|
omg to the people who fail by citing statistics as a justified source of discrimination, consider this:
Black people are more likely (statistically speaking) to commit crimes and go to jail. Therefore it is justified to believe someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal than someone who is white, even though you have no other substantive information about them.
If you think this is a justified line of reasoning then chance is you're a simple-minded person who (either consciously or subconsciously) holds many unjustified prejudices. Plz think before forming opinions about how things work in the world.
Its pretty obvious that insurance companies exhibit an obvious lack of respect for people by grouping them into categories. This is convenient due to statistical analysis and probability, and "justified" through arguments based on economics. The point is you can't justify moral questions by referencing economics. Its a ludicrous and simple-minded approach that is the real reason why slavery existed, and today we have exploitative businesses thriving by taking advantage of desperate people in poor countries. Its a sad sad thing that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that this sort of reasoning is somehow morally acceptable.
|
This whole thread is like saying that betting sites are discriminating fans of certain football teams because they have worse odds. How is this even something a person thinks about for more than .003 seconds? It just seems a bit obvious.
And by the way it is discriminating but you are wrongfully attributing a negative value to the word itself.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 24 2010 07:11 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Black people are more likely (statistically speaking) to commit crimes and go to jail. Therefore it is justified to believe someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal than someone who is white.
Given NO OTHER information, it is the correct heuristic. Clearly the heuristic is not the end all be all since you don't know anything else about the person. The rational line of thinking is to seek more information.
The heuristic is not an unjustified prejudice. The following is a statement of fact. If black people are more likely to commit crimes and go to jail, it's a tautology that someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal and go to jail than someone who is white. Whether or not you believe someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal (going to jail an entirely separate matter) depends on your belief in the justice of the legal and justice system.
Insurance agencies have to work by heuristics. They cannot serve their risk sharing function efficiently without grouping people into risk buckets. It's in their interest to group their clients into the right risk buckets since they will either lose their customers to competitors or lose money in covering more of their customers' losses more than they take in premiums.
|
On November 24 2010 07:11 Reason.SC2 wrote:
omg to the people who fail by citing statistics as a justified source of discrimination, consider this:
Black people are more likely (statistically speaking) to commit crimes and go to jail. Therefore it is justified to believe someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal than someone who is white, even though you have no other substantive information about them.
If you think this is a justified line of reasoning then chance is you're a simple-minded person who (either consciously or subconsciously) holds many unjustified prejudices. Plz think before forming opinions about how things work in the world.
Its pretty obvious that insurance companies exhibit an obvious lack of respect for people by grouping them into categories. This is convenient due to statistical analysis and probability, and "justified" through arguments based on economics. The point is you can't justify moral questions by referencing economics. Its a ludicrous and simple-minded approach that is the real reason why slavery existed, and today we have exploitative businesses thriving by taking advantage of desperate people in poor countries. Its a sad sad thing that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that this sort of reasoning is somehow morally acceptable.
Wrong.
Here is why: The purpose of any company, be it insurance or anything else, is to make money. The best way to do so is by using statistics. Surely an interview along with psychometric tests would do a better job of predicting the extent to which someone is prone to accident but it is also more costly hence it wouln't make you more money.
This is why people who have previously been in accidents are charged more, old people are charged less. By the way, kids aren't allowed to drive for the exatly same reason (being prone to accident). The whole notion of this being some sort of moral-issue or discrimination (by a laypersons definition) is ridiculous simply because that debate has absolutely no place here. The company is doing what they are supposed to do and you need to accept their terms for using their service.
Furthermore, and this is just because I got a bit upset about your comment on the topic. Your understanding of prejudice is really overly-simplified, unusually incorrect and you even have the balls to insult other people on the basis of it.
Prejudice is for all intents and purpuse a cognitive function which allows people to differenciate between enemy and friends and therefor potential danger. It is one of the many mechanisms mankind as developed because of a basic survival instinct. I hope you can follow this rather simply train of thought on your own but just to give an example of how my "simple-mind" works ill explain a bit more.
Assume that you are "prejudiced" againts black people. This is most likely due to them having a lot of attention in the media and are assosciated with commiting crimes (note: This is not by any means my own point of view, just a hypothetical example). This prejudice will cause you to avoid black people on a late night in a dark alley. Sure you may say its discriminating and morally incorrect but it is necessary for your own good.
