Not much in the way of equality here
steven x brown
Boost for women
Jun 26 2004
Driving Force, The Western Mail
A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
Insurance experts have welcomed the rejection of a proposed directive to ban
the underwriting of insurance products on grounds of gender.
Paul O'Gorman, spokesman for insurance specialist Quote-line Direct says,
"This is a step in the right direction.
"Where there is clear, historical statistical evidence and actuarial
evidence it should be able to be used as a factor in calculating risk and
setting prices for insurance-based products.
"Even the UK Equal Opportunities Commission opposed the move led by the
Greek social affairs European commissioner Anna Diamantopolou."
--
Steven X Brown
If there were in the world today any large number of people who
desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness
of others, we could have paradise in a few years.
Bertrand Russell
Philip Lewis
feminist principles that now underlie a lot of our legislation and social
policy - I believe it does.
These rejections are based on sexism and ironically it has been supported by
the feminists of the EOC, nice to see the smug little fuckers undermining
the very platform on which they all stand. Once it has been reestablished
that a certain amount of sexism is actually common sense the whole
'equality' thing is dead as a dodo and anything that brings that time nearer
is welcomed by me. :-o)
Phil
"steven x brown" <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2k5g4nF...@uni-berlin.de...
deepblue
<cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>So much for equality:
You were believing it existed up to now?
Obviously, this won't affect how men pay more for life insurance.
H. Wake
> So much for equality:
Equality?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Men and women drive differently. They do not drive equally. Women
make less costly claims on insurance. Any actuary will tell you. Why
should women subsidise male drivers? Treating people who are
different as the same means that the outcomes are unfair. This error
has become institutionalised. Equality! What utter rubbish!
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
<cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
Good. What total nonsense
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>steven x brown <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2k5g4nF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> So much for equality:
>
>Equality?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Men and women drive differently. They do not drive equally. Women
>make less costly claims on insurance. Any actuary will tell you. Why
>should women subsidise male drivers? Treating people who are
>different as the same means that the outcomes are unfair. This error
>has become institutionalised. Equality! What utter rubbish!
Hooray!
Halberd
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
>>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>
> Good. What total nonsense
>
Well yes, that has nothing to do with equality. It's a bit like saying that
everyone should be given a wooden leg regardless of how many legs they
already have.
Chris X
news:cbma8a$arj$2...@titan.btinternet.com...
God forbid anyone should think that men should pay the same (lower) rates as
women eh ?
Can't have those nice "people" (if you get my drift) who own the insurance
companies seeing their profits dive, can we ?
Philip Lewis
<libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
> >car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>
> Good. What total nonsense
Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the total
nonsense of 'equality'.
It was also nice to see even the feminists at the EOC undermining the very
basis of their existence (as an 'equality' organisation!).
Nice work girls - but then 'own goals' are always easier to score!
Phil
Maria
<notte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
>> >car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>
>> Good. What total nonsense
>
>Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the total
>nonsense of 'equality'.
No it isn't. A man and a woman doing the same job should receive the
same pay. If you want to prove that men are more productive than
women, and hence deserve higher pay, then go ahead and prove it.
It appears to be proven that women are in general safer drivers than
men. Men can become safer drivers - women cannot become men.
Halberd
Something else you don't understand. Is there no limit to your ignorance?
Insurance is based on an assessment of risk.
Halberd
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:23:56 +0100, "Philip Lewis"
> <notte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>>> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
>>> >their car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>>
>>> Good. What total nonsense
>>
>>Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
>>total nonsense of 'equality'.
>
> No it isn't. A man and a woman doing the same job should receive the
> same pay. If you want to prove that men are more productive than
> women, and hence deserve higher pay, then go ahead and prove it.
I think he'd struggle with that one.
> It appears to be proven that women are in general safer drivers than
> men. Men can become safer drivers - women cannot become men.
It's basic risk assessment. It's the main business of insurers.
Equality isn't about making things the same. I wish these loons would
understand that.
Chris X
No, motor insurance is based on extortion.
Ziggy
It's still discriminatory. Men make up the largest buyers of
insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
competitors.
