6 ms·

That could be considered as discrimination against big tall men(not overweight). Another thing is luggage.

by rett12 12y ago

bluthru 12y ago
That's like saying it's discrimination that a tall person has to buy more food to survive.
- waps 12y ago
  That's the whole point of discrimination laws. I don't know if you ever checked but people aren't kidding when they say non-christians, non-whites, ... are more criminal and less smart and ... with the exception of one or two asian ethnicities. In theory saying this by itself is not discriminatory, only acting upon it is, but I doubt most people will agree. But you're going to find actual statistics supporting that. Yet any conclusions obviously are discriminatory. What's worse is this. Suppose you have 2 groups with each a normal distributed variable (like weight, height, money, likelihood of criminal intent, ...) and let's say a 1% difference in the peak (which is what everyone will always report, standard deviations are also always different, but nobody ever reports them, but when people say Asians are less tall than Caucasians in 1% of cases (real figure is about 6%), this is what they mean). To make things simple, lets say group A ~ N(100, 10) group B ~ N(101, 10) (N(100, 10) is like the "standard" normal distribution for things without reasonable units) What do you see in practice ? Suppose you meet someone (randomly) from group A and someone (again, uniform random) from group B. What are the chances the member from group A is heavier/taller/richer/more criminal/... than the member of group B ? E(X > Y, X ~= N(101, 10), Y ~= N(100, 10)) ~ 59% So in our example, if you meet an Caucasian and an Asian, and there's 1% height difference between the groups, the chance is about 60% that the Caucasian is taller than the Asian. If taken the real figure, 6% difference, then the chance becomes 91%. This is the problem that causes racism. Tiny differences in a normally distributed variable make a large difference in actual encounters.
chrisBob 12y ago
Is there anything wrong with discrimination against tall people? It has nothing to do with their age, race, gender or sexual preference, so I think height and weight may actually be fair game.
- theg2 12y ago
  I hate to be that guy but should we be charging people more (effectively punishing them) for something outside of their control? Sure it may be "fair" in terms of economics, but it's a slippery ethical and moral slope if I've ever seen one.
  - willis77 12y ago
    > should we be charging people more (effectively punishing them) for something outside of their control? Car insurers charge young people more money, despite their youth being outside of their control.
    - zacinbusiness 12y ago
      Wow you're stupid.
    - iLoch 12y ago
      Are they actually charging young people more, or are they charging inexperienced drivers more?
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Young people.
      - vonmoltke 12y ago
        Yes, they are. I got my drivers license and first car when I was 22. Length of driving history was not a question when I got insurance, and I got charged the same as 22-year-old males who had been driving since they were 16.
    - theg2 12y ago
      True, but I do think experience has a lot to do with the equation there. Pretty much all insurances are based on the chance of payout but I don't know if that should apply to the prices of things like physical goods or in this case air travel. It's dangerously close to an argument such as "People of color have to pay more or can't use this service at all" or "Blonde hair blue eyes" you know?
DavidBradbury 12y ago
In order for it to be discrimination, it has to be 'unjust' - There is nothing unjust about having larger people pay more because it costs a business more to fly them. If anything, it is unjust that smaller people have to subsidize the cost of others.
- gaius 12y ago
  And there's nothing unjust about paying women less because they'll just quit to have babies, right? Society has decided that that's not how it works.
  - sp332 12y ago
    You're allowed to discriminate against even "protected classes" of people if it actually materially affects their performance. If a woman is actually pregnant and can't lift heavy things, and that's part of the job requirement, then you're allowed to not hire her. If a heavy passenger is actually costing you more money for fuel, you'd be allowed to charge that person more for fuel. This is moot though, since height and weight are not protected categories and you can already discriminate against them all you want!
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    You could make a fair argument along that line if you measured the cost. Just having the baby means a few weeks off at most since there's nothing gender-specific about childcare, average person has about two babies, a couple months out of decades of work, you could reasonably argue that women should make about a quarter of a percent less than men. My point is, don't bring up a flawed argument that's used to support unfair discrimination to attack another argument. That's nothing more than a strawman.
  - dahart 12y ago
    I don't see how this analogy fits, or what you mean about society, but there's a slight bit of difference between charging someone for direct costs, and jumping to conclusions based on fear, stereotypes, or gender. There's also a difference between charging someone for actual expenses, and charging someone for presumed future expenses. And there's a difference between someone being charged for what they use, and someone being paid, or not, for purely indirect costs not related to their performance while on the job. Now, if a 120 lb woman was charged twice as much as a 120 lb man to fly, your analogy might be more applicable.

