Closet Door Vs Curtain

Justice cons math? Brief commentary on the decision of Court of Justice

A off the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of European Communities of 1 March 2011 seems to condemn the difference in salary between men and women in matters of insurance.

The insurance contract is a contract based on discoveries in mathematical statistics. Actuaries are mathematicians who perform statistical calculations and, thereby, assess the risks based often (but not only) of the future party (the insured). The insurance contract is dependent on the mathematical reason.

The basic criteria that discriminate, especially in personal insurance, mathematical calculations are not themselves mathematics. Therefore the question is can we take any criteria to assess risk? It seems that the age factor does pose (for now) no problems. It is obvious that it is more likely to die at age 80 to 20. Hence the risk of death is greater than 80 years and his confidence will therefore cost more. It may be that the risk is so great that it becomes uninsurable (case of too great age, for example).

But is it the same criterion sex? Statistically, women are more cautious driving and cause fewer accidents. Women live longer than men. Women are less often, less often in prison. Women make unpaid services as when they are pregnant and thus ensure the renewal of the population, with special difficulties in pregnancy without some cons.

If women cause fewer accidents, the cost of their liability insurance will be less. However as they live longer the cost of annuities is higher for women than for men. Under the Health Insurance they consume more medical services, but some of this consumption is due to service their own and they only go to the general population.

Services Europe want to abolish the criterion of sex based actuarial calculations (relating to actuarial calculations).

It is undisputed that the aim pursued by Directive 2004/113 in the insurance services sector is, as reflected in Article 5, paragraph 1, the application of the rule of premiums Unisex and benefits. The eighteenth recital to the directive explicitly states that in order to ensure equal treatment between women and men, the use of sex as an actuarial factor should not lead to differences in policyholders' premiums and benefits. The nineteenth recital in the directive means the option given to Member States not to apply the rule of unisex premiums and benefits as a "derogation". Thus, the Directive 2004/113 is based on the premise that, for purposes of applying the principle of equal treatment of women and men enshrined in Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter, the respective situations of women and men with regard to premiums and insurance benefits incurred by them are comparable.

Clearly the factor "sex" is forbidden actuarial calculations, it is only tolerated for a time. Therefore it is obvious that the factor "age" factor "disease" and all other criteria of discrimination are threatened. The directive does not even distinguish between the personal insurance and damage insurance!

Therefore the principle of equality could destroy an entire economic sector is the insurance principle of corrosion of insurance based on risk assessment therefore discrimination to ensure that risk is a function, among others, sex, age, health status, so the specifics of the individual. We may even think that this path any termination of the contract based on too many claims (though some types of contracts, including life insurance contract, are unaware of any renewal claims)

The principle equality and corrodes the whole law of insurance. It also attacks the freedom of science.

In fact, equal rights coexists with the fundamental principle of contractual freedom. It is anomalous that insurers can not discriminate based on statistical criteria they have set free because it is their freedom of contract. We are in the field of private law (1).

The drafters of aberrant Insurance (Directive 2004/113) have been meditating in Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. (Section 17 provides that there is no freedom against freedom, it is the transcript of the Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of 1948.)

(1) Anything else is the problem of social justice must ensure that women are not discriminated against because of unpaid services rendered to society, but it must be borne by society rather by individuals. The insurance, in that it is a private activity, is governed by other criteria.

Celling Fan Conection

balance of trade with the Forum "Catholic"


all started with a post where I defended the memory of Paul IV. Indeed, the Forum said "Catholic" did not hesitate to publish a translation of a bubble of falsified this pope to move it for anti-Semitic.

This falsification welcomes anti-Catholics who claim Wikipedia as proof that the Church taught that Jews were cursed. And it pleased the anti-Semites who delight in saying that the Church has changed and that the popes of old anti-Semitic were well and preached that Jews were cursed by God because of the Passion.

I demonstrated that it was slander and forgery. And it is used by opposing camps apparently justifies the position of neither the one nor the other.

Immediately I was attacked by a few posters and especially "mullion" that I was "funny" (so I did smile of pity). He deflects the debate on human rights, unanimously condemned this Forum "Catholic", at least in the thread in question (I can not physically read everything).

"mullion" took over one of my old posts where I was indignant that "Blamont" do say things horribly unfair to Moses. I put "Blamont" challenge give biblical references. ("Blamont" claimed that Moses was asked to kill "too dry" [what abominable term] a daughter raped). I'm still waiting references, or rather I did expect more, because the assertion Blamont was indeed a defamation of the memory of Moses.