Got Milk
The why aren't women paying 8x what men are paying for health
insurance?
Halberd
I'll just bet you're one of those scum who don't bother with it.
Halberd
Insurance is based on statistics. It is also very competitive. I have had
quotes ranging from over £1000 to just over £200 for the same vehicle.
The rates reflect a whole range of factors. Age is probably one of the most
important.
Chris X
Bet again, "teacher".
Certic
Philip Lewis <notte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2k7p2gF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> <libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> > <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
their
> > >car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
> >
> > Good. What total nonsense
>
> Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
total
> nonsense of 'equality'.
So what do you uphold which is a better principle than equality?
--
You are Not entering Chapeltown.
We walk on two legs, the one abstract
the other surreal.
All important political action should be
aimed at persuading people of the
necessity of further sacrifices.
- Ardian Vehbiu, "Handbook for
Aspiring Stalinists"
--
Halberd
<more mindless nonsense.>
Isn't it time for your mate Abelerd to take over? I thought you worked in
shifts.
Chris X
Funny you should say that, I was going to mention that I found the spectacle
of you and he indulging in that fake argument yesterday *very* amusing.
Got Milk
<Hal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Gender and race should play no factor because they are circumstances
beyond our control.
Bob
> steven x brown <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2k5g4nF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>So much for equality:
>
>
> Equality?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Men and women drive differently. They do not drive equally. Women
> make less costly claims on insurance. Any actuary will tell you. Why
> should women subsidise male drivers? Treating people who are
> different as the same means that the outcomes are unfair. This error
> has become institutionalised. Equality! What utter rubbish!
They want it both ways. In health insurance and retirement insurance
where women cost lots more, the females demand "equal" payments. They
claim it wouldn't be fair to charge women more. But in car insurance
and life insurance, where women cost less they demand a discount. They
claim it wouldnt' be fair to charge women the same.
Feminist Definition: "Equal Rights" --> Every damn thing women want
and to hell with men.
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
Bob
Yes, and when the subject is health insurance where women receive 3/4 of
medical care, they demand that their payments are no higher than those
of men.
They are double talking greedy liars.
Bob
Bob
Exactly. When women get more benefits they claim that it's "fair" to
charge the same. When men get more benefits they claim it's "fair" to
charge women less.
Whatever benefits females the most is called "fair."
Bob
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:29:04 +0000 (UTC), Halberd
> <Hal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Chris X wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Halberd" <Hal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cbma8a$arj$2...@titan.btinternet.com...
>>>
>>>>libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>>>>><cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
>>>>>
>>>their
>>>
>>>>>>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>>>>
>>>>>Good. What total nonsense
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well yes, that has nothing to do with equality. It's a bit like saying
>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>everyone should be given a wooden leg regardless of how many legs they
>>>>already have.
>>>
>>>God forbid anyone should think that men should pay the same (lower) rates
>>>as women eh ?
>>>Can't have those nice "people" (if you get my drift) who own the insurance
>>>companies seeing their profits dive, can we ?
>>
>>Something else you don't understand. Is there no limit to your ignorance?
>>Insurance is based on an assessment of risk.
>
NO it is NOT. The "risk assessment" excuse is ONLY used where men have
more risk. Where women have more risk it's not used.
What more and more men are beginning to understand is that insurance
payments are based on the SEX of those who pay.
>
> It's still discriminatory. Men make up the largest buyers of
> insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
> non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
> competitors.
>
--
Bob
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:23:56 +0100, "Philip Lewis"
> <notte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>><libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>>><cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
>>>>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>>
>>>Good. What total nonsense
>>
>>Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the total
>>nonsense of 'equality'.
>
>
> No it isn't. A man and a woman doing the same job should receive the
> same pay. If you want to prove that men are more productive than
> women, and hence deserve higher pay, then go ahead and prove it.
>
> It appears to be proven that women are in general safer drivers than
> men. Men can become safer drivers - women cannot become men.
Women in general drive less than men, but are not necessarily safer drivers.
Meanwhile women receive far more health benefits and don't get charged
more for health insurance.