That could be considered as discrimination against big tall men(not overweight). Another thing is luggage.

by rett12 12y ago

That could be considered as discrimination against big tall men(not overweight). Another thing is luggage.

bluthru 12y ago

That's like saying it's discrimination that a tall person has to buy more food to survive.

waps 12y ago
That's the whole point of discrimination laws. I don't know if you ever checked but people aren't kidding when they say non-christians, non-whites, ... are more criminal and less smart and ... with the exception of one or two asian ethnicities. In theory saying this by itself is not discriminatory, only acting upon it is, but I doubt most people will agree. But you're going to find actual statistics supporting that. Yet any conclusions obviously are discriminatory. What's worse is this. Suppose you have 2 groups with each a normal distributed variable (like weight, height, money, likelihood of criminal intent, ...) and let's say a 1% difference in the peak (which is what everyone will always report, standard deviations are also always different, but nobody ever reports them, but when people say Asians are less tall than Caucasians in 1% of cases (real figure is about 6%), this is what they mean). To make things simple, lets say group A ~ N(100, 10) group B ~ N(101, 10) (N(100, 10) is like the "standard" normal distribution for things without reasonable units) What do you see in practice ? Suppose you meet someone (randomly) from group A and someone (again, uniform random) from group B. What are the chances the member from group A is heavier/taller/richer/more criminal/... than the member of group B ? E(X > Y, X ~= N(101, 10), Y ~= N(100, 10)) ~ 59% So in our example, if you meet an Caucasian and an Asian, and there's 1% height difference between the groups, the chance is about 60% that the Caucasian is taller than the Asian. If taken the real figure, 6% difference, then the chance becomes 91%. This is the problem that causes racism. Tiny differences in a normally distributed variable make a large difference in actual encounters.

chrisBob 12y ago

Is there anything wrong with discrimination against tall people? It has nothing to do with their age, race, gender or sexual preference, so I think height and weight may actually be fair game.

theg2 12y ago
I hate to be that guy but should we be charging people more (effectively punishing them) for something outside of their control? Sure it may be "fair" in terms of economics, but it's a slippery ethical and moral slope if I've ever seen one.
- willis77 12y ago
  > should we be charging people more (effectively punishing them) for something outside of their control? Car insurers charge young people more money, despite their youth being outside of their control.
  - zacinbusiness 12y ago
    Wow you're stupid.
  - iLoch 12y ago
    Are they actually charging young people more, or are they charging inexperienced drivers more?
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      Young people.
    - vonmoltke 12y ago
      Yes, they are. I got my drivers license and first car when I was 22. Length of driving history was not a question when I got insurance, and I got charged the same as 22-year-old males who had been driving since they were 16.
  - theg2 12y ago
    True, but I do think experience has a lot to do with the equation there. Pretty much all insurances are based on the chance of payout but I don't know if that should apply to the prices of things like physical goods or in this case air travel. It's dangerously close to an argument such as "People of color have to pay more or can't use this service at all" or "Blonde hair blue eyes" you know?

DavidBradbury 12y ago

In order for it to be discrimination, it has to be 'unjust' - There is nothing unjust about having larger people pay more because it costs a business more to fly them. If anything, it is unjust that smaller people have to subsidize the cost of others.

gaius 12y ago
And there's nothing unjust about paying women less because they'll just quit to have babies, right? Society has decided that that's not how it works.
- sp332 12y ago
  You're allowed to discriminate against even "protected classes" of people if it actually materially affects their performance. If a woman is actually pregnant and can't lift heavy things, and that's part of the job requirement, then you're allowed to not hire her. If a heavy passenger is actually costing you more money for fuel, you'd be allowed to charge that person more for fuel. This is moot though, since height and weight are not protected categories and you can already discriminate against them all you want!
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  You could make a fair argument along that line if you measured the cost. Just having the baby means a few weeks off at most since there's nothing gender-specific about childcare, average person has about two babies, a couple months out of decades of work, you could reasonably argue that women should make about a quarter of a percent less than men. My point is, don't bring up a flawed argument that's used to support unfair discrimination to attack another argument. That's nothing more than a strawman.
- dahart 12y ago
  I don't see how this analogy fits, or what you mean about society, but there's a slight bit of difference between charging someone for direct costs, and jumping to conclusions based on fear, stereotypes, or gender. There's also a difference between charging someone for actual expenses, and charging someone for presumed future expenses. And there's a difference between someone being charged for what they use, and someone being paid, or not, for purely indirect costs not related to their performance while on the job. Now, if a 120 lb woman was charged twice as much as a 120 lb man to fly, your analogy might be more applicable.