If people never learned to categorize things into neat useful "packages of information" or cognitive schemes, we probably wouldn't be able to exist, at least not in the way we do now. Firstly because our brain is incapable of handling every single stimuli as a separate event and secondly because we would all walk around thinking "maybe this tigre doesn't have sharp teeth and isn't going to kill me, I think ill treat him like an individual instead of being prejudiced against tigres".
|
On November 24 2010 07:11 Reason.SC2 wrote:
omg to the people who fail by citing statistics as a justified source of discrimination, consider this:
Black people are more likely (statistically speaking) to commit crimes and go to jail. Therefore it is justified to believe someone who is black is more likely to be a criminal than someone who is white, even though you have no other substantive information about them.
If you think this is a justified line of reasoning then chance is you're a simple-minded person who (either consciously or subconsciously) holds many unjustified prejudices. Plz think before forming opinions about how things work in the world.
Its pretty obvious that insurance companies exhibit an obvious lack of respect for people by grouping them into categories. This is convenient due to statistical analysis and probability, and "justified" through arguments based on economics. The point is you can't justify moral questions by referencing economics. Its a ludicrous and simple-minded approach that is the real reason why slavery existed, and today we have exploitative businesses thriving by taking advantage of desperate people in poor countries. Its a sad sad thing that so many people have been brainwashed into believing that this sort of reasoning is somehow morally acceptable.
You clearly do not understand how insurance works. If insurance companies could ignore gender and base their rates on the "other substantive information," they would. In fact, they already do, because your rate is more affected by how much you drive, how many traffic tickets you have, how many accidents you've been in and your age. But the fact is that even controlling for all those other factors, there is still a correlation between accidents and gender. More importantly, there isn't any third variable that would better explain this correlation. (At least none that can be legally measured.)
Insurance companies don't want to put you in buckets. If they had their druthers, they would charge a rate that is perfectly consistent with your individualized probability of getting into an accident. However, this is physically impossible to measure. Instead, insurance companies will use whatever data they can get to best guess your individualized probability, and gender has been shown to be a factor. If gender is not a causative factor in accidents, then the insurance company that discovers how to measure what really explains the increased rate would make a killing.
Ceteris paribus, is it sexist for life insurers to charge lower rates for women because they live longer on average? Is it sexist for health insurers to charge higher rates to women to cover breast cancer?
|
On November 24 2010 06:39 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 06:33 nihlon wrote:
Yes, because pissing off costumers by charging them differently for an "All you can eat" buffet is great for business. Which insurance companies do not have to worry about because their business is required by law.
You are required by the laws of nature to purchase food. I guess grocery stores and restaurants don't care about pissing off consumers? There is a market distortion in that a consumer can't choose the option of not having insurance, but they can still choose between many different insurance companies, and that provides a suitable amount of competition.
The main justification for requiring auto insurance is that because of bankruptcy laws and the expense of litigation, it can be difficult for a victim of a car accident to recover damages from the tortfeasor. These uncompensated losses are perfect examples of negative externalities.
|
I'm not going to suggest that generalizations are good, but you have to understand that insurance companies have to be able to produce a quote for you that matches what they think they may need to charge you. In order to do this, they have to take into account as much information as possible. Among these things include, age, driver records, whether or not you've been with said insurance provider before, the car you drive, and your gender.
Sound ridiculous? Well, Mr. Smarty pants, you tell me how you're going to quote someone who you don't know, and you have no idea how they're going to drive. It's not easy. Before you say that Geico is being sexist, think about how little information they can get that really shows them what kind of driver you are.
Most insurance companies, to counter their generalizations, usually lower your rate after the first year or two because you're actually a better driver than they had originally thought. They couldn't really make a good judgement, they just quoted you what they thought they may need to charge you.
|
As far as male Sexism goes, I agree it is there and rampant. Its in commercials, with women being the smart counterpart, and the male being the dumb husband / boyfriend that is irresponsible and fun-loving.
In high school, I remember filling out forms for college grants etc. and there were a lot more grants and loans available to the females (and minorities in general.) By filling out the form and just checking the female box, all of a sudden, you had 10x as many options.