The decision mode for insurance is SEXIST discrimination against men.
Once again sexism reigns supreme.
Bob
Halberd
>
> Funny you should say that, I was going to mention that I found the
> spectacle of you and he indulging in that fake argument yesterday *very*
> amusing.
You laugh at yourself a lot?
Chris X
Still think I'm Abie and that Abie is John Tyndall, huh ?
Sad.
Halberd
I don't think race has a bearing.
Gender does because the statistics show there to be a considerable
correlation between gender and accidents. If you are arguing that Insurance
companies should be blind to this, then what else should they ignore?
Halberd
> H. Wake wrote:
>> steven x brown <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:<2k5g4nF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>>So much for equality:
>>
>>
>> Equality?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Men and women drive differently. They do not drive equally. Women
>> make less costly claims on insurance. Any actuary will tell you. Why
>> should women subsidise male drivers? Treating people who are
>> different as the same means that the outcomes are unfair. This error
>> has become institutionalised. Equality! What utter rubbish!
>
>
> They want it both ways. In health insurance and retirement insurance
> where women cost lots more, the females demand "equal" payments. They
> claim it wouldn't be fair to charge women more. But in car insurance
> and life insurance, where women cost less they demand a discount. They
> claim it wouldnt' be fair to charge women the same.
The retirement issue is historical and is likely to change. The insurance
companies obviously apply different commercial criteria because motor
insurance is entirely commercial.
Life insurance rates are different for everyone depending on all sorts of
factors.
Halberd
I do think you are on the same side.
You both have this habit of assuming that there are just two 'sides' - you
and the Marxists. You both want to restrict rights and freedom. You both
fall back on Stalin when your idiocy is exposed ... 'Socialism' is the
stock answer you both use to describe everyone else's opinion. You both
have egos inversely proportional to your intelligence.
There is more ... but I'll leave you to reflect.
Ian
> So much for equality:
>
>
> Boost for women
> Jun 26 2004
> Driving Force, The Western Mail
>
> A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
> car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>
> the underwriting of insurance products on grounds of gender.
>
> Paul O'Gorman, spokesman for insurance specialist Quote-line Direct says,
> "This is a step in the right direction.
>
> "Where there is clear, historical statistical evidence and actuarial
> evidence it should be able to be used as a factor in calculating risk and
> setting prices for insurance-based products.
>
> "Even the UK Equal Opportunities Commission opposed the move led by the
> Greek social affairs European commissioner Anna Diamantopolou."
Except it's a complete lie. Julie Mellor head of the Equal Opportunities
Commission was the first person to propose this in the UK, (in a letter
to the Times.)
Additionally, so far as I'm aware, the EOC made no comment, positive or
negative about it, and neither did the women's affairs department of
our government until the issue was defeated by other realistic governments,
when out very own manhating Jaqui Smith limply opined...
"that the european community would now be unable" to achieve this bit
of legislation. She then implied, without actually being too positive
about it that we didn't support it anyway.
Expect another law soon, to allow women to have cheap car insurance but
men will still have to lose out on pensions.
Chris X
> Chris X wrote:
>
> >
> > "Halberd" <Hal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:cbmn88$629$2...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >> Chris X wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Funny you should say that, I was going to mention that I found the
> >> > spectacle of you and he indulging in that fake argument yesterday
> >> > *very* amusing.
> >>
> >> You laugh at yourself a lot?
> >
> > Still think I'm Abie and that Abie is John Tyndall, huh ?
>
> I do think you are on the same side.
>
> You both have this habit of assuming that there are just two 'sides' - you
> and the Marxists.
That's where you're wrong. Abelard is a neo-con, the very opposite of the
nationalist.
>You both want to restrict rights and freedom.
The BNP are all for *increasing* people's freedoms and rights, not
diminishing them. Abelard is a neo-con, see the Patriot act for detals of
his love affair with civil liberties :)
> You both
> fall back on Stalin when your idiocy is exposed ... 'Socialism' is the
> stock answer you both use to describe everyone else's opinion.
That's a lie; Abie uses the term "socialist" as an insult, I've never done
that.
