3 ms·

I’m not ignoring it, I’m pointing out that it isn’t really a thing. Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protec

I’m not ignoring it, I’m pointing out that it isn’t really a thing. Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic. If that isn’t happening then there is no discrimination. Sometimes this acts in favour of one group and sometimes not so much but you don’t get to pick and choose. On any protected characteristic, or there is no point in even having the legislation. Those complaining that their early pension privileges are being taken away is a great example. Imagine if it was the other way round. It’s not discrimination to have an unfair privilege situation corrected.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? > Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices: 1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class). 2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class). It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? Oh, I do understand what you’re saying, but it has no basis either in law nor what the average person would consider to be discriminatory behaviour. I mean, would you refuse to employ a woman because her maternity leave might cost more? Do you feel that men are discriminated against here? Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. This is true in every industry. You can imagine a world where by law everything costs the cost of labour + materials + a fixed profit margin, and that would be “fair” by your logic but it doesn’t exist!
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    The reason I chose car insurance as an example is because it has such a strong basis in law. There are so many jurisdictions that do it differently, that it would be impossible to make a judgement which way is truly discriminatory. > Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. Of course it doesn’t. But it the cost of providing the service corresponds differently to the price charged for women than it does the price charged for men, then you have discrimination. They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. Either you actually don’t understand this very simple point, or you’re intentionally trying to contrive things as much as possible to avoid the reality of the situation. Which no matter how much you attempt to reframe, remains the same.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. No, it’s the same product for the same price. Unless you are asserting that women get less insurance cover now? In that case, citation very much needed. Once again: discrimination is charging customers differently on the basis of a protected characteristic. If men and women pay the same price for the same product then by definition discrimination is not occurring. It may or may not cost the vendor more but that’s irrelevant, we have established (and you have agreed) that the cost of production is not tied to the cost to the customer.
- belorn 7y ago
  > But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women There are two main lines of thoughts in regard to this. The first is that no, that is not discriminating against women since the actor (in this case, the insurance company) is not taking gender into account when calculating the premium. The other line of thought is equality under the law is impossible to achieve because people are not initially equal to begin with. The common quote people use to describe this is "The Law's 'Majestic Equality'" from Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.". Since discrimination law is a law following common law theory and philosophy, it generally ignores the objection that the second line of thought brings up.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? > Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices: 1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class). 2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class). It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.

goatinaboat 7y ago
Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? Oh, I do understand what you’re saying, but it has no basis either in law nor what the average person would consider to be discriminatory behaviour. I mean, would you refuse to employ a woman because her maternity leave might cost more? Do you feel that men are discriminated against here? Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. This is true in every industry. You can imagine a world where by law everything costs the cost of labour + materials + a fixed profit margin, and that would be “fair” by your logic but it doesn’t exist!
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The reason I chose car insurance as an example is because it has such a strong basis in law. There are so many jurisdictions that do it differently, that it would be impossible to make a judgement which way is truly discriminatory. > Nor, by the way, does the cost of providing a product or service correspond directly with the price you charge the customer. Of course it doesn’t. But it the cost of providing the service corresponds differently to the price charged for women than it does the price charged for men, then you have discrimination. They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. Either you actually don’t understand this very simple point, or you’re intentionally trying to contrive things as much as possible to avoid the reality of the situation. Which no matter how much you attempt to reframe, remains the same.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    They are simply getting less product or service, for the same price, on the basis of gender. No, it’s the same product for the same price. Unless you are asserting that women get less insurance cover now? In that case, citation very much needed. Once again: discrimination is charging customers differently on the basis of a protected characteristic. If men and women pay the same price for the same product then by definition discrimination is not occurring. It may or may not cost the vendor more but that’s irrelevant, we have established (and you have agreed) that the cost of production is not tied to the cost to the customer.
belorn 7y ago
> But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women There are two main lines of thoughts in regard to this. The first is that no, that is not discriminating against women since the actor (in this case, the insurance company) is not taking gender into account when calculating the premium. The other line of thought is equality under the law is impossible to achieve because people are not initially equal to begin with. The common quote people use to describe this is "The Law's 'Majestic Equality'" from Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.". Since discrimination law is a law following common law theory and philosophy, it generally ignores the objection that the second line of thought brings up.