But, all in all, you can't really complain about sexism or discrimination (or shouldn't as it is sometimes justifiable or impossible to really prove). BUT its hard not to when so many times minorities go to the discrimination card each time something isn't in their favor. Its a two way street, after all.
|
i've always found the following phenomena facinating. middle aged woman yelling at topless teens in the new moon movies.
if the genders were reversed, it would be paedophelia.
|
I would argue that this is not in fact sexism.
What is Sexism?
"prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women" 1
That leads us to the question, what is prejudice?
"An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"
2
So based on this short excercise in semantics we can see that the prejudice part of sexism does not fit the bill. The reasons as to why men are treated differently are several, and have good empirical and statistical backing:
"According to TrafficSTATS, a risk analysis study by Carnegie Mellon for AAA in 2007, men have a 77% higher risk of dying in an accident compared to women. The study, using information from both the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Household Travel Survey estimated fatalities per 100 million trips to be 14.61 for men and 6.53 for women. The total number of fatalities between 1999 and 2005 were 175,094 for men and 82,371 women.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 14,512 male drivers died in 2007 compared to 5,865 female drivers, and even though there tend to be more male drivers on the road than females, the numbers strongly support the TrafficSTATS report."[/b] 3
So we are left with the question whether men are being discriminated against. The answer here is obviously yes. Any act that makes a distinction between two groups in any way can be considered discrimination. 4
But is that really interesting? The discrimanition here stems from just reasoning and facts.
So where does this lead us? Yes men are treated differently than women, but for good reasons and so the differing treatment that stems from differing anticipations seems perfectly reasonable.
Bleh was going to write more with reasoning and stuff and numbers and quotes and sources, but then I realized that it is a 24 page thread filled with people who will not listen anyway. My personal opinion is that since ALL data the insurance company gets factors into their pricing. (Or at least it should) singling out gender as problematic is just tiresome and old fashioned. Why not make rants about ageism:
"All the evidence points to young males having riskier driving habits than young females. Men between the ages of 16 and 25 are much more likely to be involved in accidents, or be cited for traffic violations," explains Insurance.com VP, Sam Belden. "Insurance companies bear this kind of behavior in mind when quoting rates." 5
Accidentism:
6
or a list of other things you can bitch about:
What You've Done
Age
Had accidents
Gender
Gotten traffic tickets
Marital status
"B" average in school (for students)
Zip code
Taken a Defensive Driver course
# of years licensed
Let your policy lapse
Credit history
Filed bankruptcy
Home ownership
Filed lots of claims
Occupation
7
It just feels so contrived to bitch about this....
If you think that a flat insurance rate no matter what would be better then you are probably wrong. There is alot of theoretical and empirical data that you would have to disprove at least. I wish you good luck in that endeavor.
8
|
On November 24 2010 08:12 Grend wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I would argue that this is not in fact sexism. What is Sexism? "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women" 1That leads us to the question, what is prejudice? "An adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" 2So based on this short excercise in semantics we can see that the prejudice part of sexism does not fit the bill. The reasons as to why men are treated differently are several, and have good empirical and statistical backing: "According to TrafficSTATS, a risk analysis study by Carnegie Mellon for AAA in 2007, men have a 77% higher risk of dying in an accident compared to women. The study, using information from both the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Household Travel Survey estimated fatalities per 100 million trips to be 14.61 for men and 6.53 for women. The total number of fatalities between 1999 and 2005 were 175,094 for men and 82,371 women.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), 14,512 male drivers died in 2007 compared to 5,865 female drivers, and even though there tend to be more male drivers on the road than females, the numbers strongly support the TrafficSTATS report." 3So we are left with the question whether men are being discriminated against. The answer here is obviously yes. Any act that makes a distinction between two groups in any way can be considered discrimination. 4But is that really interesting? The discrimanition here stems from just reasoning and facts. So where does this lead us? Yes men are treated differently than women, but for good reasons and so the differing treatment that stems from differing anticipations seems perfectly reasonable. Bleh was going to write more with reasoning and stuff and numbers and quotes and sources, but then I realized that it is a 24 page thread filled with people who will not listen anyway. My personal opinion is that since ALL data the insurance company gets factors into their pricing. (Or at least it should) singling out gender as problematic is just tiresome and old fashioned. Why not make rants about ageism: "All the evidence points to young males having riskier driving habits than young females. Men between the ages of 16 and 25 are much more likely to be involved in accidents, or be cited for traffic violations," explains Insurance.com VP, Sam Belden. "Insurance companies bear this kind of behavior in mind when quoting rates." 5Accidentism: 6or a list of other things you can bitch about: What You've Done Age Had accidents Gender Gotten traffic tickets Marital status "B" average in school (for students) Zip code Taken a Defensive Driver course # of years licensed Let your policy lapse Credit history Filed bankruptcy Home ownership Filed lots of claims Occupation 7It just feels so contrived to bitch about this.... If you think that a flat insurance rate no matter what would be better then you are probably wrong. There is alot of theoretical and empirical data that you would have to disprove at least. I wish you good luck in that endeavor. 8
I just want to point out that prejudice is also defined as "any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable" 1 or "preconceived judgment or opinion" 2. So I don't see how you can semantically argue that the prejudice part of sexism does not apply, whether the discrimination is warranted or not.
