Discrimination in insurance

[Blagsta]

Like Women getting cheapr car insurance than men, because it's "sexist" if they have to pay the same. x(

No, its because statiscally, women are a lower risk.

[Man Of Kent]

No, its because statiscally, women are a lower risk.

Statisically they are more likely to take time off from work to have/raise kids.

Why can't that be taken into consideration for employment purposes?

When discrimination based on sex acceptable?[/tangent]

[Man Of Kent]

Oooh, please, I've never read it.

Seriously?

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

It was taken from an often used response to gay bashing on Christian websites and the TV programme plagarised it... apparently.

[Blagsta]

Statisically they are more likely to take time off from work to have/raise kids.

Why can't that be taken into consideration for employment purposes?

When discrimination based on sex acceptable?[/tangent]

Money.

[Man Of Kent]

Money.

Nice detailed response there mate, missing one factor.

Money applies to both.

[Blagsta]

Nice detailed response there mate, missing one factor.

Money applies to both.

I didn't really understand the question.

[Man Of Kent]

Figured that you wouldn't.

It's not considered sexist when an insurance company offers lower rates to women because statistically they are less of a risk.

It is considered sexist when the same company refuses to employ a mother because statistically she is more likely to take time off.

My question was, why defend one, when you would not defend the other?

[Blagsta]

OK I get you. Because its a human right to have kids and look after them, not just a human right but a social necessity.

[Namaste]

Actually, I think Diamond allow men on now too.

And I'm with Blagsta on this one...

[Kermit]

I did see once the reason was that while women on average have more claims they are likely to claim less. Wish I could remember where I saw that statistic. Would google it but its late.

Seem to remember it had something to do with the nature of accidents. Women apparently are more likely to smash a tail light or something and guys roll cars (probably less extreme but you get the idea)

Might not be true anymore.

That is pretty much it.

In most families the man still remains the main driver, and so will drive more, further, and on faster roads. Therefore if he makes an error its more likely to be more expensive, which obviously costs the insurers more money.

Women, on the other hand, don't tend to drive further than Sainsbury's. If they make an error it will be at low speed, and cheaper to repair.

The sexism with car insurance is nothing short of a disgrace, as is the ageism.

[budda]

The sexism with car insurance is nothing short of a disgrace, as is the ageism.

Its just another part of the risk analysis that all insurance companies have to do to calculate the cost to them and the price. If they didnt discriminate on location, age, sex, weight, etc. they wouldnt know what to charge and would therefore charge more.

[Man Of Kent]

OK I get you. Because its a human right to have kids and look after them, not just a human right but a social necessity.

Since when has it been a "right"?

And that doesn't address the statistical element, why shouldn't an employer be able to take that into consideration? We're not talking about discrimination on the basis of "I don't like women", we're talking about evidence based discrimination.... in both cases...

[Toadborg]

The sexism with car insurance is nothing short of a disgrace, as is the ageism.

Insurance firms have to deal with averages, if they didn't discriminate then the women would have to pay more not men less else the firms would make losses........

[Blagsta]

Since when has it been a "right"?

Errr...its the way the human race perpetuates itself.

And that doesn't address the statistical element, why shouldn't an employer be able to take that into consideration? We're not talking about discrimination on the basis of "I don't like women", we're talking about evidence based discrimination.... in both cases...

I've answered why. Having kids is a basic human function, driving cars is not.

[Man Of Kent]

Errr...its the way the human race perpetuates itself.

But not all can do it, so it isn't a "right" is it?

I've answered why. Having kids is a basic human function, driving cars is not.

Working isn't either.

Your whole argument based on the fact is that women can have kids. But that doesn't explain why an employer shouldn't take that innto consideration when considering employment...

[Spliffie]

Man of Kent makes a good point - the double standard is quite blantant.

You've either got to have it fully one way, or fully the other - discrimination allowed, or discrimination disallowed. Anything else is illogical and unjust.

[Bomberman444]

Think point with insurance is it's not charging some people more its giving a discount to people that are a lower risk. People who don't smoke now get a discount with some insurance companies. The only other real way they could do it would be to charge people all the same regardless of past history which would put most peoples premiums up.

[Yerascrote]

But judging your "risk" on the fact you have a cock and high testosterone levels are stupid i think.

[Blagsta]

But not all can do it, so it isn't a "right" is it?

Well, no maybe "right" is the wrong term. "Rights" only exist within particular social contexts. It is, however, a basic human necessity to reproduce and to look after your offspring.

Working isn't either.

Well, yes it is under our current economic system. No work, no shelter, no food.

Your whole argument based on the fact is that women can have kids. But that doesn't explain why an employer shouldn't take that innto consideration when considering employment...

They should take it into consideration...by providing childcare and creche facilities and time off to those who need it.

[Blagsta]

Think point with insurance is it's not charging some people more its giving a discount to people that are a lower risk. People who don't smoke now get a discount with some insurance companies. The only other real way they could do it would be to charge people all the same regardless of past history which would put most peoples premiums up.

Exactly. I'm no fan of insurance companies, but its an economic argument not a moral one.

[Namaste]

Since when has it been a "right"?

To have a family?

Article 16 of the Human Rights Act

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage. During marriage and at its dissolution.

(3) The family is the natural and fundemental group unit of society and is entitled to protection from society and the state.

[Man Of Kent]

[quote]Well, yes it is under our current economic system. No work, no shelter, no food.

Not true. It's preferable to work, but it is possible to have all three without work.

They should take it into consideration...by providing childcare and creche facilities and time off to those who need it.

Still no further on. Why should an employer take on the financial "risk" of employing someone who statistically is going to take more time away from work?

Usuing your argument there, why should they take on the financial "burden" of providing each of those benefits you mention?

[Blagsta]

Not true. It's preferable to work, but it is possible to have all three without work.



Still no further on. Why should an employer take on the financial "risk" of employing someone who statistically is going to take more time away from work?

Usuing your argument there, why should they take on the financial "burden" of providing each of those benefits you mention?

Its a nonsense comparison, you're trying to compare apples with car tyres. Having babies is a basic human necessity, having a car isn't. End of.

[Man Of Kent]

Having babies is a basic human necessity

No it isn't.

[billybob87]

it is in terms of keeping the race going!

[Yerascrote]

it is in terms of keeping the race going!

Not a necessity though.

In today's world, having babies is more choice than natural human function, we use contraceptives, we choose our partners, plan our families, I'm sure our ancestors never did this.

[Blagsta]

No it isn't.

Errr...yeah it is, otherwise the human race dies out.

[Blagsta]

Not a necessity though.

In today's world, having babies is more choice than natural human function, we use contraceptives, we choose our partners, plan our families, I'm sure our ancestors never did this.

Its still a necessity for the continuation of the human race.

[Namaste]

Its still a necessity for the continuation of the human race.
At least until we start cloning.

But yes, everybody has the right to raise a family and for the family's interests to be protected. It can be interpretted however people want it to be, but I think that a child's primary socialisation is very important.

[Man Of Kent]

Errr...yeah it is, otherwise the human race dies out.

So it's a necessity for the race, but not for each female - which is the point I am getting at.

So, the race needs to reproduce. Thta still doesn't explain why an employers whouldn't take it consideration the fact that a wome is more likely to take time off- as part of that process - than a man is.

It still doesn't justify why the employer should make provision for crech etc and allow "as much time off" as you suggested previously...

So, rather than offering the usual one line response, is there any possibility that you could actually support your postion for once?

[Kermit]

Insurance firms have to deal with averages, if they didn't discriminate then the women would have to pay more not men less else the firms would make losses........

And?

One of my friends (female) has had about four prangs in her car now, whereas I haven't had any. And I've been driving longer.

Guess who gets the cheaper insurance?

Same with old people. The old drivers are the most dangerous on the road- yes, 28mph on a trunk road is dangerous- but they get cheaper insurance. Why? They're less "risk"- the bloke who runs into them doing 28mph on a trunk road is at fault.

Everyone should pay the same, based on experience and crashes.

[Fiend_85]

What about natural talent? Obviously a little hard to measure, but just as an additional thought, I'm naturally better at driving than many people my age, who have had more experience than me.

[Toadborg]

And?

One of my friends (female) has had about four prangs in her car now, whereas I haven't had any. And I've been driving longer.

Guess who gets the cheaper insurance?

Same with old people. The old drivers are the most dangerous on the road- yes, 28mph on a trunk road is dangerous- but they get cheaper insurance. Why? They're less "risk"- the bloke who runs into them doing 28mph on a trunk road is at fault.

Everyone should pay the same, based on experience and crashes.

And I tell you that if insurance firms could not discriminate then they will make losses and go out of business or everyone will pay more.

Which do you prefer? That everypone pay the same for some petty sense of 'justice'?

And of course I am sure you are aware that 'personal experience' is completely irrelevant to the argument, as it is to most......

[Blagsta]

So it's a necessity for the race, but not for each female - which is the point I am getting at.

So, the race needs to reproduce. Thta still doesn't explain why an employers whouldn't take it consideration the fact that a wome is more likely to take time off- as part of that process - than a man is.

It still doesn't justify why the employer should make provision for crech etc and allow "as much time off" as you suggested previously...

So, rather than offering the usual one line response, is there any possibility that you could actually support your postion for once?

I have supported my position - it doesn't need more than a one liner. Having children is a right, is neccesary for society, it is necessary for society that parents look after children, more neccessary than the right of a company to make a profit. I guess it comes down to what you prioritise - people or profit.

[Spliffie]

I have supported my position - it doesn't need more than a one liner. Having children is a right, is neccesary for society, it is necessary for society that parents look after children, more neccessary than the right of a company to make a profit. I guess it comes down to what you prioritise - people or profit.

For some people, having a car is a personal necessity (work, relationships, lifestyle etc - which all have knock-on effects to all aspects of life). If you accept discrimination against social/gender groups on that, then it would stand to reason you would accept discrimination on other grounds as well (race etc).

If a gender or social group is discriminated against, it stands to reason that all other social groups can be discriminated against equally. But this isn't so -it's an illogical double standard.

[Blagsta]

For some people, having a car is a personal necessity (work, relationships, lifestyle etc - which all have knock-on effects to all aspects of life).