"(...) in the Old Testament it is stated that a girl who is raped in a way so that nobody heard her cries, must be liquidated as her rapist. So dry. " said the delicate "Blamont. To add "no one can justify his crimes by those of others," thus treating the supporters of Moses criminals.

Mullion and therefore had the ambition to present myself as a forger.

balance of this exchange, if we set aside my personal case: the Forum says "Catholic" continues to publish that Moses "indicated" that a rape victim must be "liquidated" "too dry" if we did not hear his cries (but without giving any biblical reference). Human rights, yet defended by Benedict XVI, still condemned. It remains undisputed, except that the error was anti-Semitic Pope Paul IV and taught that Jews were cursed by God.

All this under the eye off of "moderation".

It is confirmed that this forum is not very Catholic as the vector of defamation of the Church and Judaism, defamation which are common to the far right and far left.

It also confirms that this forum not very Catholic (to put it another way, this "forum fishy") fighting against religious freedom (that is to say against the freedom on which it is based), against freedom of opinion and expression (that is to say, against allowing it to exist).

I am delighted to have clarified the situation.

Funny New Baby Congratulations Message

All the law and the law for the simple hearts

. "75 But this commandment seems to be linked to love of neighbor, but not also to the love of God, the Lord also told us that there are two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. "Indeed if one had said anything you want done to yourself, do it yourself, the two commandments were found enclosed in a single formula, since it would have hastened to say that everyone wanting to be loved by God and men, and given the order to do what we want to see done to oneself, one is obliged to love God and neighbor. But as the Lord says expressly: "So whatever you would that men should do unto you, let them also," it seems that it simply means: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. "However we must note that Christ (313) here adds:" For it is the law and the prophets, "while referring to the two commandments that he has not said simply attaching them to the law and the prophets, but "all the law and the prophets (1)," that is to say, all the prophecies. And as he does not use that term here, "all," he obviously reserves instead of the other command, command the love of God. For now it is what concerns those whose hearts are simple, and as it is feared that we had a double heart with respect to those whose heart may be hidden, c ' is to say against my men, that's why it was necessary to give this command. For there is almost nobody who wants to have a double heart. Or it can happen that a man gives something to a man with a simple heart, if not exclude any view of profit time and does not act with that intention disinterested long enough that we explained above when we talk about the simple eye. "

jeusmarie From the website:

http://jesusmarie.free.fr/augustin_sermon_montagne_explication.html

It follows from the text of St. Augustine the first formulation that "the law and the prophets" and not "all the law and the prophets" that this formulation is made for simple hearts. Because otherwise, those who have to be loved and men need to be told the two commands to show the love that men must be totally disinterested.

The first formulation is complete and indeed sets the commentator Fillion, the second has stepped in to prevent any interpretation concerned. This is the thesis of St. Augustine.

But I also said elsewhere that the rights of God and men's rights were not contradictory, but formed a very well expressed in the first formula made for simple hearts, which according St. Augustine grows to avoid serving interpretation in the second formula decomposing precept in two parts.

Kidde Fire Alarm How To Disable

Meneau calls me a forger, my post in defense

Mullion not hesitate to accuse me of "falsification" because I wrote:

MT 7.12 . So whatever you would that men should do to you, do it yourself for them, for it is the law and the prophets. "

is in St. Matthew. The summary of the whole law and prophets is in this sentence: "everything you would that men should do to you."

Here is the comment of the brave Mullion (pseudonym):

And here it is itself caught in the act of falsification.

MT 7.12. So whatever you would that men should do to you, do it yourself for them, for it is the law and the prophets. "

is in St. Matthew. The summary of the whole law and prophets is in this sentence: "everything you would that men should do to you."

Precisely not. St. Matthew does not say "ALL" law and the prophets. He says it is the law and the prophets, ie that it complies with the law and the prophets or claimed by them.

Mullion added to the text element that is not in Matthew:

"that complies with the law and the prophets, if requested by them .. "

But there has not written this writing there "is the law and the prophets" and that is not requested by them or that is in tune not written there, "c is the Law and the Prophets. " It a definition which, as such, contains the whole concept. The definition that is the substance, Mullion wants to see an accident of the law, but it is against the letter of the text.

I added that I was a summary of "any" Law and the Prophets. This is my interpretation of the text and a legitimate interpretation because the definition means all inclusive concept.

Besides, I did not invent anything in this regard since it is essentially what I read in the commentary on the Bible Fillion jesusmarie available on the site.