|
United Kingdom31255 Posts
I believe top gear top gear covered this subject well.
If you want cheap insurance go and chop off your ...
|
On November 23 2010 10:49 Vanished131 wrote:
At least you understood my original premise. This is unjustified. Discriminating solely on the basis of sex is immoral and is protected in the United States of America, yet they get away with it due to statistics.
I think we should consider that each one of us is Vanished131, the most careful driver. Do you deserve to have your rates raised just because a select 1 or 2 percent of your gender thinks they are the most macho piece that ever walked the Earth?
The fact that this is discrimination, I don't believe, has yet to be defeated by anyone here. Citing news reports and wikipedia articles is a bad habit.
Err... I fail to see the problem with discriminating. We discriminate all the time. We discriminate between apple juice and orange juice, and pick one based on our preference and discrimination.
What is morally wrong, is discriminating on an irrational basis.
Do you have a problem that I'd rather hire men to work in a mine because I can fairly assume they'd be more productive in strenuous physical labour?
Let's assume you are the world's most careful driver. How would the insurance company know that? They judge you based on your attributes. Driving history, age, gender, et cetera. If they don't ask for your race, I think they certainly should. The more information, the easier it is to pinpoint the likely risk of insuring you. Should they instead simply trust your word that you're the world's most careful driver?
No, you're right. This is discrimination. The form of discrimination that is justified, that society cannot do without. And it's people like you, with all their cries of political correctness that renders society dishonest in their words and actions.
|
On November 24 2010 07:11 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 06:48 Krikkitone wrote:
It would be great for business if
Rest. A charges 10$ for a buffet
Rest. B charges teens 12$, children+seniors 5$, and adults 7$, for the buffet.
Rest. B gets all the children/senior/adult business,
Rest. A goes out of business because feeding the teens is costing more than it can make at only 10$ There is a reason why restaurants don't discriminate on teens and adults and usually give deep discounts for children. Families place a premium on eating together which means that children and teens can be loss leaders for the rest of the family. As long as the restaurant makes money on the whole check, the restaurant is happy. College-age males usually are the worst for buffets, but restaurants can recover a profit on serving alcohol. If the restaurant is really focused on buffet, then they will cut costs to the point where serving everybody at the prevailing buffet price is profitable - even for the giant eaters. There are other strategies to pricing than perfectly matching up your costs to the prices you charge.
You can have loss leaders only if items/individuals want to shop in groups. (families together or alcohol+buffet)
In a perfectly competitive market the only companies that survive are the one's that price the product Slightly above what it costs them to make the product. If the cost of the product varies based on the individual they provide it to, then the companies which best predict that cost will succeed the best.
(Buffets only work because restaurants aren't perfectly competitive, and/or you are selling 'the experience' with loss leaders)
Insurance is one of the few things where the cost definitely varies based on the individual it is sold to. Insurance is not part of an "experience" or something that gets packaged with something else often.
|
Is it discrimination that a lot of women's bathrooms have couches in them? Or that they don't have urinals?
|
i think the key here is that discimination is defined by many as "treating things/people different based on X", instead of "treating ppl different based on X while it is not proven that X influences the variable we are measuring". i´d prefer the latter as the definition of discrimination.
for example, women are much more likely to suffer from breast cancer than men. if an insurance company lets this enter their calculations for the premiums of men and women, is this any unfair or morally questionable? no!