> You both
> have egos inversely proportional to your intelligence.
How have you come to that conclusion ?
> There is more ...
Oh God ...
>but I'll leave you to reflect.
Have a nice evening, dear. :)
Got Milk
<Hal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Bringing age (or driving experience) into the equation has little
merit because circumstances are dramatically different.
The EU ruling is in error. The process of assessment in deciding
premiums which uses gender as a factor is discriminatory. There is no
other conclusion. This kind of behavior is not tolerated in other
institutions and should not be tolerated here.
Halberd
>
> Have a nice evening, dear. :)
Another Abelard response.
Bob
> Bob wrote:
>
>
>>H. Wake wrote:
>>
>>>steven x brown <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:<2k5g4nF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>So much for equality:
>>>
>>>
>>>Equality?!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>Men and women drive differently. They do not drive equally. Women
>>>make less costly claims on insurance. Any actuary will tell you. Why
>>>should women subsidise male drivers? Treating people who are
>>>different as the same means that the outcomes are unfair. This error
>>>has become institutionalised. Equality! What utter rubbish!
>>
>>
>>They want it both ways. In health insurance and retirement insurance
>>where women cost lots more, the females demand "equal" payments. They
>>claim it wouldn't be fair to charge women more. But in car insurance
>>and life insurance, where women cost less they demand a discount. They
>>claim it wouldnt' be fair to charge women the same.
>
>
> The retirement issue is historical and is likely to change.
In the USA, women get about 80% of Social Security benefits, while men
pay about 80% of the costs.
For private retirement plans provided by employers, women pay no more in
payroll deductions, and men are significantly overcharged to make up for
the female's longer life expectancy.
IOW: Men-pay, women-get-paid. Same old SEXIST plan.
> The insurance
> companies obviously apply different commercial criteria because motor
> insurance is entirely commercial.
Commercial or government, it always costs men more and women less. What
is "fair" is always determined on the basis of sex.
For motor insurance in the US, young women are 3x as costly to insure as
average drivers, yet are usually added to parent's insurance with no
extra cost. Young men are 4x as costly to insure (only 125% of young
women) and are charged huge additional premiums. Again, the premiums
charged are based on the SEX of the insured, not on the risk factors.
> Life insurance rates are different for everyone depending on all sorts of
> factors.
Where men have higher costs to insurance companies they claim that they
use cost factors to charge higher rates. Where women have higher costs
they claim that isn't fair to charge women more so they bill men higher
rates to pay the extra costs of women.
The insurance industry is misandrist from one end to the other.
Bob
Chris X
> Chris X wrote:
> >
> > Have a nice evening, dear. :)
>
> Another Abelard response.
Is it ? I wouldn't know, I read very little of his stuff.
Andrew Adams
>
> <libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
>> >their car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>
>> Good. What total nonsense
>
> Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
> total nonsense of 'equality'.
> It was also nice to see even the feminists at the EOC undermining the
> very basis of their existence (as an 'equality' organisation!).
> Nice work girls - but then 'own goals' are always easier to score!
>
> Phil
>
Not really. They just ruled that the concept of 'equality' is not
applicable to the calculation of motor insurance premiums. That doesn't
invalidate the general principle.
Andrew
Halberd
Not really. Age is demonstrated to have an impact, but so has gender.
> The EU ruling is in error. The process of assessment in deciding
> premiums which uses gender as a factor is discriminatory. There is no
> other conclusion. This kind of behavior is not tolerated in other
> institutions and should not be tolerated here.
Motor insurance is competitive and based on assessed risk, which is why
people pay different premiums. While I understand your objections I'm not
convinced that it is discriminatory in the way you think.
spammy
> Equality isn't about making things the same. I wish these loons would
> understand that.
I would wholeheartedly agree with that, if it applied when *women*
should pay more or receive less, but don't "because it wouldn't be
fair".
spammy
> Women in general drive less than men, but are not necessarily safer
> drivers.
Women aren't safer drivers. However, that's not how insurance companies
measure risk. They measure risk on a dollars-in-claims-per-year basis.
