| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:23 divertiti wrote: It's common knowledge, please have some common sense or refrain from posting in this thread. Assuming something is common knowledge is not very wise... Common sense to someone in a different culture may be different than your version of common sense. Please post sources. I happen to think that men deserve the same pleasantries as women enjoy. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:21 Z3kk wrote: Okay, I was under the impression that we were discussing the social issues: i.e. whether or not there is a "reverse sexism" going on here...I'm not being (or trying to be, at least) inflammatory, but at this point you're discussing semantics. Definition is somewhat subjective--not all of us will agree on an exact definition--but if your definition is accepted (any form of bias towards a race), then sure: it's sexist. However, this "sexism" isn't what I'm referring to, and has little to no impact on the social issue of sexism (which, in this case, I believe is ludicrous because companies are merely trying to determine the best course of action to reap a profit). Actuarial science may or may not be incorrect sometimes, but it's something with which companies can work, and they're definitely going to do that if they want any hope of earning money. Agreeing on definitions and pointing out when a word fits a definition is not semantics, it's the most basic piece of work that has to be established in order for communication to work. And if you think that "discrimination based on sex" is an unusual definition for "sexism," then you are wildly unaware. Saying that "A fits the definition of X, and X is wrong" is not semantics, its the most basic of analytic arguments. I'm not disputing the math of actuarial science, I'm disputing the morality. I'm aware that it increases profits for insurance companies, but that doesn't make it morally right, especially as we have established in our culture and our laws that sexism (discrimination based on sex, statistically or otherwise) is illegal. There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
I'm not disputing the math of actuarial science, I'm disputing the morality. I'm aware that it increases profits for insurance companies, but that doesn't make it morally right, especially as we have established in our culture and our laws that sexism (discrimination based on sex, statistically or otherwise) is illegal. There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. Discrimination is justified if two subgroups don't act equally. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:23 nozh wrote: i'm sorry but your insurance rates are not nearly as important as women's issues and no amount of rationalizing will ever make them as important. Why are they mutually exclusive? Can't we have discussions and make progress on gender equality in both? I really don't understand why you are so angry. I support feminist issues, and I guess would generally be regarded as a feminist myself. That doesn't mean that I don't also want gender equality in other situations, which include places where men are being discriminate against in an immoral way. | ||
|
Cauld
United States350 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:25 zeppelin wrote: yeah but if you watch tv commercials the wife is always smart and savvy and the husband is a bumbling fat guy whats up with that this world is so unfair sometimes Only if the advertisement is targeted towards women. If it's a beer commercial (or another ad targeting men) then its the other way around. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote: The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. | ||
|
domovoi
United States1478 Posts
There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? That's like saying women and men should be charged the same for meals even though women tend to eat less than men. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote: Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. You don't have a right to get charged less for insurance than your statistical risk. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:16 cz wrote: It is sexist BY DEFINITION. I understand actuarial science and how it determines rates based on risk, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Or that it's not wrong. You are aware there are other factors that determine rates, right? As an outrageous example, a 16 year old girl pays way more than an 50 year old man with a good record. For a less outrageous example, a 40 year old man with a good record pays less than a 40 year old woman with a bad record. It's not discrimination based on gender, it's discrimination based on demographics and history. Honestly, I don't see how you sincerely have an issue with this. | ||
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
Discrimination is justified if two subgroups don't act equally. The black kids around the corner from me act very differently than myself. Let's raise their home insurance...errr...rent! | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote: Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
I hate paying higher insurance as much as the next guy, but discrimination is how insurance works. They break people into groups and determine which groups, on average, have the highest risk and then charge them more. Unless you propose that everyone pay the same rate, your argument is baseless. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:28 Vanished131 wrote: The black kids around the corner from me act very differently than myself. Let's raise their home insurance...errr...rent! Where's your scientific justification? And don't try to backpedal and be pedantic. | ||
|
AAtwelve
57 Posts
Shouldn't insurance be the same? (Cough health insurance cough) ... Republicans and Democrats screwed healthcare reform anyways... /derailed | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
I highly doubt there's any sort of statistic that can support that theory. Seems that gender is given far more weight than driving record, which is retarded. | ||
|
keV.
United States3214 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:20 Craton wrote: There's a term for this, but I can't think of it. Attempting to trivialize something because something else exists somewhere that's worse is a despicable practice. Informal fallacy. | ||
|
Vanished131
France311 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:28 Kwidowmaker wrote: You are aware there are other factors that determine rates, right? As an outrageous example, a 16 year old girl pays way more than an 50 year old man with a good record. For a less outrageous example, a 40 year old man with a good record pays less than a 40 year old woman with a bad record. It's not discrimination based on gender, it's discrimination based on demographics and history. Honestly, I don't see how you sincerely have an issue with this. So it takes a grown man more than half of his WHOLE life to become equal to a 16 year old girl? | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:29 shinosai wrote: I don't really care if women are charged less based on their demographic, but there does seem to be something more at work here than just that. I mean, there are females my age that have been in multiple accidents that will be charged less insurance than me. I've never been in an accident, period. How does that make sense? I'm still somehow more likely to get into an accident than a female who's been in multiple accidents, just because I'm male? I highly doubt there's any sort of statistic that can support that theory. Seems that gender is given far more weight than driving record, which is retarded. There's more factors than driving record and gender. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote: How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? That's like saying women and men should be charged the same for meals even though women tend to eat less than men. Because it's discrimination based on a protected trait (sex). It's illegal to make decisions based on that in many situations. In Canada, for example, a landlord can't refuse a potential renter based on their gender, race, religion, etc. Women are also in general less available workers (they have longer maternity leave, work less on average) but you can't discriminate in your hiring based on sex by law. | ||
|
AAtwelve
57 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
