fact that black and hispanic students are ridiculously favored for college admissions and scholarships). On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
This apparent "discrimination" by insurance companies is a fact of life and you just need to live with it. Lol. "Life isn't fair" is never a good justification for anything. Ever. On November 23 2010 15:06 MadVillain wrote:
Please don't mistake it as you getting cheated because of who you are. ummm... but, it is me getting cheated because of who I am. That's more on the fact side of the spectrum. The thing is insurance companies don't discriminate in the general sense of the word. They are using scientifically backed methods to produce a plan that will give them the most money. That's what I think people are missing, there is a fundamental difference between how an insurance company chooses what rates to charge someone and how a cop racially profiles someone. Its the same thing for affirmative action. No you're not getting cheated because of who you are, you are simply playing buy the rules of capitalism. Insurance companies are trying to make money, it turns out that using math cleverly can make them a lot of money. You pay insurance, if you're a girl you're less likely to cost the insurance company money. If you're a guy you're more likely to cause the insurance company money. This is a general trend, and by applying this trend to all costumers the insurance companies make money. It would be very stupid of them to say "lol we don't want to be sexists durp durp" and lose BILLIONS of dollars. Plus the best way to get lower insurance rates is to actually drive safer, who would have thought. And I never said "life isn't fair." To rephrase what I said last post: Big business will do everything they can to make money, that IS a fact of life. People need to stop being so self centered, this actually isn't about you getting discriminated against, get over yourselves. They wouldn't lose billions of dollars - they would just target the bad drivers on the male side and the bad drivers on the female side - and the actual good drivers would get breaks - regardless if they are male or female. Start everyone at the same rate when they get a car and whether they fuck up or do well is up to them.
Right I'm sure the multi-billion dollar corporations who higher Ph.D mathematicians, and spend millions of dollars on market research never thought of that plan. The logic behind insurance rates is SCIENCE. They make money by assuming you're a bad driver until you prove otherwise. Doing it any other way would be stupid on their part and bad business.
And people in this thread seem to be arguing the dictionary definition of "discrimination." If thats all you're arguing then I guess you win, but then there really isn't much to talk about.
|
I actually don't know why insurance companies don't ask what race you are, probably because there would be a shitstorm from overzealous civil rights groups. But it would be the same thing, if I spend years researching and find that on average asian drivers cost me more money then I would charge them more, because it would be good business. This is just the nature of insurance, its all based on risk assessment. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
|
On November 23 2010 15:40 News wrote:
I don't think he knows what any of this means^
At this point I have to question whether you're here simply to bump your post count.
Up to this point I've seen you generally digress into a slobbering pit bull...
Regardless... (I think I used irregardless earlier in this thread and it just hit me, damn)
On November 23 2010 15:38 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:27 Risen wrote:On November 23 2010 15:12 Romantic wrote: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 15:17 News wrote: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. http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126The 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. Men are more aggressive than women. A study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobo_doll_experiment((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... http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/men-women-different-brains.htmI 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 :/ You've shown men and women have differences. Congratulations, nobody disagreed with you. Now, prove people do not have behavior, physical, or mental differences (DNA in general) that may affect their driving within their gender and thus there is not merely correlation (and aggregate sexism is acceptable instead of individual assessment) and people may begin to listen to you. Edit: fixed a butchered sentence
Clearly, News disagreed with me, he asked me to prove that men were chemically different than women (I probably shouldn't have fed him, alas...)
Ok, you seem to think that I have to prove that there is no variation within the gender... I don't have to do this, because insurance companies do not have variable rates within gender amongst similar demographics (as far as I'm aware). The only thing I have to prove is that women cost less to insure than men. To do this I'll post an article referencing a study done by insurance.com
http://www.goinsurancerates.com/auto-insurance/study-reveals-women-are-better-drivers-than-men/
Continuing...
http://www.kanetix.ca/insurance_auto_newsbyte_women_drivers
Some more...
http://www.cheapcarinsurance.net/13-reasons-why-women-are-better-drivers-than-men/
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=788126
All these studies have come out where it is shown that men drive more dangerously than women, and are more expensive to insure. I'm not quite sure why you want me to prove that there is no variation within gender. I would argue that within these studies "all" variation of differences in behavior, physical, or mental differences are taken into account.
I think I see your point, so let me try to come around to it and you tell me if I'm right or not. Fuck it, explain it to me. I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out what you're saying and I can't wrap my mind around it. I keep coming back to the fact that these variations within gender should be distributed evenly and taken into account during previous studies
|
On November 23 2010 15:46 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:44 MadVillain wrote:On November 23 2010 15:43 Norway wrote:
ughhhh this is so frustrating
people are still trying to make arguments without addressing the fact that it's straight up discrimination! Whether you paint a fence black, brown, or orange it's still a fence.
You can dress this up as much as you want but it's still discrimination. No, its not. Its a good business model. If you want to discuss semantics go elsewhere. You just replaced discrimination with "good business model" then told SOMEONE ELSE not to discuss semantics? Lord Mercy.