Since men drive many more miles per year (ever seen a couple where the
woman is more likely to be driving when they're both in the same car?)
they actually incur, actuarially speaking, more dollars/year in claims
despite being safer drivers on an accidents/vehicle-mile basis.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>>Insurance is based on statistics. It is also very competitive. I have had
>>quotes ranging from over £1000 to just over £200 for the same vehicle.
>>
>>The rates reflect a whole range of factors. Age is probably one of the most
>>important.
>
>Gender and race should play no factor because they are circumstances
>beyond our control.
So?
--
www.libraryofalex.com
Wherever book may be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Chris X on 9/11 "They deserved it"
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
>> Well yes, that has nothing to do with equality. It's a bit like saying that
>> everyone should be given a wooden leg regardless of how many legs they
>> already have.
>
>Yes, and when the subject is health insurance where women receive 3/4 of
> medical care, they demand that their payments are no higher than those
>of men.
>
>They are double talking greedy liars.
Maybe true, but the issue to fight on is health insurance, not motor
insurance
Vinnie
No use talking to this troll, it's a disease which trades liberty and choice
for bounding through hoops.
This thing will meet justice between it's car and it's front door late one
night, there is no alternative.
Philip Lewis
"Maria" <frust...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:40deb038...@News.Individual.NET...
> >news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> >> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
their
> >> >car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
> >>
> >> Good. What total nonsense
> >
> >Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
total
> >nonsense of 'equality'.
>
> same pay.
They already do - the pay equity act has been in force for decades!
No - the thrust of current feminist activism is NOT to demand equal pay for
the same job (as I said that has already been taken care of via the pay
equity act)
but rather a demand for equal pay for doing a job that feminists THINK are
'equivalent' e.g. a dinner lady being paid the same as a landscape
gardener - the 'logic' being employed here being that since far more men
than women are landscape gardeners then men somehow have an 'unfair' wage
advantage to an 'equivalent' job (favoured by far more women than men) as
SPECIFICALLY dinner ladies!!!
Now any honest observer would note the desperate attempt to 'have ones cake
and eat it' on behalf of the feminists having abandoned the 'equal pay for
doing the SAME job' defunct bandwagon they are now seeking to redefine what
'equal' means by slyly introducing the term 'equivalent' - so who now
defines what job is 'equivalent' to another specific job? The answer is
other feminists in pisitions of influence and their pandering lackeys. Thus
does feminism ever seek to redefine itself in search always of female
PRIVILEGE whilst indulging in the most blatant sexism something which btw
feminists are supposed to be FIGHTING!!!
> If you want to prove that men are more productive than
> women, and hence deserve higher pay, then go ahead and prove it.
I made no claim that men are paid more than women for doing the same job.
If you want me accept that outrageous claim then you will have to offer ME
the proof.
>
> It appears to be proven that women are in general safer drivers than
> men. Men can become safer drivers - women cannot become men.
In that case you would be opposed to all forms of positive discrimination
whereby women have been given a 'leg up' or special considerations based
purely on their sex - after all you argue that women being 'safer drivers'
than men is sufficient 'logic' to you that men should be discriminated
against.
Phil
>
> >It was also nice to see even the feminists at the EOC undermining the
very
> >basis of their existence (as an 'equality' organisation!).
> >Nice work girls - but then 'own goals' are always easier to score!
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >
> >>
Philip Lewis
Bob
Indeed. Women have far more accidents per mile or kilo driven.
Sean_MacCloud
Andrew Adams wrote:
> Not really. They just ruled that the concept of 'equality' is not
> applicable to the calculation of motor insurance premiums. That doesn't
> invalidate the general principle.
>
Sure it does, you idiot.
If it can't be applied to all then there is no reason for the people who it
doesn't apply to to uphold. it. Duh, dingbat.
-------------
Men suppossedly claim more insurance dollars. (This is because men drive
more and other reasons having to do with lifestyle differences and general
predilections. females crash more per mile driven.) But in my
smarter-than-your-opinion opinion that logic, if the genders were reversed,
would not be tolerated.
