Print

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

[Jackrabbit]

I'm quite willing to back off here. I don't actually care about the subject. At all. You two want to just give up? It'll be easier in the long run, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

[Neruz]

Oh i know, i've seen this pattern thousands of times before on the intersphere, but it's kind of fun to poke gigantic holes in his arguement and then watch in amazement as he closes his eyes and wishes really hard that they're not there.

I'll get bored eventually and give up.

[Jackrabbit]

Alright. You have your fun, I've certainly had mine in the past.

It's kind of cute, and kind of horrifying. I simply cannot track his thought process.

[Aqizzar]

The bank doesn't give a damn about responsibility, all the bank cares about is how likely you are to pay the loan back. Responsibility never enters the equation, only reality. And the simple reality is that sex is a relevant factor for many statistics, including the liklihood of paying back a loan.

...Responsibility is exactly what banks care about when giving a loan.  How responsible you are with paying things back.  Shit, that's what a credit rating is, how responsible and punctual you are with paying off debts.  You're turning this into a crazy hashup of semantics, where you think people are arguing that doing your chores on time somehow matters in... well, whatever it is you think you're arguing about.  I can't even tell now.

Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

[Vector]

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.

... Imprecise language.  I am an "equalist."  I am not one of those people who thinks men are scum or wants to see them subservient to women, as are the stereotypical "raging feminists."

Whatever.  I'm tired.

[Neruz]

The bank doesn't give a damn about responsibility, all the bank cares about is how likely you are to pay the loan back. Responsibility never enters the equation, only reality. And the simple reality is that sex is a relevant factor for many statistics, including the liklihood of paying back a loan.

...Responsibility is exactly what banks care about when giving a loan.  How responsible you are with paying things back.  Shit, that's what a credit rating is, how responsible and punctual you are with paying off debts.  You're turning this into a crazy hashup of semantics, where you think people are arguing that doing your chores on time somehow matters in... well, whatever it is you think you're arguing about.  I can't even tell now.

Warning - while you were typing 3 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

That's not what i meant, what i meant was the Bank doesn't care about what parts of your character you have control over. They don't give a wooden nickle that you can't control the fact that you're female. All they care about is the final product, not the process by which the product was created.

Jeez Chin, try adding some context to posts when you read them instead of treating each one as if it occupies it's own little dimension.

[cowofdoom78963]

It's not nice, it's not pretty, but the universe doesn't give a damn about your proud little posturing. And neither does the bank, because no matter how often you repeat your opinion that banks shouldn't discriminate, the reality is they can, do, and must.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. You admit that this is in fact wrong. One day people might do something about it and fix these wrongs but it's good enough to get people to realize this today.

I'm quite willing to back off here. I don't actually care about the subject. At all. You two want to just give up? It'll be easier in the long run, it's like arguing with a brick wall.

If you have no interest in the acctual discussion, and if all you are here to do is insult me then you might as well leave.

[Jackrabbit]

If by leaving you mean stop responding to your arguments, sure!

It'll be so much more fun watching other people pick apart your arguments. It'll be a pleasant change.

[Neruz]

It's not nice, it's not pretty, but the universe doesn't give a damn about your proud little posturing. And neither does the bank, because no matter how often you repeat your opinion that banks shouldn't discriminate, the reality is they can, do, and must.

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. You admit that this is in fact wrong. One day people might do something about it and fix these wrongs but it's good enough to get people to realize this today.

No i didn't. Please point out the part of my post where i said it was wrong, or stop blatantly lying like a little child caught in a corner.


Debate is fine, but if you're going to incorperate ovbious falsehoods into your posts then piss the fuck off. I'm not interesting in talking with a liar.

[Footkerchief]

But statistical analysis, whether or not you think it's discriminatory, is important. It's just the way the world works. It's not all nice.

Personally, I don't care if it's discriminatory or not. If a person is, to the best of their knowledge, unable to pay them back, or far less likely too, then it is logical not to give out loans to them unless they're absolutely sure they can pay them back. Otherwise they'll probably lose money. That can't possibly cause anything major, could it? Oh goodness no.

So any form of discrimination is kosher, as long as it's backed up by statistical analysis?  Including discrimination based on (I'm just going down the US list of protected classes here) race, sexual orientation, religion, and disability?

While you're welcome to pursue that line of argument, it's laughable that you're dismissing cow's argument out of hand with phrases like "It's just the way the world works" when 1) that argument has been leveled against every progressive measure in history and 2) that's not the way the world works, not all of it anyway.

If by leaving you mean stop responding to your arguments, sure!

It'll be so much more fun watching other people pick apart your arguments. It'll be a pleasant change.

If you're going to be smug and dismissive and make no attempt to understand, you probably should leave, yes.  It's clear that you have too much of a history with cow to tell when he's actually got a point.