Agreed with Romantic here.
On November 23 2010 15:47 News wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:40 MadVillain wrote:
The thing is insurance companies don't discriminate in the general sense of the word. They are using scientifically backed methods to produce a plan that will give them the most money. That's what I think people are missing, there is a fundamental difference between how an insurance company chooses what rates to charge someone and how a cop racially profiles someone. Its the same thing for affirmative action.
No you're not getting cheated because of who you are, you are simply playing buy the rules of capitalism. Insurance companies are trying to make money, it turns out that using math cleverly can make them a lot of money.
You pay insurance, if you're a girl you're less likely to cost the insurance company money. If you're a guy you're more likely to cause the insurance company money. This is a general trend, and by applying this trend to all costumers the insurance companies make money.
It would be very stupid of them to say "lol we don't want to be sexists durp durp" and lose BILLIONS of dollars. Plus the best way to get lower insurance rates is to actually drive safer, who would have thought.
And I never said "life isn't fair." To rephrase what I said last post: Big business will do everything they can to make money, that IS a fact of life.
People need to stop being so self centered, this actually isn't about you getting discriminated against, get over yourselves.
How come you can discriminate just because you have a statistical evidence to back it up? Why men but not Asians then? Or Mexicans? Once it comes to singling people out it doesn't matter what statistic a company is employing. If both genders are legally protected from being discriminated it should be unlawful to do otherwise.
And you're back to the race argument... sigh...
|
That statistics don't support males in their disapproval of a law that grants women supior rights is quite simple minded and typical of a person who luckily stumbles upon a morally sound position by right of their finding it popular, rather than justifiable. Perhaps such a person is forgetting that blacks are, i don't doubt, statistically more inclined to crime than whites. Whatever your argument about one case being more justifiable due to its relative severity than the other, the point is that yes, correlation is not causation, and furthermore that statistics are a presumptuous, practical as opposed to idealistic way of prejudging anyone. The individual should be granted, ideally, insofar as you favour idealism over practicality, his/her own fair portion of the beneifit of the doubt, so that we can all have a greater chance of proving ourselves and ultimately defying stereotypes. Whatever you believe to be the case, see that you're consistent between your judgement on scenarios of racism and sexism.
|
On November 23 2010 15:55 MadVillain wrote:
I actually don't know why insurance companies don't ask what race you are, probably because there would be a shitstorm from overzealous civil rights groups. But it would be the same thing, if I spend years researching and find that on average asian drivers cost me more money then I would charge them more, because it would be good business. This is just the nature of insurance, its all based on risk assessment. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
It doesn't matter if it's good for business or whether it's the nature of insurance - it's main foundation is based off of discrimination which shouldn't be allowed in any forms.
Blacks have predispositions to certain health risks - therefore health insurance companies can charge them higher premiums? That doesn't make a lot of sense. But as long as it's good for business...
|
i disagree that service and pricing differs according to age and demographics. IMO the services and prices should average out and everyone should pay the same price. Having statistics is fine, but isn't it possible to charge everyone equally rather than basing premium prices on statistics? Yes, it's clever, but it's not fair. Not in the slightest. It IS a form of prejudice. A statistic does not make it fact.
|
On November 23 2010 15:59 Norway wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 15:55 MadVillain wrote:
I actually don't know why insurance companies don't ask what race you are, probably because there would be a shitstorm from overzealous civil rights groups. But it would be the same thing, if I spend years researching and find that on average asian drivers cost me more money then I would charge them more, because it would be good business. This is just the nature of insurance, its all based on risk assessment. Sorry if it hurts your feelings. It doesn't matter if it's good for business or whether it's the nature of insurance - it's main foundation is based off of discrimination which shouldn't be allowed in any forms. Blacks have predispositions to certain health risks - therefore health insurance companies can charge them higher premiums? That doesn't make a lot of sense. But as long as it's good for business...
That discrimination shouldn't be allowed in any forms, are you sure that that's a basic enough assumption to satisfy as an axiom, or don't you think that that would be defining your personal disposition to the end of encouraging a fissure in society and placing yourself conveniently on one side of it, as opposed to knowing what side you stand on and trying to win people over for the sake of something you would invest in as being an objective truth?
|
On November 23 2010 15:56 Risen wrote:
I think I see your point, so let me try to come around to it and you tell me if I'm right or not. Fuck it, explain it to me. I've been sitting here for five minutes trying to figure out what you're saying and I can't wrap my mind around it. I keep coming back to the fact that these variations within gender should be distributed evenly and taken into account during previous studies
I am saying that aggregate data that shows correlation over two broad groups is a very flimsy defense of discrimination. You seemed to want to show that men and women are different and that it justifies the discrimination. We got that, but you must also show that there isn't significant variation within genders. If there is significant variation within genders (there is) then the discrimination is purely based off of laziness, weak correlation and profit seeking rather than causation.
I advocate individual assessments as a goal of reform, as I stated in my last post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
