2 ms·

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

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.

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.