Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neruz]

Actually i think banks do ask for sex as well as other details when giving out loans, risk factors you see.

[cowofdoom78963]

That's discrimination right?

[MrWiggles]

That's discrimination right?

How so?

[cowofdoom78963]

That's discrimination right?

How so?

Sex is a risk factor?

[Neruz]

That's discrimination right?

How so?

Sex is a risk factor?

Course it is.

Statistically, an 18 year old male is far more likely to get into a car crash than an 18 year old female.


It's only discrimination if it's unjustified, sex as a risk factor under certain conditions is most certainly completly justified. I imagine alot of people will plug their eyes and scream NAH NAH NAH CANT SEE YOUR TEXT at this following line; but men and women are different. Sorry people, it's true.

[Sensei]

It'd be fine if you could get away with that without being a bank.

[Neruz]

It'd be fine if you could get away with that without being a bank.

Yeah, the attitude towards percieved discrimination in western countries is absurd.

[Grakelin]

Men and women are different because of the way they've been interacted with, though. If you took your daughter to a deserted island, and everybody just assumed she was a boy (or something equally implausible), she would probably grow up and act like a male. This is theory, of course.

Plenty of people are born inter-sex. Most of them tend to just have a gender chosen from birth, and if they develop in the opposite way, the parents just drop some hormone pills in their milk and nobody is ever the wiser. Some people stay that way forever. It's really their choice.

Nobody will be able to be an asshole and write "I'm a f'taghn", because that is not a choice. You are either a Male, a Female, or an inter-sex. There are really only three choices. If you're not a Male or a Female, you're part of the 'inter-sex' category. If you're a male who strongly identifies as a female (or visa versa) just mark down 'female' on the sheet. Easy.

I'm actually not a raging feminist

Seeing as how feminism applies to equality between genders, I would say that I am a raging feminist.

[cowofdoom78963]

Statistically, an 18 year old male is far more likely to get into a car crash than an 18 year old female.


It's only discrimination if it's unjustified, sex as a risk factor under certain conditions is most certainly completly justified. I imagine alot of people will plug their eyes and scream NAH NAH NAH CANT SEE YOUR TEXT at this following line; but men and women are different. Sorry people, it's true.

Statistics or not that's discrimination.

There's nothing percieved about it, you're giving one group better treatment then another based on sex. Am I right? You are distinguishing a person based on that rather then their individual merits.

You can go and say that it's not important enough to pay attention to, but you cannot say it's not discrimination.

[Neruz]

Statistically, an 18 year old male is far more likely to get into a car crash than an 18 year old female.


It's only discrimination if it's unjustified, sex as a risk factor under certain conditions is most certainly completly justified. I imagine alot of people will plug their eyes and scream NAH NAH NAH CANT SEE YOUR TEXT at this following line; but men and women are different. Sorry people, it's true.

Statistics or not that's discrimination.

There's nothing percieved about it, you're giving one group better treatment then another based on sex. Am I right? You are distinguishing a person based on that rather then their individual merits.

You can go and say that it's not important enough to pay attention to, but you cannot say it's not discrimination.

You see, it's incorrect understanding of 'Discrimination' that results in stupid comments like that. Or, more accurately, incorrect usage of the word.

Yes it is Discrimination in the barest sense; i discriminate against ham when i decide to have chicken in my sandwich instead of ham because i think chicken tastes better. However, in the instance of auto insurance for example, it is completely justified.

Loans, insurance and other statistics-based systems have to discriminate at first, because that's how statistics work. Also note that in the auto insurance example, your rate does change over time if you prove yourself to be different from the norm, but the insurance company cannot start from that position; to do so would be rediculous.


The term 'discrimination' when used like that carries severe negative connotations, implying things like not letting a woman do a job literally because she is a woman, even though she is perfectly capable of performing the job. In the instance of risk factors in long-term loans and insurance however, such discrimination is not negative, it's just a fact; young males are more likely to crash than young females. Ergo young males have higher rates because of this.

[Sensei]

The thing about statistics like that: They're most applicable to groups of people (an insurer insures lots of people, for example). For individuals, or people you know well, there is far better precedent. A man told by his doctor that he has a higher than normal risk of diabetes (let's say 25%, I think that's right) would, given any common sense, be pretty careful about that. But wouldn't anyone with a baseline of 20% (again, I think I've got the numbers right) take measures also?

It's only useful when selecting from a group- for example, that information would be more logical to act for an insurer than an insuree.

And of course, when group statistics are applied to individuals...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[cowofdoom78963]

You see, it's incorrect understanding of 'Discrimination' that results in stupid comments like that. Or, more accurately, incorrect usage of the word.

Yes it is Discrimination in the barest sense; i discriminate against ham when i decide to have chicken in my sandwich instead of ham because i think chicken tastes better. However, in the instance of auto insurance for example, it is completely justified.

The problem with this is that the chickens and hams in your sandwitches are very much different then human beings. People dont like to be judged for other peoples actions. Chickens and hams... don't really care

Some time ago they put the Japanese in camps here in America. It was of course for a reason though. After pearl harbor people were scared of the Japanese, and thought that it would be a ridiculous "risk" to let them run free. Yes I know it is a extreme example, but the point is that a japanese is no more guilty for what happened at pearl harbor then one man is guilty of anothers car crash.

It's not based on facts. It's based on peoples assumptions. They assume that a man is more likely to crash based on statistics. Regardless of if he is really a good driver or a wreckless idiot.

It's discrimination Neruz, it might seem like the sensible thing to do economicaly but that doesn't change what it is.

The term 'discrimination' when used like that carries severe negative connotations

Except it always should. We must have some sense of justice. That is what seperates us from the hams and chickens.

Also this gives me a strange sense of deja vu...

[Jackrabbit]

Are you saying that saying that men getting into car crashes more often than women is discrimination?

I...

Okay. You know what? I'm not going to respond. Not yet. I'm going to give you a chance to back out of this with even a modicum of dignity. That is the stupidest thing that I have ever heard you say, ever. I can't even take your seriously anymore. I can't believe you say the things you do.

Do you have any idea how the world works at all or is your basic reaction to deny the things that don't fit your view and twist everything else to support it?

What am I saying, of course it is.

[Footkerchief]

Are you saying that saying that men getting into car crashes more often than women is discrimination?

Not the mere fact that it happens.  But when an individual is judged according to that statistic?  That's prima facie discrimination, although whether it's unjustified discrimination is of course up for debate.

[Neruz]

The thing about statistics like that: They're most applicable to groups of people (an insurer insures lots of people, for example). For individuals, or people you know well, there is far better precedent. A man told by his doctor that he has a higher than normal risk of diabetes (let's say 25%, I think that's right) would, given any common sense, be pretty careful about that. But wouldn't anyone with a baseline of 20% (again, I think I've got the numbers right) take measures also?

It's only useful when selecting from a group- for example, that information would be more logical to act for an insurer than an insuree.

And of course, when group statistics are applied to individuals...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

HAY GIES, i'm hearing that Banks give out loans to lots of people. Perhaps there's a connection?

Are you saying that saying that men getting into car crashes more often than women is discrimination?

Not the mere fact that it happens.  But when an individual is judged according to that statistic?  That's prima facie discrimination, although whether it's unjustified discrimination is of course up for debate.

It's perfectly justified. Young men are more likely to get into a car crash than young women are. It's a simple reality.