Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is it not sexiest to offer females cheaper car insurance? watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mudya)
    Maybe I am, does it annoy you?
    Well since you have no interest in treating the opposite sex fairly you have no right to ***** about your own perceived poor treatment
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    Well since you have no interest in treating the opposite sex fairly you have no right to ***** about your own perceived poor treatment
    great
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    That definition is fine for this discussion. But your gillette example is completely ludicrous. A five year old could see the non sequitor:

    Men and women both want cheap car insurance. Men and women do not both want the same razors. If women did want the same razors, and gillette refused to sell razors to them purely because of their gender, then that would be a comparable example to the insurance case; and yes, that would be discrimination as well.
    No. My example involved Gillette's marketing. They market their razors at men and not at women. The fact that men and women don't both want razors is completely irrelevant to your idea of discrimination. Gillette are making a decision because of sex. This is sexist by your definition.

    You honestly appear to believe that treating people differently based on their race is perfectly fine. That would make you a racist... Do you even deny this?
    You fail to differentiate between the basis of a decision and irrelevant factors that may or may not correspond to the decision. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pi...mp_English.jpg, graph proving that a drop in the number of pirates influences global warming.

    Let's say you have Borough 1 with virtually no crime, and Borough 2 which is drug-ridden and has very high crime rates. It makes obvious sense for the police to concentrate on Borough 2. Borough 2 may have a very high proportion of Black people and Borough 1 a very high proportion of White people, but that isn't the reason for the decision and it doesn't make the police racist. You don't have the same amount of money going into drug raids in Chelsea that you have in Hackney.

    Insurance is based on risk, sure. But to make an assessment of a person's risk, you need to look at them as an individual. To simply make a judgement based on a single characteristic such as sex or race is discriminatory because it " makes a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs".
    No, because the decision isn't based on sex. There is no distinction based on sex because sex isn't the reason for the decision. Sex is an indirect factor that happens to correlate onto the real reason, which is risk.

    You can't see risk as a purely individual concept because the whole point of insurance is that people pool their money together - it is based on the collective, not the individual. Your risk isn't based on your status as an individual, because nobody can predict the future to see if you are going to have an accident or not. Its based on your status as a member of a larger group, and you can only be grouped together with others based on objectively observable characteristics. You can't expect an insurer to be able to tell which 17yr old males are boy racers and which aren't. Whether you like it or not, your risk is higher than a girl's - its a side effect of how insurance works.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    No. My example involved Gillette's marketing. They market their razors at men and not at women. The fact that men and women don't both want razors is completely irrelevant to your idea of discrimination. Gillette are making a decision because of sex. This is sexist by your definition.


    You fail to differentiate between the basis of a decision and irrelevant factors that may or may not correspond to the decision. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pi...mp_English.jpg, graph proving that a drop in the number of pirates influences global warming.

    Let's say you have Borough 1 with virtually no crime, and Borough 2 which is drug-ridden and has very high crime rates. It makes obvious sense for the police to concentrate on Borough 2. Borough 2 may have a very high proportion of Black people and Borough 1 a very high proportion of White people, but that isn't the reason for the decision and it doesn't make the police racist. You don't have the same amount of money going into drug raids in Chelsea that you have in Hackney.


    No, because the decision isn't based on sex. There is no distinction based on sex because sex isn't the reason for the decision. Sex is an indirect factor that happens to correlate onto the real reason, which is risk.

    You can't see risk as a purely individual concept because the whole point of insurance is that people pool their money together - it is based on the collective, not the individual. Your risk isn't based on your status as an individual, because nobody can predict the future to see if you are going to have an accident or not. Its based on your status as a member of a larger group, and you can only be grouped together with others based on objectively observable characteristics. You can't expect an insurer to be able to tell which 17yr old males are boy racers and which aren't. Whether you like it or not, your risk is higher than a girl's - its a side effect of how insurance works.
    Either you're an idiot, or you know you've lost the argument and you're attempting to avoid answering the question.

    Your ridiculous Gillette analogy doesn't work in the slightest I'm afraid. Frankly its embarrassing. Men and women have different requirements in razors, thus it is appropriate to offer them separate things. Men and women DO NOT have different requirements in seeking cheap car insurance, thus it is NOT appropriate to charge them different amounts of money for the same thing. How many different ways can such a simple point be explained?

    You still haven't said whether you think it would be ok to charge people more because they're black and if not why not, and I've asked you twice already. You're worse than Michael Howard. Answer the damn question man.