Having a car is comparable to having a child? Errr...no.

If you accept discrimination against social/gender groups on that, then it would stand to reason you would accept discrimination on other grounds as well (race etc).

Who is accepting discrimination? :confused:

If a gender or social group is discriminated against, it stands to reason that all other social groups can be discriminated against equally. But this isn't so -it's an illogical double standard.

Look, this is a non-argument. You might as well argue that insurance companies discriminate on age (younger drivers have higher premiums) or postcode or size of car or whether people have alarms etc.

[Spliffie]

Having a car is comparable to having a child? Errr...no.

No. But it can still be a critical necessity as I said for some people.


Who is accepting discrimination? :confused:

Well, you're opposing the right of an employer to take a women's age and status into consideration yet don't have a problem with insurance companies milking more money from young males by means of gender discrimination. You can say one is more important than the other, but it's hard to deny the evident contradiction. Permitting statistical discrimination wholesale or prohibiting it wholesale would be a far more sensible and even approach.



Look, this is a non-argument. You might as well argue that insurance companies discriminate on age (younger drivers have higher premiums) or postcode or size of car or whether people have alarms etc.

You could do, but I don't really care either way. All i'm saying is there's a double standard with slightly dubious foundations.

[Blagsta]

No, not really, for the reasons already mentioned.

[Man Of Kent]

So the argument is that because childbirth is a "necessity" then sometimes discrimination is okay?

What about age discrimination, sexuality? Neither of those relate to human necessity... is it okay to discriminate on those grounds?

[Kermit]

And I tell you that if insurance firms could not discriminate then they will make losses and go out of business or everyone will pay more.

I'm 22 and male.

I couldn't pay much more anyway.

Why should I care?

That everypone pay the same for some petty sense of 'justice'?

Got it in one.

[Blagsta]

So the argument is that because childbirth is a "necessity" then sometimes discrimination is okay?

What about age discrimination, sexuality? Neither of those relate to human necessity... is it okay to discriminate on those grounds?

Oh Christ. :rolleyes: Its not discrimination OK?

[xmizzcattyx]

on the driving point.. surely it would be discrimination against women to make them pay the same as men when it is men who have the most accidents.

[Toadborg]

Got it in one.

Well how big of you to admit that you are a petty person, well done to you ........... :rolleyes:

[Kermit]

Well how big of you to admit that you are a petty person, well done to you

It's not pettiness though, is it?

Why should I have to pay £400 more than my wife for my car insurance simply because she is a woman? We're equally good drivers, both with clean licenses and no crashes, why should I pay more?

If questioning why I should pay more makes me petty, then an awful lot of people are petty.

[Bomberman444]

on the driving point.. surely it would be discrimination against women to make them pay the same as men when it is men who have the most accidents.

Think its already been covered that this statement isn't correct.

[Man Of Kent]

Oh Christ. :rolleyes: Its not discrimination OK?

How so? Insurance costs based on your age, gender, employment - but not on the individual asking for cover. How is that not discrimination?

[CptCoatHanger]

How so? Insurance costs based on your age, gender, employment - but not on the individual asking for cover. How is that not discrimination?

This is a corker worthy of it's own thread i think!

My two cents:

I don't think there's any doubt that insurance companies discriminate. I'm certainly penalised as a 23 year old male driver (with no claims to my name) because of the track record of my demographic. Whether the discrimination involved is comparable to that received by women in the work place is a toughie!

I think my place of work poses a good, but perhaps atypical, scenario for analysis. I work for a company that it made up of 6 people (including myself). It lives very much hand to mouth and the work load increases quite significantly for everyone else when a member of staff takes holiday or time off through illness. Would it be unreasonable for the owners of my company to seriously consider not hiring a woman in her late twenties / early thirties woman because they simply couldn't afford to pay her maternity leave and have her work load distributed between the remaining staff members (or hire another member of staff to cover in her absence)?

[Jim V]

And like magic - one new thread

[CptCoatHanger]

And like magic - one new thread

:D - Cheers Jim

[Man Of Kent]

WTF

Thought I was going mad...

Whether the discrimination involved is comparable to that received by women in the work place is a toughie!

It isn't, not directly. The principle is the same, which was my point.

Would it be unreasonable for the owners of my company to seriously consider not hiring a woman in her late twenties / early thirties woman because they simply couldn't afford to pay her maternity leave and have her work load distributed between the remaining staff members (or hire another member of staff to cover in her absence)?

Exactly. Why should the business suffer for what is effectively a lifestyle choice? And as they would, if that choice is taken up, why shouldn't they be allowed to take it into consideration?

[CptCoatHanger]

Exactly. Why should the business suffer for what is effectively a lifestyle choice? And as they would, if that choice is taken up, why shouldn't they be allowed to take it into consideration?

As a side point, isn't illegeal for an employer to ask in an interview if the woman has any plans for children? Now normally my first reaction would be "What does that matter? The chances are she will.", but knowing my employers situation it would seem like a perfectly reasonable question to ask as long as they explained their reasons behind it.

[Man Of Kent]

As a side point, isn't illegeal for an employer to ask in an interview if the woman has any plans for children?

Not so much illegal in a criminal sense, but certainly in a civil sense.

It's why I ask the question in the first place.

[Flashman's Ghost]

As a side point, isn't illegeal for an employer to ask in an interview if the woman has any plans for children?


I could be wrong, but my understanding is that its only illegal if you ask it to women and then factor in that she'll be off work as a reason for not giving her the job as that's sexual discrimination. Its OK if you also ask men the same question and then don't use the answers you got when deciding who to give the job to. Which off course means it makes no sense to ask the question anyway...

That said this information is based on a semi-drunken pub conversation and I can't vouch for its accuracy.

[Senor Miguel]

personally i'm against the idea of companies even being allowed to profit from car insurance, when this mode of travel is a necessity in modern life.......should be regulated by the government on a not for profit basis, that way i might actually be able to afford getting on the road, as it is right now i've got absolutlely no chance........when insurance is costing more than the car this is surely a ludicrous scenario........

[Toadborg]

"Governments also sometimes require that people buy insurance. For example, many states require drivers to buy automobile insurance. The federal government requires that all workers "buy" disability insurance through social security as well as unemployment insurance.

The problem of adverse selection explains some of these government requirements. With adverse selection, people with high risk (unobserved by the insurance firms) tend to buy insurance; but this tends to drive up insurance rates so that people with lower risks do not buy. In extreme cases of adverse selection, no insurance will be provided. Requiring that everyone buy eliminates the adverse selection problem. "

(John Taylor, Stanford University)

[Blagsta]

I don't know why I'm down as the thread starter on this thread, as far as I'm concerned its a non-argument.

[Jim V]

sorry you only see a little bit of each message when splitting them, so it's hard to tell when the insurance discussion started

[Man Of Kent]

I don't know why I'm down as the thread starter on this thread, as far as I'm concerned its a non-argument.

Of course it is.

You have nothing to back up this "non-argument" position, of course. Other than the "human necessity" approach, which doesn't actually mean jack.

[Blagsta]

I've backed it up as much as a I need to. Its a non-argument for reasons stated. End of.

[Skive]

How so? Insurance costs based on your age, gender, employment - but not on the individual asking for cover. How is that not discrimination?

Blaggy?

[wheresmyplacebo]

and the fact car insurance isnt much cheaper than paying for incidents yourself, considering i know people so desperate not to ruibn their insurance status they pay for repairs themselves cause its cheaper than the rise in insurance costs fi they report it - how is that cheap? id rather people were forced to pay into their own fund of somesort that will provide moeny if they need it after an accident and if they havent got enough lend it to them

[Blagsta]

Oh I'm not defending insurance companies at all (I've already stated this), they're a bloody rip off. I just think that comparing it to employers discriminating against women who get pregnant is absurd, for the reasons already stated.

[wheresmyplacebo]

Oh I'm not defending insurance companies at all (I've already stated this), they're a bloody rip off. I just think that comparing it to employers discriminating against women who get pregnant is absurd, for the reasons already stated.


ill put it another way then, would you see anything discriminatory if a guy got sacked from work for dubious reasons but mainly because he wanted more flexible hours to see his kids?

[Blagsta]

ill put it another way then, would you see anything discriminatory if a guy got sacked from work for dubious reasons but mainly because he wanted more flexible hours to see his kids?

Of course.

[Skive]

Oh I'm not defending insurance companies at all (I've already stated this), they're a bloody rip off. I just think that comparing it to employers discriminating against women who get pregnant is absurd, for the reasons already stated.

One involves discrimination against women, the other against age and men.

[Blagsta]

No it doesn't, for the reasons already stated.

[Skive]

No it doesn't, for the reasons already stated.

How is it not discrimination?

The cost of my insurance is based upon what sex and what age I am, not on me me as an individual.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Women are more likley to hit stationary objects, the insurance company doesn't have to compensate a tree. Odly enough.

Men are more liley to hit a moving thing, such as get walloped by a car. Not making them worse drivers, as it takes SKILL to get a moving target. ;)

Women capaigned for eqaulity. So, pay the same price, damnit! Taking time off work for a new Kid? Both parents should be allowed it, really... but meh, that doesn't make a company money, so men don't get it.

Sexism still exists against both sexes though. Annoyingly enough.

[Namaste]

One involves discrimination against women, the other against age and men.
The Human Rights Act says that families have a right to raise a family and for that family to be protected by society. Not that everybody has a right to car insurance. It's the same as people complaining about not being able to go to Anne Summers parties.

[Skive]

-'] Not that everybody has a right to car insurance.

To drive on the road you it's a legal requirement that have insurance. For many people driving is a necessity.

However you look at it it's still discrimination.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Some people shouldn't have the right to a car, end.

[Skive]

Some people shouldn't have the right to a car, end.

Soem people shouldn't have the right to have kids. What is your point?

[Namaste]

To drive on the road you it's a legal requirement that have insurance. For many people driving is a necessity.

However you look at it it's still discrimination.
So is not allowing a man in to an Anne Summer's party, so is not allowing women to fight in the front line of the armed forces.

[Skive]

-']So is not allowing a man in to an Anne Summer's party, so is not allowing women to fight in the front line of the armed forces.