[Aqizzar]

The bank doesn't give a damn about responsibility, all the bank cares about is how likely you are to pay the loan back. Responsibility never enters the equation, only reality. And the simple reality is that sex is a relevant factor for many statistics, including the liklihood of paying back a loan.

...Responsibility is exactly what banks care about when giving a loan.  How responsible you are with paying things back.  Shit, that's what a credit rating is, how responsible and punctual you are with paying off debts.  You're turning this into a crazy hashup of semantics, where you think people are arguing that doing your chores on time somehow matters in... well, whatever it is you think you're arguing about.  I can't even tell now.

That's not what i meant, what i meant was the Bank doesn't care about what parts of your character you have control over. They don't give a wooden nickle that you can't control the fact that you're female. All they care about is the final product, not the process by which the product was created.

Jeez Chin, try adding some context to posts when you read them instead of treating each one as if it occupies it's own little dimension.

Putting aside that "you took what I said out of context" is the lamest response in the history of responses, I'm fully aware of the dimension of your argument.  I'm saying that A) I don't think you really know how banks decide to give out loans, and B) your concept of character factors is ridiculously narrow and changes with every post.  Analyzing a person for the ability to pay back a loan (that being the example we're running with) involves tons of factors, and the whole reason they even talk to you instead of just handing you a questionaire is that statistics alone are not enough of a gauge.  Statistics are just that; if women (for instance) are 85% reliable as a whole in paying back loans, that means there's 15% who aren't.  Which is where other factors come into play, including plenty of factors you do have control over, and I reiterate my point that you simultaneous act like looking at one factor or another is a zero-sum game, and you keep picking different ones by different definitions.

Really, I think you're turning into Cow here.  You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, because you don't want to admit you don't even know what you're arguing for or about at this point.

Warning - while you were typing 4 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

[Jackrabbit]

But statistical analysis, whether or not you think it's discriminatory, is important. It's just the way the world works. It's not all nice.

Personally, I don't care if it's discriminatory or not. If a person is, to the best of their knowledge, unable to pay them back, or far less likely too, then it is logical not to give out loans to them unless they're absolutely sure they can pay them back. Otherwise they'll probably lose money. That can't possibly cause anything major, could it? Oh goodness no.

So any form of discrimination is kosher, as long as it's backed up by statistical analysis?  Including discrimination based on (I'm just going down the US list of protected classes here) race, sexual orientation, religion, and disability?

While you're welcome to pursue that line of argument, it's laughable that you're dismissing cow's argument out of hand with phrases like "It's just the way the world works" when 1) that argument has been leveled against every progressive measure in history and 2) that's not the way the world works, not all of it anyway.

Hey, like I said, I don't care if I'm right or wrong. It was just a case of me reacting to Cows arguments, as I am so wont to do.

So you're right, then. Hope you have a warm fuzzy feeling inside of you.

[Footkerchief]

So you're right, then. Hope you have a warm fuzzy feeling inside of you.

Not really.  Turns my stomach to see you act this bitter, honestly.

[Jackrabbit]

I'll be better tomorrow, promise.

[Neruz]

Putting aside that "you took what I said out of context" is the lamest response in the history of responses, I'm fully aware of the dimension of your argument.  I'm saying that A) I don't think you really know how banks decide to give out loans, and B) your concept of character factors is ridiculously narrow and changes with every post.  Analyzing a person for the ability to pay back a loan (that being the example we're running with) involves tons of factors, and the whole reason they even talk to you instead of just handing you a questionaire is that statistics alone are not enough of a gauge.  Statistics are just that; if women (for instance) are 85% reliable as a whole in paying back loans, that means there's 15% who aren't.  Which is where other factors come into play, including plenty of factors you do have control over, and I reiterate my point that you simultaneous act like looking at one factor or another is a zero-sum game, and you keep picking different ones by different definitions.

So does that mean Banks should just not take gender into account because it's only relevant in 15% of cases?

Because that's what cow is trying to argue here; that gender should not be taken into account for decisions because a person has no control over their gender.


I know 'you're taking it out of context' is a poor response Aqizzar, but dear lord man, you are. Everything i have said is in the context of responding to cow's point about discrimination and not taking things into account over which you as an individual have little or no control over, and is only relevant as such. Yes i know the process Banks go through to determine loans is far more complex than a mere gender analysis, but that is completely irrelevant as the only point that needs to be made is that gender is a valid statistic.

So any form of discrimination is kosher, as long as it's backed up by statistical analysis?  Including discrimination based on (I'm just going down the US list of protected classes  here) race, sexual orientation, religion, and disability?

So long as it is relevant.

Setting car insurance rates based on gender is relevant, as gender has been shown to have a significant statistical impact on liklihood of crashing. Setting whether or not you can work at a McDonalds based on gender is not relevant, as gender has not been shown to have any impact on a person's ability to work at McDonalds.


Would you say it's discrimination against ugly people that only pretty people get to be fashion models?