if someone says that men are better than women at managing a company, this is sexism. not because of the fact that it claims men and women to be different in a particular cause, but because this claim is not backed up by data. ceteris paribus, there is no evidence that men are better at managing a company than women, its just external factors which lead to women having less success in the higher levels of management.
so if for example someone says that women are worse than men at tennis or shotput, this is no sexism in my eyes because there is hard evidence that men and women, by their gender and its biological implications, possess very different preconditions for playing tennis or doing shotput. (shotputting?)
now the example with the higher crime rate among blacks: this is discimination because it fails to account for the proven confounders of this statistic: neighborhood, education and social status largely affect ones risk of committing a crime, and race is strongly correlated with these variables. if these confounders are accounted for, there remains no substantion influence of race on the crimerate.
so to finally address the original question: im no expert in this matter, but as far as i know, even if all known and measured confounders are taken out of the equation, there still remains an influence of gender on the risk of causing car accidents that justifies insurance companies charging men and women differently for their car insurance. the question whether this is discrimination/sexism or not is a difficult one because it is not certain if the correlation between gender and driving risk would disappear if additional potential explaining variables would be measured. for instance, it is not implausible that aggression is more prevalent in men than in women and this is the reason for the connection between gender and the car accident frequency.
so the question raised by the OP in my opinion comes down to the question if insurance companies are acting morally wrong if they only try to reduce the influence of spurios correlation on their calculations as much as its profitable, but not as much as it would be possible. huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... *scratcheshischin*
|
On November 24 2010 09:36 Black Gun wrote:
i think the key here is that discimination is defined by many as "treating things/people different based on X", instead of "treating ppl different based on X while it is not proven that X influences the variable we are measuring". i´d prefer the latter as the definition of discrimination.
for example, women are much more likely to suffer from breast cancer than men. if an insurance company lets this enter their calculations for the premiums of men and women, is this any unfair or morally questionable? no!
if someone says that men are better than women at managing a company, this is sexism. not because of the fact that it claims men and women to be different in a particular cause, but because this claim is not backed up by data. ceteris paribus, there is no evidence that men are better at managing a company than women, its just external factors which lead to women having less success in the higher levels of management.
so if for example someone says that women are worse than men at tennis or shotput, this is no sexism in my eyes because there is hard evidence that men and women, by their gender and its biological implications, possess very different preconditions for playing tennis or doing shotput. (shotputting?)
now the example with the higher crime rate among blacks: this is discimination because it fails to account for the proven confounders of this statistic: neighborhood, education and social status largely affect ones risk of committing a crime, and race is strongly correlated with these variables. if these confounders are accounted for, there remains no substantion influence of race on the crimerate.
so to finally address the original question: im no expert in this matter, but as far as i know, even if all known confounders are taken out of the equation, there still remains an influence of gender on the risk of causing car accidents that justifies insurance companies charging men and women differently for their car insurance. the question whether this is discrimination/sexism or not is a difficult one because it is not certain if the correlation between gender and driving risk would disappear if additional potential explaining variables would be measured. for instance, it is not implausible that aggression is more prevalent in men than in women and this is the reason for the connection between gender and the car accident frequency.
so the question raised by the OP in my opinion comes down to the question if insurance companies are acting morally wrong if they only try to reduce the influence of spurios correlation on their calculations as much as its profitable, but not as much as it would be possible. huuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... *scratcheshischin*
profitable v. possible tend to approximate each other.
It might be possible to require everyone to submit to a 10-month detailed psychological+physical evalution consisting of grueling conditions and thousands of hours of driving, and a complete genetic sequence and bloodwork, before they are given auto insurance... "Possible" technically describes that but not really.
And to say that men are better than women at shotput is ignoring the confounding factor of genetic factors and hormone levels that Happen to be on the Y chromosome, but still vary from individual to individual (as a male I am sure there is a woman somewhere better at shotput than me).
Essentially, it is to the benefit of the insurance company to get more detailed models.. but only of factors they can reliably measure. Gender is fairly easily measurable and can stand in for a number of otherwise realistically unmeasurable factors (aggression).