We've already established that having children is a 'social necessity', does that not apply to driving?

[Man Of Kent]

I just think that comparing it to employers discriminating against women who get pregnant is absurd, for the reasons already stated.

Because you missed the point of principle and got caught up in the whole "human necessity" angle.

It makes no difference if something is a necessity. Penalising someone, to any extent, purely on the basis of gender/sexuality/age is wrong. Or do you disagree with that sentiment?

-]So is not allowing a man in to an Anne Summer's party, so is not allowing women to fight in the front line of the armed forces

So, are those two examples acceptable then? Perhaps, if you think it is, you can explain why.

[Skive]

If statistics showed that black people were more likely to be involved in accidents on the road would it be acceptable for insurance companies to charge them more?

[Namaste]

We've already established that having children is a 'social necessity', does that not apply to driving?
Nope, why not use public transport?

[Skive]

-']Nope, why not use public transport?

And that will do for the hundreds of thousands of builders, engineers, plumbers, salesman etc etc ?

[klintock]

A question occurs....

Would women NOT claim it's discrimination if the roles were reversed?

Whether it is or it isn't might not be the point. I am pretty certain that if women were the heftier payers then they would complain.

So on that basis, why should men not have a moan. As a group we can/might be bad drivers, but there are exceptions to every rule and that's discrimination based on arbitary grouping.

[Skive]

Would women NOT claim it's discrimination if the roles were reversed?

And Blagsta would be first to complain if it were blacks having to pay more.

[CptCoatHanger]

If statistics showed that black people were more likely to be involved in accidents on the road would it be acceptable for insurance companies to charge them more?

I don't think that' a good example. You'd need to be more specific. If a disproportionate amount of black people where statistically being involved in accidents then you'd need to look at the backgrounds of the people in question. You'd probably find it would be the case that, for example, in the majority of the accidents the party at fault was Nigerian. You'd then probably be able to put that down to the fact that a driving test in Nigeria consists of a straight road and 3 strategically placed chickens you have to avoid (for the record: i've no idea what a Nigerian driving test consists of or whether Nigerians are statistically bad drivers :) ).

[Kermit]

It's a very good example.

I have to pay more more my insurance than my wife, and we are equally good drivers. IF someone could explain how it is NOT discriminatory that she pays £400 less, then I'd be grateful to hear it.

I'm not interested in the "social necessity" argument. IT's a simple question.

How is it NOT discriminatory that I have to pay £400 more for my insurance simply because I have a penis?

Driving is a social necessity, too, if we're going to go down that road. Move to the Lakes and let us know how long you last without driving.

[CptCoatHanger]

It's a very good example.

I don't think it is at all. Using the current insurance system, that'd just be like clasifying people into male and female and leaving it at that without any further break down, hence my explanation.

Although i do agree with you that that surely it would be easier to put everyone on the same scale as far as car insurance goes. Taking into consideration years driving experience, accidents and locality. It would mean however that if you had an accident your insurance would go up more considerably than it does now.

[Skive]

How is discrimination based on the clour of you skin much different than discrimtination based on whether or not you have a cock?

[Kermit]

I don't think it is at all. Using the current insurance system, that'd just be like clasifying people into male and female and leaving it at that without any further break down, hence my explanation.

Which is effectively what happens.

Why else would me and my wife- identical driving record, identical years driving experience, same age, same house, same car- have such a gigantic difference in price?

[Aladdin]

£400 more
:eek: Bloody 'ell!

[CptCoatHanger]

Which is effectively what happens.

Why else would me and my wife- identical driving record, identical years driving experience, same age, same house, same car- have such a gigantic difference in price?

As i've said before i don't dispute the wrongness of the situation. What i'm saying is that the current system does break it down further than simply age. Which is why i said that the black drivers example wasn't a precise one.

[Toadborg]

How is discrimination based on the clour of you skin much different than discrimtination based on whether or not you have a cock?

Because there is no reason to beleive that the colour of your skin has any effect on driving performance.

The differences between men and women do lead to differences in driving ability and style however........

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

I always thought it was down to statistics? What are you all discussing anyway? The thread seems a little bit muddled up.

[Skive]

Because there is no reason to beleive that the colour of your skin has any effect on driving performance.

So if the statistics did show that skin colour affected your performance, it would be alright to discriminate then?

[Skive]

I always thought it was down to statistics?

It is. It's based on statistics gained from the ability of other drivers, not from my ability as an individual.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

I would say so, but it would need to be pretty overwhelming stats.

Just found this, which may support why men are charged more for insurance

Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior. Source: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

It is. It's based on statistics gained from the ability of other drivers, not from my ability as an individual.
But then what would be the point of statistics if they took into account the ability of every single driver?

[Skive]

Just found this, which may support why men are charged more for insurance

Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior. Source: http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11

Ok but like Kermit has pointed out he pays £400 quid more than his wife for his insurance yet has never had an accident. Is that right?

[budda]

It is. It's based on statistics gained from the ability of other drivers, not from my ability as an individual.

But for it not to be based on stats the insurance company would have to test every single persons driving.

[Kermit]

That insurance companies need to generalise isn't disputed. I wouldn't expect to pay the same as the bloke who has 30 years impeccable drivinbg experience, that would be stupid.

BUt surely it should be generalised along experience not on the simple fact that I have a penis and my wife does not? We have equal driving records- completely clean, not even a speeding or parking ticket- and equal experience. Why does she therefore get quoted a price one third less than mine?

If black people were statistically more likely to crash, would it be acceptable to charge black people 1/3 more?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Ok but like Kermit has pointed out he pays £400 quid more than his wife for his insurance yet has never had an accident. Is that right?
Well yeah, because statistically he's more likely to have an accident than Mrs Kermit because he is a male. And like Bong points out, if the insurance companies were to test everybody's driving ability, it would just be impractical.

[Skive]

But for it not to be based on stats the insurance company would have to test every single persons driving.

Or give them quotes in the first place which arn't based upon age and sex.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

That insurance companies need to generalise isn't disputed. I wouldn't expect to pay the same as the bloke who has 30 years impeccable drivinbg experience, that would be stupid.

BUt surely it should be generalised along experience not on the simple fact that I have a penis and my wife does not? We have equal driving records- completely clean, not even a speeding or parking ticket- and equal experience. Why does she therefore get quoted a price one third less than mine?

If black people were statistically more likely to crash, would it be acceptable to charge black people 1/3 more?
I can see what you're saying, but part of it is down to experience (no claims bonus, number of year had licence etc), and part of it's down to gender as well. If males (young males especially) weren't found to be the cause of many major accidents, then as a whole demographic males wouldn't have to pay more. If black people were statistically more likely to have a crash, then yeah, of course it would be acceptable to charge them 1/3 more.

[Kermit]

But that is a non-argument.

People who crash should pay for it. People who don't should not.

Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of some statistic? Why should I be discriminated against because of a statistic? Why is it OK for me to be discriminated against because of a statistic, but not women in the workplace?

What do I have in common with the boy racers except the fact that I have a penis? Why is making me pay not discriminatory?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

But that is a non-argument.

People who crash should pay for it. People who don't should not.

Why should I have to pay for the mistakes of some statistic? Why should I be discriminated against because of a statistic? Why is it OK for me to be discriminated against because of a statistic, but not women in the workplace?

What do I have in common with the boy racers except the fact that I have a penis? Why is making me pay not discriminatory?
How is it an non-argument? The thing you have in common with boy-racers is that you have a penis. That's enough for the insurance companies. They don't know that you're a great driver, they don't want to take the risk of insuring you for less. And they don't know you from John. Statistics are not a mistake, they predict the likelihood of you having an accident based on a number of factors, including gender. If the stats say that males have a statistically larger chance of having an accident, ergo, as a male, you pay more. I reckon you gruding paying more in insurance is like saying that as a smoker, you grudge paying taxes that fund the treatment for lung cancer in smokers, if you never have lung cancer [/hypotetical situation].

And what do you mean about the 'but not women in the workplace'? That's why the thread got confusing.

[budda]

Yes its unfair, yes its discrimination, but no, its not going to stop.

Insurance has and will always work based on risk to the insurance company, that is based on statistics.

[Kermit]

Of course it won't stop.

But that doesn't make it moral.

And it certainly doesn't make it any more morally justifable than discrimination in the workplace.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Yes its unfair, yes its discrimination, but no, its not going to stop.

Insurance has and will always work based on risk to the insurance company, that is based on statistics.
I don't think it's discrimination on the same level though as not employing a woman because she might have kids.

[Man Of Kent]

I don't think it's discrimination on the same level though as not employing a woman because she might have kids.

Of course it's the same level. Princples don't come with degrees of acceptability.

Either discrimination is okay, or it isn't.

Statistically women spend more time away from work giving birth to, and raising, children. Why is it illegal to take that into consideration?

[budda]

Statistically women spend more time away from work giving birth to, and raising, children. Why is it illegal to take that into consideration?

Because women vote more than men, and most men generally accept they have to pay more for insurance.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Of course it's the same level. Princples don't come with degrees of acceptability.

Either discrimination is okay, or it isn't.

Statistically women spend more time away from work giving birth to, and raising, children. Why is it illegal to take that into consideration?

I can see your logic, but it's totally flawed imo. Discrimination can have differing degrees, but whether it is okay or not is besides the point. Men on insurance and women in the workplace is not on the same level at all. Charging men more on insurance is not discrimination, it's based on statistical probablility. The chances of them having an accident is higher, so they have to pay for it. Next you'll be moaning that you need to pay more in insurance because you're being discriminated against for living in an inner-city area, which although you might live in a nice area, that postcode is known as having high rates of car theft. So what if women are more likely to spend time away from work due to childbirth etc, does that really matter? They lose out on proper pay, keeping up with their career, knowing waht's going on in their area of employment etc etc. Taking into consideration if a potential employee might have children is ridiculous (if it's taken into consideration on whether they get the job).

[Kermit]

But women are more at risk for taking lots of time away from the workplace, costing the employers thousands of pounds. Why should the employer have to take these losses on the chin when insurance companies don't have to?