Philip Lewis
> Maria wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 12:23:56 +0100, "Philip Lewis"
> > <notte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >>news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> >>> <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
> >>> >their car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
> >>>
> >>> Good. What total nonsense
> >>
> >>Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
> >>total nonsense of 'equality'.
> >
> > No it isn't. A man and a woman doing the same job should receive the
> > women, and hence deserve higher pay, then go ahead and prove it.
>
Firstly men and women being paid the same for doing the same job is already
enshrined in law - it's called the pay equity act and has been in force for
decades. Secondly I SUPPORT that principle in the interests of FAIRNESS and
not based on a crackpot set of shifting definitions of 'equality' as defined
and redefined by feminist hypocrites.
>
> > It appears to be proven that women are in general safer drivers than
> > men. Men can become safer drivers - women cannot become men.
>
> It's basic risk assessment. It's the main business of insurers.
>
> Equality isn't about making things the same. I wish these loons would
> understand that.
In practice 'equality' is whatever feminists and their pandering lackeys
define it to be. Fairness is another issue OTH.
Phil
Ken&Laura Chaddock
> <libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
>><cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
>>>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
>>
>>Good. What total nonsense
>
> Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the total
> nonsense of 'equality'.
> It was also nice to see even the feminists at the EOC undermining the very
> basis of their existence (as an 'equality' organisation!).
> Nice work girls - but then 'own goals' are always easier to score!
Oh come on Phil...don't whimp out on us now...you know dammed well that
if women had been paying the higher rates, feminists would have been
screaming their bloody heads off over the "injustice" of making women
pay insurance rates proportional to their accident rate.
Personally I think everyone should pay exactly the same rates until
there is a claim for an accident which is *proven* to be their fault
through negligence, recklessness or unlawful action...sometimes "shit
happens" and that should be seen as a cost of doing business for an
insurance company and should NOT lead to higher rates for an individual
who has done nothing wrong...
...Ken
Ritalin-Kid
> >>A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for their
> >>car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
> >
> > Good. What total nonsense
> >
> Well yes, that has nothing to do with equality. It's a bit like saying that
> everyone should be given a wooden leg regardless of how many legs they
> already have.
Of course.
Then again, women live longer than men, thus recquiring more
healthcare costs (especially during old age) (and let's not even argue
that they pay more taxes since they're still alive. Retired people pay
minimal taxes compared to what they cost in healthcare). AND, don't
women go see the doctor more often than men (gynecologists for
starters)? I bet those insurance premiums are more costly than
men's... oh wait, no they aren't. Yet those are risk assessments. And
for countries where healthcare is paid by the government, I bet women
pay more taxes than men... oh wait, they don't.
In my country, the government pays most of the bills for education
(which is quite costly). More women than men are in schools
(especially higher education). I bet women pay more taxes than men for
education or they pay more money to start a new semester... oh wait,
they don't.
It is riskier (insurances deal in risks for their premiums, don't
they?) to hire a woman than a man in businesses due to pregnancies.
Where I live, they can take up to a year when they have a child, which
can be costly, especially in small businesses. I bet those factors are
taken under consideration when hiring someone and women pay more in
insurance... oh wait, that's illegal.
BOEDICIA
>From: deepblue y...@wish.com
>Date: 6/26/04 7:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vpcsd0pkqukat1kvr...@4ax.com>>>So much for equality:
>
>You were believing it existed up to now?
>
>Obviously, this won't affect how men pay more for life insurance.
Not only does the idiot X. Brown not own a car, he doesn't even know how to
drive, so one might ask why the fool found the need to start yet one more inane
thread.
>On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown,cupidstunt
That explains it.
Andrew Adams
news:40DF654D...@yahoo.com:
>
>
> Andrew Adams wrote:
>
>> Not really. They just ruled that the concept of 'equality' is not
>> applicable to the calculation of motor insurance premiums. That
>> doesn't invalidate the general principle.
>>
>
> Sure it does, you idiot.
>
> If it can't be applied to all then there is no reason for the people
> who it doesn't apply to to uphold. it.
