If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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 the alternative of having to vet every single driver before they get covered is impractical, and would probably lead to increased costs.
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?
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?
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.
Statistics don't 'make' things more likely.
If I moved to Scotland would the likelyhood of me suffering a heart attack suddenly increase?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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
And Kermit, you ignored my last point.
They don't predict anything. They show past trends.
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. 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.
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?
Ok, that's a good idea. But it still doesn't negate the fact that the present system works.
How is it made up? The statistical chances of him having an accident are higher. That's the whole fucking point.
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.
So because you both have that in common it means you both have the same ability in driving a car?
Groups of people don't get cancer inividuals do, so statistics about groups are irrelavent.
Yet it would still be cheaper if I didn't have a cock.
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 the case. Sorry to disturb you with facts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thank you. It also proves that the current system is discriminatory with no real need.
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.
At no point did I insult you. Please apologise for that.
Whether I crash or not has absolutely nothing to do with statistics or a penis. Either I will or I won't.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
So I have been told. Mines pretty accurate though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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