It is exactly the same principle. Principles don't come in varying levels- either you agree with the principle or you don't.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

But women are more at risk for taking lots of time away from the workplace, costing the employers thousands of pounds. Why should the employer have to take these losses on the chin when insurance companies don't have to?

It is exactly the same principle. Principles don't come in varying levels- either you agree with the principle or you don't.
Ok, it's discrimination if you define it as 'The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment', but that's as far as it goes. You cannot compare having a child and driving a car. As for the workplace losing money. WOmen are replaced for the duration of their maternity leave. Women take a period of unpaid absence. Women don't have to have kids. But to drive you have to have insurance. Why are you not up in arms about being discriminated about where you live for your insurance, or what kind of car you drive, or whether it's parked on the road or in a garage? Or be annoyed when men take paternal leave? You seem to be stuck in some primal theme here...

Why should the employer have to take these losses on the chin when insurance companies don't have to?
They do, they pay out for the accidents caused by males. And because the majority of accidents are caused by males, it's males who pay more, and the males who have accident pay even more than that.

[Skive]

You cannot compare having a child and driving a car.

This discussion is giving me deja vu I think!

[Kermit]

Where you live is an obvious risk assessment. If you live in a high crime area you will be mor elikely to crash, its simple averages.

I am not more likely to crash simply because I have a penis, there are no statistics that say I am. Some may possibly say that men have more accidents, but that has zero impact on the risk assessment of me.

I aren't bothered that women have maternal rights, that's the whole point. I am bothered that people think that this is unacceptable, yet are so willing to justify the discrimination employed by insurance companies, because they are both the same principle, and both just as morally abhorrent.

[Man Of Kent]

Discrimination can have differing degrees

In terms of impact there are different degrees, but the principle is the same.

Charging men more on insurance is not discrimination, it's based on statistical probablility. The chances of them having an accident is higher, so they have to pay for it.

based on statistical probability any woman under the age of 35 is several times more likely to take time off to give birth (given the zero probability that a man will) and is more likely to take time off for childrens sickness/school leave etc.

Surely then that is relevant to her employment.

I'm not talking about degrees of impact, I'm talking about the principle of using statistics to discriminate.

So what if women are more likely to spend time away from work due to childbirth etc, does that really matter? They lose out on proper pay, keeping up with their career, knowing waht's going on in their area of employment etc etc. Taking into consideration if a potential employee might have children is ridiculous (if it's taken into consideration on whether they get the job).

You mean apart from the cost of recruitment, training, cover for leave etc? The fact that the higher your turnover of staff, the greater the costs and the lower the effectiveness?

[budda]

OK, we've agreed its unfair, we've agreed it will continue regardless and we've agreed that the only way insurance can possibly work is by using statistics.

So how did this topic get to 6 pages?!

[CptCoatHanger]

I'm getting a little confused here. :)

Is the idea of necessary discrimination being thrown out?

If my employer (using the case i cited earlier) needs to employ another person but really can't afford to have that person take any more time off than the statutory holiday and few days illness, it's obvious that it is discriminating against late / twenties early thirties woman, but is this wrong?

[Man Of Kent]

So how did this topic get to 6 pages?!

The same way all P&D threads do. Tangents and obstinence.

[Man Of Kent]

OK, we've agreed its unfair, we've agreed it will continue regardless and we've agreed that the only way insurance can possibly work is by using statistics.

Can I just add that my concern was never whether it was okay for insurers to use statistics. I have no problem with that at all. Risk analysis is important.

My question was more about why the same concept cannot be used elsewhere, if it is considered okay for insurance.

[budda]

My question was more about why the same concept cannot be used elsewhere, if it is considered okay for insurance.

Its just were the focus is, women being kicked out of jobs while pregnant get sympathy, men moaning on about high insurance do not.

I guess its a sign that men are second class citizens.

[Kermit]

I guess its a sign that men are second class citizens.

Truest thing said on this thread so far.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Where you live is an obvious risk assessment. If you live in a high crime area you will be mor elikely to crash, its simple averages.

I am not more likely to crash simply because I have a penis, there are no statistics that say I am. Some may possibly say that men have more accidents, but that has zero impact on the risk assessment of me.

Of course you having a penis is an obvious risk assessment. IIf you have a penis, you're more likely to crash, it's simple averages. If men have more accidents, then you as a man, of course it has an impact on the risk assessment of you.

based on statistical probability any woman under the age of 35 is several times more likely to take time off to give birth (given the zero probability that a man will) and is more likely to take time off for childrens sickness/school leave etc.
But you're not figuring in the chances that a man will do the same (not have a baby, take time off) Ditto to
You mean apart from the cost of recruitment, training, cover for leave etc? The fact that the higher your turnover of staff, the greater the costs and the lower the effectiveness?

OK, we've agreed its unfair,
I think it's fair :)

Skive, yup, deja vu for me too mate... ;)

[Kermit]

Of course you having a penis is an obvious risk assessment.

No it's not.

And why is that an acceptable risk assessment but in employment it is not?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

No it's not.

And why is that an acceptable risk assessment but in employment it is not?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? You said
Where you live is an obvious risk assessment. If you live in a high crime area you will be more likely to crash, it's simple averages.
Your gender is an obvious risk assessment. It's simple averages that the majority of accidents are caused by young male drivers, therefore if you have a penis, and are therefore a male, you have a statistically more chance of having an accident. It's fairly obvious I would've thought? I don't think the same applies to the workplace. Statistically women are more likely to have women. Despite the concessions I pointed out earlier, basically your suggesting that women are penalised for having kids? Men are penalised because they generally cause accidents. Women should not be penalised for having kids.

[Kermit]

No, I'm not saying women should be penalised for having kids, I'm saying men shouldn't be penalised for a quirk of statistics.

Stats can prove anything you want them to prove. Insurance companies can get away with charging more- regardless of risk- so they use stats to do so.

It's the same principle. Either you are in favour of the principle of discrimination due to "risk" of gender or you are not. Personally, I am not.

THis isn't going anywhere. Yu seem happy to pay a fortune for no reason, so I will quite happily let you continue.

[klintock]

Of course you having a penis is an obvious risk assessment. IIf you have a penis, you're more likely to crash, it's simple averages.

Don't talk shite. The idea behind statistics is to have a vague guess about what may or may not happen in the future based on past results. As no two individuals are the same, it's horseshit. All you can use statistics for is to say "sometimes this happens, sometimes it doesn't".

If men have more accidents, then you as a man, of course it has an impact on the risk assessment of you.

This implies that the arbitary grouping "men" means anything for an individual. Obviously it doesn't Unless of course you are in favour of drawing up arbitary groupings and the discriminating against them merely because they are part of the arbitary group you just drew up.

How about all the groups of people you haven't created yet? Green eyed peeps, fat peeps, short peeps etc etc ?

It's useful for the insurer to asses their risks, but why charge people less or more based on those estimations? Once you prove the estimation of you to be correct, then the price should go north. Not before.

[Bomberman444]

To be fair having a higher chance of car theft because you are in a car theft area makes sense and statistics support it.

What reason does a penis have on every mans ability to drive? Does it swing with the momentum of the car and pull an arm down turning into other cars or what? It might be on average men have bigger claims (not more!) but saying that the fact they have a penis and they are men is the reason seems a bit daft.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

It's not a quirk of statistics though. It's been shown time and time again that men have more car accidents. I don't see how that's me 'talking shite', as you so eloquently put it Klintock.

As no two individuals are the same, it's horseshit.

So, stats based on heart attack liklihood in Scotland, for example, are horseshit because they don't take into account every single person? Or the fact that if you smoke you're more liklely to get cancer, because no two individuals are the same? Don't be ridiculous.

This implies that the arbitary grouping "men" means anything for an individual. Obviously it doesn't Unless of course you are in favour of drawing up arbitary groupings and the discriminating against them merely because they are part of the arbitary group you just drew up.

How is 'men' an arbitary grouping? It's a solid, well defined dividing line between the genders. And it's backed up with stats to prove it.

It's useful for the insurer to asses their risks, but why charge people less or more based on those estimations? Once you prove the estimation of you to be correct, then the price should go north. Not before.
Because the alternative of having to vet every single driver before they get covered is impractical, and would probably lead to increased costs.

Stats can prove anything you want them to prove. Insurance companies can get away with charging more- regardless of risk- so they use stats to do so. It's the same principle. Either you are in favour of the principle of discrimination due to "risk" of gender or you are not. Personally, I am not.
But with accidents, it's in black and white, it's not made up. And as for women, they might choose not to have kids. I honestly can't believe you're comparing the two... How would you feel if your wife was rejected for a job simply because she might have kids?

[CptCoatHanger]

To be fair having a higher chance of car theft because you are in a car theft area makes sense and statistics support it.

What reason does a penis have on every mans ability to drive? Does it swing with the momentum of the car and pull an arm down turning into other cars or what? It might be on average men have bigger claims (not more!) but saying that the fact they have a penis and they are men is the reason seems a bit daft.

Using the crime rate of your area as part of the calcualtion to price up a persons premium makes perfect sense to me, though you would be discriminating against people who live in shit areas.

Is insurance on the whole just one big ball of discrimination?

[Skive]

It's not a quirk of statistics though. It's been shown time and time again that men have more car accidents.

But that's not to say I'm going to have any more accidents?

In this current climate most terroists are Islamic, but that doesn't mean we should treat all Muslims as suicide bombers.

[Skive]

So, stats based on heart attack liklihood in Scotland, for example, are horseshit because they don't take into account every single person? Or the fact that if you smoke you're more liklely to get cancer, because no two individuals are the same? Don't be ridiculous.

Statistics don't 'make' things more likely.

If I moved to Scotland would the likelyhood of me suffering a heart attack suddenly increase?

[Kermit]

How is 'men' an arbitary grouping? It's a solid, well defined dividing line between the genders.

Why should there be a dividing line between the genders though?

Oh, because it's a completely arbritary grouping.

I have more in common with my wife than I do with many men.

[klintock]

It's not a quirk of statistics though. It's been shown time and time again that men have more car accidents. I don't see how that's me 'talking shite', as you so eloquently put it Klintock.

Except there are no "men" there are only individuals. You are advocating penalising (snigger) one person because of the actions or potential accidents of some people who have something you consider to be in common with them.