But in this case there was no discrimination - they were making a
legitimate commercial decision, so there is no problem.
>Duh, dingbat.
Oh dear, get out of the wrong side of bed did we?
> -------------
> Men suppossedly claim more insurance dollars. (This is because men
> drive more and other reasons having to do with lifestyle differences
> and general predilections. females crash more per mile driven.) But in
> my smarter-than-your-opinion opinion that logic, if the genders were
> reversed, would not be tolerated.
>
Well I obviously genuflect before your superior wisdom, but unless you
actually have any evidence to back that up it is just waffle.
Andrew
Philip Lewis
"Andrew Adams" <andrew....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9515B1D717B...@62.253.162.204...
There are always 'reasons' for disparities - the concept of 'equality' as
formulated by feminists is used to 'level' such disparities but only when it
pleases them as we have just seen demonstarted.
Phil
>
> Andrew
Philip Lewis
> Sean_MacCloud <Sean_M...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:40DF654D...@yahoo.com:
>
> >
> >
> > Andrew Adams wrote:
> >
> >> Not really. They just ruled that the concept of 'equality' is not
> >> applicable to the calculation of motor insurance premiums. That
> >> doesn't invalidate the general principle.
> >>
> >
> > Sure it does, you idiot.
> >
> > If it can't be applied to all then there is no reason for the people
> > who it doesn't apply to to uphold. it.
>
> But in this case there was no discrimination
Wrong - men are being charged higher premiums than women for the same cover.
>- they were making a
> legitimate commercial decision, so there is no problem.
What this amounts to is that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate
against a sex based on actuarial considerations and that these actuarial
considerations outweigh the concept of 'equality'.
This could set interesting precedents in the future - especially where women
may not be the beneficiary!!
Phil
Andrew Adams
>
> "Andrew Adams" <andrew....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9517BB5DBB4...@62.253.162.202...
>> Sean_MacCloud <Sean_M...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:40DF654D...@yahoo.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Andrew Adams wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not really. They just ruled that the concept of 'equality' is not
>> >> applicable to the calculation of motor insurance premiums. That
>> >> doesn't invalidate the general principle.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sure it does, you idiot.
>> >
>> > If it can't be applied to all then there is no reason for the
>> > people who it doesn't apply to to uphold. it.
>>
>> But in this case there was no discrimination
>
> Wrong - men are being charged higher premiums than women for the same
> cover.
>
>>- they were making a
>> legitimate commercial decision, so there is no problem.
>
> What this amounts to is that it is perfectly acceptable to
> discriminate against a sex based on actuarial considerations and that
> these actuarial considerations outweigh the concept of 'equality'.
> This could set interesting precedents in the future - especially where
> women may not be the beneficiary!!
>
>
> Phil
Well I don't deny that.
Andrew
Andrew Adams
Of course people will always give reasons to justify discrimination,
they will never actually just admit any kind of bias or prejudice. I
think every case should be treated on its own merits.
Andrew
Graham Innocent
> insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
> non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
> competitors.
Are you proposing that a company would gain attract more male
customers by raising their charges on women ? or are you proposing
that they become more profitable by charging less than the increased
risk of male customers would indicate was a prudent level ? Charging
less to attract more customers doesn't always make sound commercial
sense.
You seem to think that 'discrimination' is always a bad thing. These
insurers are charging different prices to different customers based on
a careful calculation of the risk they represent. It's a perfectly
reasonable, logical thing to do.
You might as well insist that tradesmen charge all customers the same
regardless of the amount and type of work that needs doing.
Andre Lieven
>> It's still discriminatory. Men make up the largest buyers of
>> insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
>> non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
>> competitors.
>
> Are you proposing that a company would gain attract more male
> customers by raising their charges on women ? or are you proposing
> that they become more profitable by charging less than the increased
> risk of male customers would indicate was a prudent level ? Charging
> less to attract more customers doesn't always make sound commercial
> sense.
>
> You seem to think that 'discrimination' is always a bad thing. These
> insurers are charging different prices to different customers based on
> a careful calculation of the risk they represent. It's a perfectly
> reasonable, logical thing to do.