    Your example about the 2 boroughs completely misses the point - you should go back and read what I originally wrote, you're talking about something completely different - (probably deliberately I imagine because your other 2 options were to either admit defeat or admit that you're a racist)

    I'll explain, even though I'm probably wasting my time as this appears to be going over your head. In your example, it is a coincidence that more black people are arrested, because the police are simply working in the crime ridden area. Now lets say the police are in the city centre, where there are people from both boroughs intermingled, and the police have no way of knowing which is which. There are also lots of people, both black and white, from other, relatively crime free areas.
    Is it ok for the police to stop all the black people just in case they are a criminal from the rotten borough but not the white people because tey are statistically more likely? Answer the question: yes or no. lets see your true colours.



    You haven't responded to the last point about the 2 scales of pay, because you don't have an answer. Answer the question: yes or no?

    You try to patronise me with some completely irrelevant ******** about pirates as if I was an a-level student. I know how statistics work thanks, I have a phd.

    and now you say that "There is no distinction based on sex because sex isn't the reason for the decision" despite the fact that making an a distinction based on sex is what we are debating about.

    You appear to think that its just a coincidence that men are charged more for car insurance. Thats incorrect: men are charged more simply because they are men - which is the reason we are having this debate. Perhaps you should read up on a topic before contributing in future?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think that women and men should pay the same for car insurance, plus we could also say that there is age-ism as well as sex-ism in car insurance as well as its considerably cheaper for an old person to get car insurance...

    i think we should all start at the same rate and they pay more or less with each claim or no claim year...it should be an even playing field

    not all young male drivers are boy racers or dangerous drivers....in fact out of all the young divers i know, i have heard so many female friends say that they scraped their bumper or knocked their bumper off on a wall or a hedge or had a scrape at a car park and i dont know any males personally that have been in a major accident- which is the 'justification' for charging us more - i think its a minority making it look bad for the rest of us, i have been driving for almost 3 years and almost have 3 years NCB - never had an accident though i was charged nearly £2000 to insure my car the 1st year, even though going by my track record i am a safe driver, doesnt seem fair... why am i paying more due to jim at number 76 being a boy racer!?!?!? nothing to do with me!! i say standard flat rate to start and adjust premium based on if you have an accident or not...starting off on a higher premium when you havent done anything is discrimination!!! its like saying "you belong to this group - so you are going to do this" i thought it was 2010 not 1810
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Note before reading: this is not intended to be sexist in any way, if your offended by this then I apologise.

    I don't think this is fair at all, first of all as a recently passed driver I don't appreciate being tarnished with the same brush as all these boy racing chavs having to pay insurance almost 3X the amount of my car :lolwut:, then to add insult to injury I have to pay more insurance because I'm a man?

    It's like the advert for oven cleaner where she goes "It's so easy a Man could do it" but if we (men) did an advert for say car polish and said "It's so easy a Woman could do it" - then that would be sexist and cause carnage....:hmmm:

    Though I thought this kind of thing was illegal? I remember a program on BBC3 called "Don't Get Screwed" where they asked the public "can a club charge different prices for entry based on gender" and it was actually illegal to do it...same thing should apply here, its like saying just because I'm the same age as the numpty down the street who drives around like a tit that I'm automatically going to do the same?

    It's just wrong, I'm a sensible driver, but because I have only just passed my test means I have to pay three times the amount of insurance for the car? what really winds me up is when you see these boy racing chavs flying about, revving engines at red lights behind you and just generally driving with incredible negligence - How do they even afford insurance for those cars? why don't insurance company's just say "if you want to drive around with an after sales spoiler, stupidly noisy exhaust and blacked out windows then that will be an extra £3,000, how would you like to pay?" - That would get rid of all the goons and lower the cost of our insurance.

    :naughty:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanielNewton)
    you see these boy racing chavs flying about, revving engines at red lights behind you and just generally driving with incredible negligence - How do they even afford insurance for those cars? why don't insurance company's just say "if you want to drive around with an after sales spoiler, stupidly noisy exhaust and blacked out windows then that will be an extra £3,000, how would you like to pay?" - That would get rid of all the goons and lower the cost of our insurance.

    :naughty:
    You assume they have valid insurance (them as main driver, all mods declared etc)
    In my experience most don't
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To all the people saying that it isn't sexism because statistically young male drivers are more likely to crash than young female drivers that doesnt stop it being sexism for example if i ran a business and had to employ someone would it be sexist if i chose to employ a male over a female because "statistically" females are more likely to get pregnant thus needing to take maternity leave?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's not sexist, since it favours women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kerny)
    It's not sexist, since it favours women.
    lulz
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    What pisses me of to be honest is females could be the all route of accidents. I mean, have you noticed how they are always so fragile behind the wheel? They look scared and beyond alert. They will break at everything and drive 25 in a 30 zone.

    At the end of the day, I once upon a time crashed becuase a "female" decided to pay way to much attention to the road in front of her then look if she was crossing over to the oposite lane.

    The end.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.