So, stats based on heart attack liklihood in Scotland, for example, are horseshit because they don't take into account every single person?

Exaclty right. Well done. You are one of these idiots who say that 8% of people who do "x" have "y" happen to them, so if you do "x" then you have an 8% chance of "y" occuring. Obvious bollocks.

From each individuals point of view, it's 50%, they either will or they won't. Or do you know someone with 8% of a heart attack or 5% of a cancer cell?

Or the fact that if you smoke you're more liklely to get cancer, because no two individuals are the same? Don't be ridiculous.

More likely? Sure you can say that. You can't say it for definite though, and this is what you are arguing, discriminating against an individual because of perceived similarities. Out there somewhere is an individual who won't get cancer no matter how much they smoke, just because.

How is 'men' an arbitary grouping? It's a solid, well defined dividing line between the genders. And it's backed up with stats to prove it.

Because there are no real similarities between individuals. Every single person is completely different. Even twins. You can choose to make up an arbitary grouping but it's not present out there in the good old real world.

Because the alternative of having to vet every single driver before they get covered is impractical, and would probably lead to increased costs.

No, I already gave you an alternative - charge everyone the same for insurance until they have an accident. Then do what the fuck your precious pie charts tell you. It would actually be cheaper.

But with accidents, it's in black and white, it's not made up.

Yeah it is. A 17 year old male who has just got into his first car is charged a fortune. he might crash it round the first bend, he might drive til he's 70 and hit nothing. You don't know, you've just made it up.

I honestly can't believe you're comparing the two... How would you feel if your wife was rejected for a job simply because she might have kids?

I am sorry? They are both wrong. Anytime you choose to behave towarda a person a certain way because they resemble something else you are

1) being an idiot

2) being discriminatory

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Statistics don't 'make' things more likely.

If I moved to Scotland would the likelyhood of me suffering a heart attack suddenly increase?
If you adopted an aspect of the culture of Scotland (in the whole battered black pudding and chips for breakfast lunch and dinner, 40 fags a day, and a 12 pack everynight), then yes, I would say so.
Why should there be a dividing line between the genders though? Oh, because it's a completely arbritary grouping.
How is it arbitrary? Arbitrary is something which is 'determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle'. The differences between male and female isn't exactly arbitrary...
Statistics don't 'make' things more likely
I know, but they predict the chances of something happening.
But that's not to say I'm going to have any more accidents?
I know that, but your chances of having an accident is increased on the evidence produced by your demographic profile.
And Kermit, you ignored my last point.
How would you feel if your wife was rejected for a job simply because she might have kids?

[klintock]

I know that, but your chances of having an accident is increased on the evidence produced by your demographic profile.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Skive]

I know, but they predict the chances of something happening.

They don't predict anything. They show past trends.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Except there are no "men" there are only individuals. You are advocating penalising (snigger) one person because of the actions or potential accidents of some people who have something you consider to be in common with them.
There are no men, only individuals? Don't be absurd... Consider to be in common with them (i.e. boy racers)? I have a penis? You (I assume) have a penis? That's something in common, is it not?

You are one of these idiots who say that 8% of people who do "x" have "y" happen to them, so if you do "x" then you have an 8% chance of "y" occuring. Obvious bollocks.
That's not idiotic. Looking at things on a microcosm is idiotic... You are losing sight of the whole picture, which is what's important.

From each individuals point of view, it's 50%, they either will or they won't. Or do you know someone with 8% of a heart attack or 5% of a cancer cell?
Of course that's true. But in a group of 100 people, you saying 50% of them will get heart disease and 50% of them won't? Doesn't work like that.


You can't say it for definite though, and this is what you are arguing, discriminating against an individual because of perceived similarities. Out there somewhere is an individual who won't get cancer no matter how much they smoke, just because.
It's not perceived similarities, it's definite, solid, indisputable similarities. All men have a cock! So what if there is one person out there who might not get cancer even though the smoke all their lives? The chances are they will, statistically it's more likely that you will. I'll say it again. STATISTICALLY IT'S MORE LIKELY THEY WILL.

[qoute]Because there are no real similarities between individuals. Every single person is completely different. Even twins. You can choose to make up an arbitary grouping but it's not present out there in the good old real world. [/quote]

Are you a complete mentalist? No real similarities between individuals? You have hair, a full complement of arms and legs, a set of genitals, a heart, a kidney, thoughts, feelings, emotions, toenails. Just like almost 100% of the human race? Unless you're some sort of one-armed, one-legged, heartless, biomechanical wheelchair person, who has had their brain removed and cuts all your toenails off?

No, I already gave you an alternative - charge everyone the same for insurance until they have an accident. Then do what the fuck your precious pie charts tell you. It would actually be cheaper.
Ok, that's a good idea. But it still doesn't negate the fact that the present system works.

A 17 year old male who has just got into his first car is charged a fortune. he might crash it round the first bend, he might drive til he's 70 and hit nothing. You don't know, you've just made it up.
How is it made up? The statistical chances of him having an accident are higher. That's the whole fucking point.


I am sorry? They are both wrong. Anytime you choose to behave towarda a person a certain way because they resemble something else you are

1) being an idiot

2) being discriminatory

I am discriminating against you because quite clearly, you've lost the plot. Oh, and there's no need for you to get so abusive in your replys btw. It's people like you that makes the forums so irritating, rather than having an adult coversation.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

They don't predict anything. They show past trends.
They show patterns.

[Skive]

I have a penis? You (I assume) have a penis? That's something in common, is it not?

So because you both have that in common it means you both have the same ability in driving a car?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Look, you live in Glasgow, park on the street, are a male driver aged 17. You have no no-claims bonus, and you use your car everyday. Why are you focusing on the gender aspect of discrimination? You live in Glasgow you're more likely to get your car stolen. You haev no no-claims discount. Yo uhave no experience or have recently claimed. YOu use your car every day. Increases your risk of being in an accident. You park on the street. It's not secured in a garage. You're young. You don't have much experience. You're male. Males are more likely to be involved in a major traffic accident than females. Stop tryign to be a smart arse and answer me why you're concentrating on one small variable in this big equation? I really don't see what the problem with in charging more to men who are more likely to be involved in a crash. Unless you have fanny-envy or something....

[Skive]

But in a group of 100 people, you saying 50% of them will get heart disease and 50% of them won't? Doesn't work like that.

Groups of people don't get cancer inividuals do, so statistics about groups are irrelavent.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

So because you both have that in common it means you both have the same ability in driving a car?
It doesn't matter about ability, it's about what demographic group you fit into. If I was male but had 5 years NCD, then that would be taken into consideration as well.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Groups of people don't get cancer inividuals do, so statistics about groups are irrelavent.
Stop focusing on the specific. Groups of people who have cancer though typically have something in common, whether it was the fact they smoked, or had an unhealthy diet. I know it's individuals that get cancer, but there are certain profiles that lead to an increase in the chances of getting cancer. So, if that holds (which it does), then you can say that 'if you smoke, have an unhealthy diet, and don't exercise', there's more liklihood you'll get cancer.

[Skive]

If I was male but had 5 years NCD, then that would be taken into consideration as well.

Yet it would still be cheaper if I didn't have a cock.

[Skive]

Stop focusing on the specific.

But that's what insurance should be - specific for the indidual.

Why is car insurance discrimination any worse than the type employment discrimination discussed earlier?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Yet it would still be cheaper if I didn't have a cock.
Yeah, because there's still statistically a higher chance of you having an accident. Because you have a cock. If your mother had a penis, she'd need to pay more [/joke, from Goldie Lookin' Chain song]

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

But that's what insurance should be - specific for the indidual.

Why is car insurance discrimination any worse than the type employment discrimination discussed earlier?
It's be too difficult to be specific. Then everybody would have to be vetted on their ability to drive. It's not worse or better than the employment discrimination mentioned earlier, it's just different. Women don't have to have kids, they have a choice in the matter. Men don't have to have accidents, but they usually don't have a choice in the matter. The cause of this is in their 'genes' :lol:

[klintock]

There are no men, only individuals? Don't be absurd...

It's the case. Sorry to disturb you with facts.

Consider to be in common with them (i.e. boy racers)? I have a penis? You (I assume) have a penis? That's something in common, is it not?

Not unless we have exactly the same penis, which I reckon we don't. you are missing my point totally. No two individuals have anything in common. Ever. You can make up useful lies about them which may or may not get you results, but they are still lies.

That's not idiotic. Looking at things on a microcosm is idiotic... You are losing sight of the whole picture, which is what's important.

You have probably never seen the whole picture as I would mean it. The whole pictuire is that there isn't a picture in the first place.

Of course that's true. But in a group of 100 people, you saying 50% of them will get heart disease and 50% of them won't? Doesn't work like that.

No I am not. I am saying that -

1) there are no groups

2) individuals have a 50% chance of something happening to them or not

Drop the idea that people can ever be grouped up except on the inside of your head. Doesn't happen out there in the real world.

It's not perceived similarities, it's definite, solid, indisputable similarities. All men have a cock! So what if there is one person out there who might not get cancer even though the smoke all their lives? The chances are they will, statistically it's more likely that you will. I'll say it again. STATISTICALLY IT'S MORE LIKELY THEY WILL.

No, it's entirely arbitary similarity, chosen at random. You could pick others just as easily. Green eyes, braod shoulders etc. What about size of penis? perhaps all men with 5 inchers or less are safe drivers?

And i am saying that statistically the chance of you getting something wrong about an individual is 100% and then you are discriminating against them on a false basis.

Are you a complete mentalist? No real similarities between individuals? You have hair, a full complement of arms and legs, a set of genitals, a heart, a kidney, thoughts, feelings, emotions, toenails. Just like almost 100% of the human race? Unless you're some sort of one-armed, one-legged, heartless, biomechanical wheelchair person, who has had their brain removed and cuts all your toenails off?

Every single one of those things you mentioned is completely, utterly different to any other individual that you have crudely lumped me together with. It's just fact mate. My toenails are different, my hair is different, my kidneys etc etc are all totally different and unique to me as yours are to you. Are you insane or can you not see the differences staring you in the face?