You do realise that that is also *exactly* the argument for not
paying " equavalent " jobs the same wages ?
> You might as well insist that tradesmen charge all customers the same
> regardless of the amount and type of work that needs doing.
On a per hour basis, they do. Try again.
If discrimination is all right, when it comes to the use of actuarial
tables in insurance, then it can't not be all right, when it comes to
useing the same sorts of data in the workplace.
The same can be said for such practices such as " gender norming "
applications to uiversities, and the like, too.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
librar...@*nospam*btinternet.com
wrote:
>> It's still discriminatory. Men make up the largest buyers of
>> insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
>> non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
>> competitors.
>
>Are you proposing that a company would gain attract more male
>customers by raising their charges on women ? or are you proposing
>that they become more profitable by charging less than the increased
>risk of male customers would indicate was a prudent level ? Charging
>less to attract more customers doesn't always make sound commercial
>sense.
In this case it's simply nuts. If you reduce the premium on men, and
they cost more, you simply lose money on more customers
--
cheers
Graham Innocent
> Graham Innocent (grah...@hotmail.com) writes:
> >> It's still discriminatory. Men make up the largest buyers of
> >> insurance, therefor if a company is willing to step forward and offer
> >> non-discriminatory rates they would have an advantage over their
> >> competitors.
> >
> > Are you proposing that a company would gain attract more male
> > customers by raising their charges on women ? or are you proposing
> > that they become more profitable by charging less than the increased
> > risk of male customers would indicate was a prudent level ? Charging
> > less to attract more customers doesn't always make sound commercial
> > sense.
> >
> > You seem to think that 'discrimination' is always a bad thing. These
> > insurers are charging different prices to different customers based on
> > a careful calculation of the risk they represent. It's a perfectly
> > reasonable, logical thing to do.
>
> You do realise that that is also *exactly* the argument for not
> paying " equavalent " jobs the same wages ?
Yes. And it makes perfect sense that somebody who is better at
particular job gets paid more even if they are doing an 'equivalent'
job to a less productive worker.
>
> > You might as well insist that tradesmen charge all customers the same
> > regardless of the amount and type of work that needs doing.
>
> On a per hour basis, they do. Try again.
No they don't. Tradesmen with a good reputation who have more
customers competing for there time charge more. Study basic supply and
demand.
> If discrimination is all right, when it comes to the use of actuarial
> tables in insurance, then it can't not be all right, when it comes to
> useing the same sorts of data in the workplace.
But I never said there was anything wrong with different people in the
same workplace performing simillar functions getting paid different
amounts. You're whole argument is based on a flawed set of
left-wing/trade-unionist assumptions which I don't share.
> The same can be said for such practices such as " gender norming "
> applications to uiversities, and the like, too.
Quite. I also think that skewing admission standards to favour certain
groups who happen to get lower grades (on average) is wrong too. What
is your point exactly ?
Philip Lewis
"Certic" <P...@winDEATHTOSPAMMERSwaed.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cbmktl$pc7$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Philip Lewis <notte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2k7p2gF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > <libraryofalex@*nospam*btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:gv6td016j2ne5ghfl...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 15:39:20 +0100, steven x brown
> > > <cupidstu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >A PROPOSED directive by the EU to make women pay as much as men for
> their
> > > >car insurance has been rejected by most member states.
> > >
> > > Good. What total nonsense
> >
> > Yes and so is all the other legislation and social policy based on the
> total
> > nonsense of 'equality'.
> So what do you uphold which is a better principle than equality?
Fair treatment will do.
Phil
>
> --
> You are Not entering Chapeltown.
> We walk on two legs, the one abstract
> the other surreal.
> All important political action should be
> aimed at persuading people of the
> necessity of further sacrifices.
> - Ardian Vehbiu, "Handbook for
> Aspiring Stalinists"
> --
>
>
Philip Lewis
In that case there is nothing more to argue about - on to the next fish
destined for the frying pan.
Phil
>
> Andrew
Philip Lewis
I'd settle for a principle of fairness. :-o)
Phil
>
> Andrew