"That is to say this is the pinnacle of everything the Old Testament teaches that the Law and the Prophets were the main part. (...) Indeed, this line includes" in nuce "all divine precepts. "

The same commentator goes on to provide that the same formula found in the Talmud (but in negative form) and besides that truth is not really faith, but can be discovered by reason, I add that it is common to all mankind.

short, let it, let the imputation of "falsification". To accuse me of "falsification" I would have falsified the text of the Gospel. Now I only read without letting the reader believe that "everything" was in the gospel and I interpreted consistently with authors much more than I authorized. Because it seems obvious that the text of the Gospel of Matthew states that the Law and the Prophets are registered within us. In this sense this summary contains "all", but it contains as short, of course.

Yes, this summary is inscribed within us, it is the source of moral theology judging the actions of the individual, natural law, the ten commandments and universal rights of man not enacted universal reason of man and of positive law.

What Makes The Feeling Of Your Stomach Dropping?

Condemnation of religious freedom?

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X publishes on its website a series of quotations from the popes expected to condemn the "religious freedom" and "freedom of conscience." Unable to find the original text probably in Latin, I could check the translation.

Here is the first quote:

Pius VI. Quod aliquantulum letter of 10 March 1791, the French bishops Assembly National.

"The necessary effect of the Constitution decreed by the assembly is to destroy the Catholic religion and with it the obedience due to kings. In this view we shall, as a right of man in society, absolute freedom, which not only guarantees the right of not being 'worried about his religious views, but still gives the license to think, speak, write and even to print with impunity in religion all that imagination can suggest the most wanton, the right appears, however monstrous result in meeting the equality and freedom natural to all men. But what could he be any more foolish than to establish this equality among men and the unbridled freedom that seems to stifle the reason, the most precious gift that nature has given to man and the only one that distinguishes it from animals? "2.

The first sentence seems to be the conclusion of the previous text which we know nothing. So this sentence has no interest in reading more.

The

second sentence speaks of "absolute freedom". Yet religious freedom as defined by Dignitatis Humanae is not absolute. It has nothing to do with freedom as understood by the revolutionaries.

Third sentence: It is not equality and freedom that are condemned, but those concepts cleared of reason. Pius also emphasizes the fact that reason is the gift of "most valuable" that nature has given to man. It does not exclude the notions of equality and freedom from the scope of reason.

So this text quoted by the SSPX does not condemn in any way the freedom Religious nor freedom of conscience just heard.

Stream Megavidwo Auf Iphone

Donny Hathaway Live

.

"A long piece of live music, which for me
is a small masterpiece of musicianship and dance alive.

Without doubt one of the best live discs
modern music for my taste

My God, what a nice progression in the chorus
electric piano! "

Thank JFL, it will take me that much to get me out of my room


turista.

Free Poptropica Account With Membership

.

View Room

Mac Leodgange

For more text, we will await the return of Corinne.
Say, when you come back?

.

Creative - Extigy.for Win 7

Tales of crime, a real treat

A favorite literary Fnac discovered today:

Counts crimes
Pierre Dubois

Small Wonder very funny, this is a new compilation of texts that reads very well despite the twists of phrases sometimes a bit convoluted.
Accessible even for those put off reading because as stated above, this is news to a dozen pages.
The author revisits the stories of our childhood and brings them to the sauce (macabre and funny) with often unexpected vision of purpose! I could only read the first 3 (yes I bought it this afternoon, had no time to read everything again) and I can not wait to read more!

Happy reading!

Film X Veronica Moser

The "Gospel affirms the rights of man

Response Mullion :

MT 7.12. So whatever you would that men should do to you, do it yourself for them, for it is the law and the prophets. "

In Matthew . The summary of the whole law and prophets is in this sentence: "everything you would that men should do to you."

The principle, the foundation of all law lies in ourselves.

The right to family forbidden by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration protects the right to a family and therefore the freedom of the individual to start a family, and the right to be part a family.

If, of course, there is no "right" personnel to join a lie known as such, nor even to an error known as such, there is a right to freedom opinion and expression (Choice, immunity, ability to share). In society, I respect the opinions of others and others should respect my opinion and not to impede the publication of my opinion. Besides campaigning against this is to militate against its own rights to express themselves.

But beware, this does not mean that any opinions, even religious, becomes legal. The Article 30 of the Declaration enacts that no human right can be invoked to violate another human right. (There is no therefore no opinion which would be lawful in a call to murder, even if that opinion is calling for a religion).

I also specified that although a Catholic, I do not pretend to be reading "Catholic" rights of man (the pope who has it), but a reading rational.

Alongside all this exchange, I pointed to Mullion I posted on the falsified translation attributed to PEB, which seems finally to have made a copy paste of wikipedia.