Ok, that's a good idea. But it still doesn't negate the fact that the present system works.

Thank you. It also proves that the current system is discriminatory with no real need.

How is it made up? The statistical chances of him having an accident are higher. That's the whole fucking point.

Only iof he genuinely is part of the group you decide to make up. Which he cannot be. The chances of him having an accident are 50/50. He either will or he won't. You are claiming to read his future based on other peoples pasts. Nuts.

I am discriminating against you because quite clearly, you've lost the plot. Oh, and there's no need for you to get so abusive in your replys btw. It's people like you that makes the forums so irritating, rather than having an adult coversation.

At no point did I insult you. Please apologise for that.

[Skive]

Yeah, because there's still statistically a higher chance of you having an accident.

Whether I crash or not has absolutely nothing to do with statistics or a penis. Either I will or I won't.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Look, if you think that me having toenails that are different to yours is somehow not having something in common, if you think there are no groups, only individuals, if you think people can't be group according to some shared characteristic, then you have quite clearly a completely different view of the world which I would argue isn't cogent with the majority of people, and I'm going to have to bow before your clearly ludicrous and potentially disturbed view of modern living, in fact of life in general, because trying to discuss anything with a person who has such a disturbed view of society far surpasses my powers of reasoning...

Yes, future performance is based on past patterns, if you were a woman I'm sure you wouldn't be moaning about the state of the insurance. Women are generally safer drivers. Are you a closet mysoginist? Do you really want women not to take a job because they might have kids. You want that to be used as employability criteria in the future?

Drop the idea that people can ever be grouped up except on the inside of your head. Doesn't happen out there in the real world.

It doesn't happen in the real world? So, year groups, faculties, sports teams, debating clubs, call centres, militray forces, police, fire brigade, nurses, doctors, etc etc, are only grouped up inside my head? These 'arbitrary distinctions' serve no purpose? Honestly mate, that's crazy :/

No, it's entirely arbitary similarity, chosen at random

It's not chosen at random. It's based on the fact men have more accidents than women. End of. You think there's some big conspiracy out to get us men to pay more for bloody car insurance? :lol: :lol:

Hoesntly though, I don't expect you to accept this. You have a devotion to your view that borders on religious hysteria, and you can never reason with a fanatic... And I never said you insulted me, I said your message was abusive. There's a difference.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Whether I crash or not has absolutely nothing to do with statistics or a penis. Either I will or I won't.
What is wrong with you? Yes, either you will or you won't, I'm not disputing that fact. But whether you will or won't is dependant on many factors, one of which is your gender. It's biologically set into us that, men like taking risks, and risk taking can be bad, because one day, that risk taking might just lead you to an accident. Saying that your gender doesn't have any bearing is like saying what kind of car you drive has no bearing... Totally absurd.

[klintock]

Look, if you think that me having toenails that are different to yours is somehow not having something in common, if you think there are no groups, only individuals, if you think people can't be group according to some shared characteristic

Our total difference is what we have in common now? Okay. I think.

Yes, you can group people up if you like. It's an arbitary, made up distinction that the real world doesn't bear out though. All I am pointing out is what reality is before you go rushing off into the ether with your theories about groups.

then you have quite clearly a completely different view of the world which I would argue isn't cogent with the majority of people,

So I have been told. Mines pretty accurate though.

and I'm going to have to bow before your clearly ludicrous and potentially disturbed view of modern living

Yes, everybody does eventually, ask Al or Blagsta. While it's obviously disturbed, it always falls down when we get to details and it's much easier to dismiss me then argue (because you can't because I am correct) or change your mind.

because trying to discuss anything with a person who has such a disturbed view of society far surpasses my powers of reasoning...

I don't have any view of society. I just see individuals, prisioners of their own heads mainly, tbh. I don't think there is any society. At all.

Hoesntly though, I don't expect you to accept this. You have a devotion to your view that borders on religious hysteria, and you can never reason with a fanatic...

Well, I do like the truth, god help me. I no more expect you to change the habit of a lifetime and organise your perceptions based on difference than commonality as I do.

And I never said you insulted me, I said your message was abusive. There's a difference.

Yes, of course there is. However in order to be abusive, there must be an abused. As I never abused you by your own admission, I never insulted you so.......apology please.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Mines pretty accurate though.
It's not accurate, it's just different.
Yes, everybody does eventually, ask Al or Blagsta. While it's obviously disturbed, it always falls down when we get to details and it's much easier to dismiss me then argue (because you can't because I am correct) or change your mind.
Like I say, you can't argue with a fanatic, whether it be a religious fanatic or whatever. You clearly have a base disability in being able to distinguish between the group and the individual, that disturbs me. But bear in mind, just because what you say is eloquent and has the appearance of fine words, it doesn't make you right. I've said your argument is flawed, for a number of reasons, and the best you can come up with is some pendantic point about how my cock isn't exactly the same as yours. That's not intellectual. It's not smart. Its not even illuminating. Arguing at the points of insignificant details will always win out, because people realise that you (klintock) will never be able to extrapolate to the big picture, because for you, there is no 'big picture', and because you are blinded by your own arrogance, you'll never see it. And just because I don't wish to engage in what I consider to be a futile waste of my time and intellectual effort, doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means I can't be bothered wasting my time with someone who is so blown up with his own image of intellectual grandeur. You're not clever, you're a pedant.

However in order to be abusive, there must be an abused. As I never abused you by your own admission, I never insulted you so.......apology please
See what I mean? You used abusive language, at which I took offence, because there as no need for it. Clear? See what I mean? Pedant...

[Aladdin]

Yes, everybody does eventually, ask Al or Blagsta Er... sorry to rain on your parade mate but I have not bowed to you in any way whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned the subject in question ("do countries exist" and assorted questions) died down and was abandoned. When you chose to post another reply some 2 days after the last one I chose to ignore it.

I'd also say that as far as I'm concerned you weren't faring terribly good in that particular thread and were going round in circles. The only thing left to answer was how long would you be prepared to go on. I could have easily carried on for weeks, even months or longer, but I didn't do so solely on the basis that:

a) it's a terrible pointless bore on the rest of the forum and the thread would surely have put to death by the mods sooner rather than later

b) I had figured out that since the kind of argument you were putting forward didn't have a leg to stand on, your sole aim in such situations is to carry on replying forever and ever until the other poster gives up out of boredom. That way you can have the last word and convince yourself that constitutes final proof that you were right and they were wrong. By the looks of it my guess was right on this respect.

c) I know I'm right, I know everyone else knows this already, I know there is nothing else to prove, and I know you would never admit to the truth

[klintock]

Like I say, you can't argue with a fanatic, whether it be a religious fanatic or whatever. You clearly have a base disability in being able to distinguish between the group and the individual, that disturbs me.

No, as I said, I can do both. I just like to insist that we all recognise that one is false and based on arbitary made up stuff, the other is accurate. I can perceive the distinctions you claim. I can see them as arbitary distinctions though, and everyone else treats them as real, which disturbs me.

But bear in mind, just because what you say is eloquent and has the appearance of fine words, it doesn't make you right.

Yes, which is why I experiment instead. I find no evidence for the assertions that people are in groups (other then some people's insistence that it's the case) and conclude that it's in people's heads, and not in the world.

I've said your argument is flawed, for a number of reasons, and the best you can come up with is some pendantic point about how my cock isn't exactly the same as yours.

No, you came up with no points which addressed what I wrote. I wrote that any two individuals are totally seperate, unique and individual. You re asserted your original points BUT IN CAPS. No a response, a re-assertion.

That's not intellectual. It's not smart. Its not even illuminating. Arguing at the points of insignificant details will always win out

Because it's accurate. if it was inaccurate, when we got to the fine detail then the point I make would fall down.

(klintock) will never be able to extrapolate to the big picture, because for you, there is no 'big picture', and because you are blinded by your own arrogance, you'll never see it.

I can see the "big picture" and what it's made of. Which is why I point out that it's not really there. You've just got a "big picture" and you are stuck with it.

And just because I don't wish to engage in what I consider to be a futile waste of my time and intellectual effort, doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means I can't be bothered wasting my time with someone who is so blown up with his own image of intellectual grandeur. You're not clever, you're a pedant.

That's a lot of effort into saying you aren't going to put any effort in, mate. I am clever, so what? Idiots can be right or wrong by accident, so why not answer the point instead of this rambling on and on about how it's too much effort to answer?

You're not clever, you're a pedant.

Hmm probably both. Get's us no further though, does it? You think it's ok to discriminate against an individual because of claimed similarities i say people aren't that similar so you are out of order.

See what I mean? You used abusive language, at which I took offence, because there as no need for it. Clear? See what I mean? Pedant...

More wriggling? What's this sentence but pedantry to get you out of your apology? Oh and you said you weren't offended.

And I never said you insulted me, I said your message was abusive.

I meant no offence, why create it on your side?

[klintock]

Hi Al.

Er... sorry to rain on your parade mate but I have not bowed to you in any way whatsoever.

I systematically destroyed all your arguments. You just kept bringing them back up in a rather affectionate fashion.

You know you are wrong and you still won't give up. Good luck to you I say.

[Aladdin]

Whatever you say.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

What he ^^^ said.

[Kermit]

And Kermit, you ignored my last point.

Only because you seem to have difficulty reading.

I am opposed to all discrimination based on gender. You, on the other hand, are not. Simple really.

There is no such thing as a demographic. It is something created out of thin air in order to justify something to somebody. There is no causal link between individuals simply because of some random notion of a "demographic". Especially one as vague and meaningless as gender.

Experience and accident rates are what should determine who pays what. That makes perfect sense. The gender of a person has no effect on how good a driver they are. All statistics show this- oddly enough the insurance companies choose to ignore this.

[Kermit]

Saying that your gender doesn't have any bearing is like saying what kind of car you drive has no bearing... Totally absurd.

No it isn't.

You go and show that men are inherently worse drivers, with genuine statistics not accident rates, and perhaps I will believe your argument a little bit more.

I don't expect you will find these statistics.

[Bomberman444]

As has been already covered men do not have more accidents they make bigger claims.