This is same type of reasoning that makes 18 year olds adults, its flawed, but it would tie up the courts if everyone had to file for emancipation (or their parents had to file for the right to abandon them)
|
On November 24 2010 09:43 Krikkitone wrote:
And to say that men are better than women at shotput is ignoring the confounding factor of genetic factors and hormone levels that Happen to be on the Y chromosome, but still vary from individual to individual (as a male I am sure there is a woman somewhere better at shotput than me).
ok, i should have made it clearer: my sports example ofc was referring to the professional top athletes. there is no chance at all for the best shotputter women to be better than the best shotputter men, just like the best female tennis player will always get roflstomped by the best male tennis player, at least until genetic engineering and/or mechanical implants are used. 
there are biological differences between men and women that make men have a big, biologically given advantage in their potential at most sports. ofc this biological potential by far isnt used completely in most casual athletes or even couch potatoes, but its clearly showing on the level of professional athletes.
therefore, it is no sexism to say "female professional tennis players cant compete with male professional tennis players, at least not when comparing players with the same rank in the world rankings of their respective gender with each other."
|
I'm on the phone with Geico right now. Please wait for an update to the original post.
|
First off, I noticed people commenting the fact that ”hero” firms wouldn't be able to compete with the regular ones and I doubt a lot of the people arguing against discrimination (for clarity and lack of a better word, although I really don't like the expression) are expecting companies to adjust their prices out of good will, which of course is unreasonable.
The notion that insurance-companies would be unable to profit if they were forced to remove sex as a factor in their price calculation models is ridiculous. There is a large variety of ways to design an insurance, perhaps a really cheap insurance but with a high co-insurance percentage will appeal to drivers who are confident in their capabilities, while the more expensive with a next to non-existent max payout might be of interest when you got yourself a brand new Porsche. Having a more volatile insurance where the cost will drop very quickly when you're nice while skyrocketing if you when you get a ticket might also be a way to target certain customers. While the change might make insurance a tad more expensive you might find that well tailored might be just as good as cheap. Point: there's plenty of room for competition, still.
Now why change the system? The most common answer appears to be”because discrimination is bad” which may be a sufficient reason to a moral absolutist, now I would argue that this is fairly irrelevant. How you arrive at the point where you go ”Ah, we should legislate against discrimination.” doesn't really matter, be it ”We'll go to hell if we don't!” or my personal favorite ”I've got a cock, no bitch should be getting better prices than me.” Consistency should be the main focus here. If denying a woman a job because she's a woman is illegal then naturally giving her a better price also is.
Lets put it this way, how come women are less wanted at many places, ”Well employers incorrectly believe to not perform as well as men.” is the answer you'd get. Now the assumption that women and men perform the exact same way is pretty laughable. I'm sure no one would contest the fact that we're different. Sure the net gain/loss for the employer might be diminishingly small when choosing a person of either sex, it might also be fairly significant. Our only reasonable conclusion is that we don't have the means of calculating this difference. What the employer will do is a rough estimation, he will choose the man (let's use the more common occurrence) because he thinks it will work out better for him in the end, there's really no way to discern this from the insurance firms discriminating men through pricing.
”Hey! The insurance dudes base their discrimination on statistics, that's science.” So the insurance dude just had a customer mail him some details and now he's at his desk with the info and some statistics. The box next to ”male” is crossed, ”Great, time to make some money!” the dude goes. However this decision must be considered to have been done on a base just as stable (or unstable, if you will) as the employers decision of denying that poor woman a job, they both used what little information they had and made the best of it. In this perspective even though the statistics based choice may be a slight bit more accurate, both of these sets of information tells ridiculously little about the individuals. Saying one is valid while the other isn't I think is strange when they're both just points on the same scale of accuracy, not to mention very far from the 100% mark.
As for which path to go down, looking at it as objectively as possible I would have to go for the no-legislation, I firmly believe that it's just a matter of time before women and other discr.. (I'm not even going to use it again, I'm not even sure i agree with this words existence, wp me using it loads of times in this post) thingied groups are going to end up where they should be, salary wise and insurance wise. Perhaps the most important reason I dislike laws like this is that you simply can't enforce them, and they're also fairly easy to abuse and we can't have that can we?
I'd probably vote for more equal insurance prices though, because I've got a cock and I like money. If you're not a hypocrite you're dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/saving-money/~/media/Images/articles/premium-increase-chart.ashx?w=444&h=254&as=1)