Also the things you are saying are completely different. There is a sensible reason why smoking will increase your chance of cancer, why parking your car on the street will make it more prone to being stolen, and why if you have not been driving long with less experiance you willpossibly not be as good a driver as someone who has been driving 10 years.

HOWEVER there is no logical reason why me having a penis in some way makes me drive a car in a different way to somebody who doesn't. A penis does not impede my ability to press the brakes. It does not stop me from turning the steering wheel. It does not affect my sight.

Now if you are comparing it to smoking and cancer and everything else I challenge you to explain the logical reason why a penis stops you from being able to drive as well as a woman?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

As has been already covered men do not have more accidents they make bigger claims.

Also the things you are saying are completely different. There is a sensible reason why smoking will increase your chance of cancer, why parking your car on the street will make it more prone to being stolen, and why if you have not been driving long with less experiance you willpossibly not be as good a driver as someone who has been driving 10 years.

HOWEVER there is no logical reason why me having a penis in some way makes me drive a car in a different way to somebody who doesn't. A penis does not impede my ability to press the brakes. It does not stop me from turning the steering wheel. It does not affect my sight.

Now if you are comparing it to smoking and cancer and everything else I challenge you to explain the logical reason why a penis stops you from being able to drive as well as a woman?
You know what I think of all this? You just all don't like being told that women are safer drivers than males.... I know smoking is one reason you can get cancer. I'm arguing that being male is one contributary factor in road traffic accidents.

Anyway, here we go (taken from a variety of sources, but mostly UK based. The general feeling is that men drive more than women, resulting in the disparity in the stats, but this is changing with women approaching male levels of distance. The thing that strikes me is that men are involved in more serious accidents. Anyway, make of this lot what you will...

From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=441

The greater use men make of cars may be one reason why they are more likely than women to be a casualty in a road traffic accident. In 2001 the annual casualty rate (those killed, or seriously or slightly injured) was over 44 per cent higher for men than women.

Men are more than twice as likely as women to be killed or seriously injured in a road accident: 99 per 100,000 men in 2001, compared with 44 per 100,000 women. The rates are higher for men irrespective of the mode of transport they are using.

From http://www.dft.gov.uk

Number of road accidents resulting in death or serious injury for males and females per year (1996 - 2003)

Males All age groups

9,772 '96
9,665 '97
8,894 '98
8,441 '99
8,572 '00
8,356 '01
8,222 '02
7,591 '02

Females: All age groups

5,241 '96
5,213 '97
4,945 '98
4,549 '99
4,122 '00
4,189 '01
3,796 '02
3,448 '03

From Carsource.com

Women, generally speaking, do have the same number of accidents as men but it's the severity of the accident that is very different between the sexes. Typically an insurance company has to pay out alot more to fix a car when a man has had an accident - the car has to be extensively repaired or even written off. Women's accidents tend to require less repair because their accidents are often caused by bumping into somebody, reversing into the garage - that type of thing.

And I found an article on this very discussion as well.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/womanandmoney/insuranceforgirls.html

Yeah, and having a penis does make you act differently bomberman. It might not affect your ability to physically operate a car, but it does/can affect your psychological ability to percieve events and risk it, 'oh, I'll just make that amber light', or 'there's enough space for me to squeeze in there', or 'there's just enough time for me to overtake this bus'.

From http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20001101-000035.html

The greatest risk-takers are young males in their adolescent years--a fact reflected in their high rates of auto accidents, binge drinking, drug use and pathological gambling. The military has always preferred younger men for soldiers, not only because of their physical strength but for their willingness to risk their lives in combat.

From http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11

Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior.

There you have it, for Kermit in particular. Male and female drivign patterns are different. Men take more risks. They are involved in more serious accidents. They drive more (typically, although the reports I read suggest this is changing), and their repair costs are typically higher. Being a man also affects your driving behaviour. It really is quite simple. Your gender is as worthwhile an indicator of insurance risk as what car you drive, your NCD, where you live and so forth. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'oh, this is discrimination', it's all based on the concept of risk. You might think this is some crazy conspiracy against men, but I personally think that the statistics and the reports bear out reality.

[Kermit]

Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior.

No, I asked for stats that showed that men were worse drivers.

Not that they were more likely to catch AIDS or were more likely to successfully commit suicide.

I don't think there is any great conspiracy. Insurance companies are allowed to discriminate in terms of gender, so they do so in order to make some extra profit. Especially as men tend to be the main driver on insurance policies.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

You can't get stats for something that subjective. I gave you stats for car accidents and some articles about the mentality of male drivers. The one you quoted gives you stats on vehicle accidents as well, I'm not sure why the writer felt the need to lump it in with AIDS and suicide tbh... Anyway, does it not follow that men are worse drivers if they are involved in more serious accidents? :confused:

Have you read the yahoo article? It's quite interesting. There was a court ruling about this very thing, and they found that it wasn't discrimination per se.

[wheresmyplacebo]

i dont know how a company can use the fact you in an accident, possibly through no fault of your own cause someone was speeding down the road and hit you from behind and there was nowhere to go - i fail to see how that could mean youre more likely to have accidents in the future :s

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

I know that, but what I'm saying is.... Aw forget it....

[Man Of Kent]

This conversation was great lads, thanks.

Still doesn't explain why it is illegal for employers to discriminate against women on the basis of statistical probability... which was the original question...

[Bomberman444]

You know what I think of all this? You just all don't like being told that women are safer drivers than males.... I know smoking is one reason you can get cancer. I'm arguing that being male is one contributary factor in road traffic accidents.

Anyway, here we go (taken from a variety of sources, but mostly UK based. The general feeling is that men drive more than women, resulting in the disparity in the stats, but this is changing with women approaching male levels of distance. The thing that strikes me is that men are involved in more serious accidents. Anyway, make of this lot what you will...

From http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=441

The greater use men make of cars may be one reason why they are more likely than women to be a casualty in a road traffic accident. In 2001 the annual casualty rate (those killed, or seriously or slightly injured) was over 44 per cent higher for men than women.

Men are more than twice as likely as women to be killed or seriously injured in a road accident: 99 per 100,000 men in 2001, compared with 44 per 100,000 women. The rates are higher for men irrespective of the mode of transport they are using.

From http://www.dft.gov.uk

Number of road accidents resulting in death or serious injury for males and females per year (1996 - 2003)

Males All age groups

9,772 '96
9,665 '97
8,894 '98
8,441 '99
8,572 '00
8,356 '01
8,222 '02
7,591 '02

Females: All age groups

5,241 '96
5,213 '97
4,945 '98
4,549 '99
4,122 '00
4,189 '01
3,796 '02
3,448 '03

From Carsource.com

Women, generally speaking, do have the same number of accidents as men but it's the severity of the accident that is very different between the sexes. Typically an insurance company has to pay out alot more to fix a car when a man has had an accident - the car has to be extensively repaired or even written off. Women's accidents tend to require less repair because their accidents are often caused by bumping into somebody, reversing into the garage - that type of thing.

And I found an article on this very discussion as well.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/womanandmoney/insuranceforgirls.html

Yeah, and having a penis does make you act differently bomberman. It might not affect your ability to physically operate a car, but it does/can affect your psychological ability to percieve events and risk it, 'oh, I'll just make that amber light', or 'there's enough space for me to squeeze in there', or 'there's just enough time for me to overtake this bus'.

From http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20001101-000035.html

The greatest risk-takers are young males in their adolescent years--a fact reflected in their high rates of auto accidents, binge drinking, drug use and pathological gambling. The military has always preferred younger men for soldiers, not only because of their physical strength but for their willingness to risk their lives in combat.

From http://www.equityhealthj.com/content/4/1/11

Between birth and age 45, there are 1,812 male deaths, of which 1,372 (76%) are due to motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and AIDS, leaving 440 deaths unrelated to behavior. Although the male excess of deaths from car accidents may, in part be attributable to greater distances driven and not behavior while driving, the male "relationship" with the automobile is almost certainly another aspect of gender roles. Only 308 (33%) of the 936 female deaths are explained by such behavior.

There you have it, for Kermit in particular. Male and female drivign patterns are different. Men take more risks. They are involved in more serious accidents. They drive more (typically, although the reports I read suggest this is changing), and their repair costs are typically higher. Being a man also affects your driving behaviour. It really is quite simple. Your gender is as worthwhile an indicator of insurance risk as what car you drive, your NCD, where you live and so forth. I don't think it's as simple as saying 'oh, this is discrimination', it's all based on the concept of risk. You might think this is some crazy conspiracy against men, but I personally think that the statistics and the reports bear out reality.


Just out of curiosity did you read what I wrote? I corrected you in your statement that men crash more than women and you then proceded to give a lengthy explanation that proved I was right and that they crash roughly the same amount of times.

You are trying to say something different than smoking and cancer though. You are now looking at a section of society rather than a male. It is not the same thing at all. You cannot give a reason why having a penis physically makes you a worse driver so instead you are saying now that boy racers cause accidents. Why then do you assume that men are likely to be boy racers? Surely we should discriminate against certain cars then and modifications rather than the male gender as a whole?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Just out of curiosity did you read what I wrote? I corrected you in your statement that men crash more than women and you then proceded to give a lengthy explanation that proved I was right and that they crash roughly the same amount of times.
Did you read what I wrote? I've not said that, I still think men have more accidents than women, and the majority of the stats I put up support this. God for every year there's approximately 3000 more accidents involving males than females, and that's from offical sources. There is one comment in the whole of my last post that suggests they crash at the same rate, but that men have more severe accidents. I don't think that that's indicative of the situation in the real world.
You are trying to say something different than smoking and cancer though. You are now looking at a section of society rather than a male. It is not the same thing at all. You cannot give a reason why having a penis physically makes you a worse driver so instead you are saying now that boy racers cause accidents. Why then do you assume that men are likely to be boy racers? Surely we should discriminate against certain cars then and modifications rather than the male gender as a whole?
What? Of course I'm looking at the whole of society now. You can't look at the differences between male and female drivers without looking at both, can you? That's what was asked for. I have never said that having a penis affects your physical ability to drive, but (and this is the important bit) that it affects your perception and interpretation of events. Men like to take risks while driving, women generally don't. Men and women act differently in the same situations, surely you've witnessed this? Men like risk, and I've given a few sources to support this as well. Risk taking leads to accidents. One report I quoted suggested that younger males are more likely to be involved in an accident, and many other offical reports suggest this as well. How many girl-racers have you seen? You'll have likely seen a few, but I'll bet that the majority of them you've seen are boys in clapped out novas with huge exhausts. I'm not saying that they exclusively cause accidents, I'm still sticking by the fact I reckon (and like I said the stats support this), that males cause more accidents. Even if they don't (and I think it unliekly) and the real reality is they cause more serious accidents and drive more miles, then why shouldn't we pay for this? Oh, and insurance companies already do discriminate against certain cars and mods, indeed, many insurance companies regards your cover as null and void if they find out you've modded your car and not declared.

Still doesn't explain why it is illegal for employers to discriminate against women on the basis of statistical probability... which was the original question...

I still can't believe having a child is being equated with buying car insurance.... :no: :(

[Man Of Kent]

I still can't believe having a child is being equated with buying car insurance.... :no: :(

Oh FFS, it isn't, I can't believe the number of times I have said that.

The comparison is about the use of statistics, the only reason insurance is mentioned is because it's an area where we use statistics to assess risk and charge accordingly.

The question I raised is only about employment. It's not even about actually having a child, it's about the risk to the employer of a woman having a child.

The question is fairly simple.

Why is it illegal for an employer to consider the statistical probability that a woman will take time off for her children? I defy anyone to say that the "risk" is the same as with men, so why can't it be a consideration?

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Oh, sorry. This was the part that was left out at the start of the thread. Why is it illegal?

[Toadborg]

The question is fairly simple.

Why is it illegal for an employer to consider the statistical probability that a woman will take time off for her children? I defy anyone to say that the "risk" is the same as with men, so why can't it be a consideration?

Because that kind of 'statistical discrimination' is necessary to having a viable insurance market.

It is not a necessity for standard employment relations..........

[Man Of Kent]

=It is not a necessity for standard employment relations...

It isn't?

The fact that by employing someone I may open company up to maternity leave, reduced flexibility, increased chance of recruitment...?

I'd say it was necessary for me to be allowed to make that judgement...


Why is it illegal?

Yep. that's the question....

[Toadborg]

That is not at all the same as necessity.

How many companies or industries need to be able to discriminate in that way to survive?

As explained in the quote earlier, the insurance market must discriminate in order to have any chance of success and that is why that can be accepted but discrimination in employment cannot.........

[ShyBoy]

That is not at all the same as necessity.

How many companies or industries need to be able to discriminate in that way to survive?

As explained in the quote earlier, the insurance market must discriminate in order to have any chance of success and that is why that can be accepted but discrimination in employment cannot.........

Don't quote me, but I'm sure insurance companies have huge profit margins :chin:

[Man Of Kent]

As explained in the quote earlier, the insurance market must discriminate in order to have any chance of success and that is why that can be accepted but discrimination in employment cannot.........

Bloody insurance :(

They don't need to do it either, they do because it attracts customers because they can offer lower rates to some people. However, as discussed previously, risks only apply to groups not to individuals. Groups don't insure.

So, ignoring insurance, why is it illegal to use our knowledge that statistically women are more likely to have time off, when considering employment?

[klintock]

The extra expense for male drivers in crashes is more likely to be down to the fact that men buy more expensive cars, maybe?

That would be a make and model argument rather than a gender one then.

As explained in the quote earlier, the insurance market must discriminate in order to have any chance of success and that is why that can be accepted but discrimination in employment cannot.........

I already pointed out that you don't need to dicriminate at all initially. Everyone pays the same and after you have had a crash the insurance can go north. Simple, effective, non discriminatory.

It's illegal because a group of people campaigned to make it so, same as most other laws. The sad fact is that men do not have the same lobbying as women, they are just assumed to have all the rights etc anyway.

What we have is a push for equality on one side using the various mechanisms that are in place from one group, but with no counter-push from another group. inevitably this pushes things too far one way.

[Toadborg]

Look at the quote I posted a few pages back.

It basically encapsulates the classical economic theory of insurance and states the fact that without the ability to discriminate between groups insurance companies would face being wiped out because it is impossible to carry out risk assessments of all individuals........

[klintock]

It basically encapsulates the classical economic theory of insurance and states the fact that without the ability to discriminate between groups insurance companies would face being wiped out because it is impossible to carry out risk assessments of all individuals........

I am not advocating the removal of the ability to discriminate. I am pointing out that it can be done after claims. Penalising genuine shit drivers but not passing costs onto genuinely good drivers because they, for example, have a penis.

Once a person proves that they are "just another normal male driver" then by all means hike the price. Until they have had a crash they aren't a risk and should be treated accordingly. Simple.

As for insurance not working if they can't discriminate that's horse puckey. The world's largest insurance schemes have flat rates for all members.

They don't need to do it either, they do because it attracts customers because they can offer lower rates to some people. However, as discussed previously, risks only apply to groups not to individuals. Groups don't insure.

Good idea if they could though innit. I smell a buisness opportunity.....

[Bomberman444]

Did you read what I wrote? I've not said that, I still think men have more accidents than women, and the majority of the stats I put up support this. God for every year there's approximately 3000 more accidents involving males than females, and that's from offical sources. There is one comment in the whole of my last post that suggests they crash at the same rate, but that men have more severe accidents. I don't think that that's indicative of the situation in the real world.

What? Of course I'm looking at the whole of society now. You can't look at the differences between male and female drivers without looking at both, can you? That's what was asked for. I have never said that having a penis affects your physical ability to drive, but (and this is the important bit) that it affects your perception and interpretation of events. Men like to take risks while driving, women generally don't. Men and women act differently in the same situations, surely you've witnessed this? Men like risk, and I've given a few sources to support this as well. Risk taking leads to accidents. One report I quoted suggested that younger males are more likely to be involved in an accident, and many other offical reports suggest this as well. How many girl-racers have you seen? You'll have likely seen a few, but I'll bet that the majority of them you've seen are boys in clapped out novas with huge exhausts. I'm not saying that they exclusively cause accidents, I'm still sticking by the fact I reckon (and like I said the stats support this), that males cause more accidents. Even if they don't (and I think it unliekly) and the real reality is they cause more serious accidents and drive more miles, then why shouldn't we pay for this? Oh, and insurance companies already do discriminate against certain cars and mods, indeed, many insurance companies regards your cover as null and void if they find out you've modded your car and not declared.



I still can't believe having a child is being equated with buying car insurance.... :no: :(

Your stats don't support that. Your stats are number of SERIOUS accidents and not number of accidents and they are not the same thing are they?

What you are now making is a generalisation. If you cannot give a physical reason why a penis affects your ability to drive then you are merely stereotyping that men drive worse with no real evidence than statistics on serious accidents. Also bear in mind that they are accidents that males are involved in and not accidents they have caused.

[TheKingOfGlasgow]

Your stats don't support that. Your stats are number of SERIOUS accidents and not number of accidents and they are not the same thing are they?
You're really scraping the barrel with this one... I gave the stat with serious accidents, but if you look at the reports you'd find that males outstrip females in almost every category.

Also bear in mind that they are accidents that males are involved in and not accidents they have caused.
Those stats were actually from motorists.
If you cannot give a physical reason why a penis affects your ability to drive then you are merely stereotyping that men drive worse with no real evidence than statistics on serious accidents.
I know that! I've said countless times that it doesn't affect your physical ability. Why would it (unless you accidently sit on your balls). It's a mental issue. Men act differently in different situations than what women do, surely you've experienced this? Their behaviour is more risky, they're more aggressive, hence they're involved in more accidents. How many road rage incidents have you read about that have involved women? Very few. And what do you mean, no real evidence? You can't get any more real than the stats I've given you. And I'm stereotyping? I'm sure the stereotype is the other way around, that women are worse drivers. Anyway, I'm not stereotyping, I'm merely showing what I think, and what I think is supported by valid statistics made by an independent body. Personally I think you don't like reading that it might actually be the other way around, that men are worse drivers.

And I've been doing some reading. Females get lower annuties on their pensions because statistically they live longer lives. Men get bigger annuties cause statistically they have shorter lives. Is this acceptable? I take the whole sex/gender discrimination, and I honestly can't give a solid reason why women shouldn't get discriminated for the possibility of having a child, except to me it seems immoral.

[Bomberman444]

I don't see how it matters who the stats were taken from. The question of "Have you been in an accident?" is not the same as "Have you caused an accident?" is it?

I have never said women are worse drivers and I haven't implied it either. You are in fact again stereotyping from your own experiances that I think this purely because I disagree that you can judge somebodys personality by their gender. By your argument would it be OK to not allow women to do things because they are more timid and less risk taking?

Of course women are involved in road rage.

Statistics can be made to support any argument by carefully selecting data to show what you want. It's like if we had this sort of argument

Women are worse drivers because in an independant study by the male drivers assosciation they reverse into things on average 29% more than the average male

[Kermit]

This is all still missing the point.

Why is it acceptable to discriminate on some vague notion of "risk" when insurance companies do it, but not when employment companies do it?

Why is it acceptable to pre-judge entire groups of people when it comes to insurance, for argument's sake, but not acceptable to pre-judge when it comes to, say, schooling places?

It's the same principle in all cases. A supposed, but not genuine, "risk" to profit margins is allowed when it costs men more, but not when it prevents women from getting employment or stupid people from getting a place in a good school. What is the justification for only applying the principle when it suits you?

[Toadborg]

A supposed, but not genuine, "risk" to profit margins is allowed when it costs men more,

Why is it supposed?

I assume you have some good arguments as to why the threat is not genuine?

[ShyBoy]

Why is it supposed?

I assume you have some good arguments as to why the threat is not genuine?

Because insurance companies would make up for not being able to charge men more by charging women more, so how on earth it damages their profit margin I have no idea :confused:. Supposedly it would make women more miffed because they don't have as 'attractive' policies as men and thus they'd go to other companies; but not if it was blanket legislation that no insurance company could discriminate based on gender.

[Toadborg]

Yes I made the same point eralier but I do not think that is what kermit was referring to.............