100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Atheists sue over bus ads on God-free lifestyle | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am not saying they are bad I am just saying if the property of the advertising agency is facing extra risk because of what is being advertise no matter what it is they should be allowed to charge a higher rate based on the risk of damages involved. Just like I think the rate of say a concert hall for an opera versus that of a band known to have mosh pits and violent fans should pay more. That being said I think 36k for 5k worth of adds to be excessive and they have a right to bring it to trail, but if they can prove that the fee is justified based on the percentage of signs vandalized and costs of repair than I think it shouldn't be considered wrong. Well maybe they do, and maybe they don't. $36,000 is a bit excessive. If they insist on charging that, they should break it up between the too groups. But We will see what the court decides. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not saying they are bad I am just saying if the property of the advertising agency is facing extra risk because of what is being advertise no matter what it is they should be allowed to charge a higher rate based on the risk of damages involved. Just like I think the rate of say a concert hall for an opera versus that of a band known to have mosh pits and violent fans should pay more. That being said I think 36k for 5k worth of adds to be excessive and they have a right to bring it to trail, but if they can prove that the fee is justified based on the percentage of signs vandalized and costs of repair than I think it shouldn't be considered wrong. Well maybe they do, and maybe they don't. $36,000 is a bit excessive. If they insist on charging that, they should break it up between the too groups. But We will see what the court decides. You can't make the other group pay for it. There is no link from the other group to the damages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm against public buses! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Atheist can GET EVEN.
All of them should just go home and NOT pray to God for help!! And, they should mean it to STING! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 06/12/11 04:26 AM
|
|
i don't like it but i see the transit authority's logic. they've assessed that a real risk to property is there, violence, vandaliszm, etc., and feel the need to transer that risk to an insurance company. obviously the insurance company, which is very good a assessing risk, must agree considering the high premium quoted. i suppose us non believers do take risks when we offer our views in the southern bible belt. i can picture a redneck driving his pickup with the confederate stars and bars emblazoned accross his back window driving through south central LA or southside chicago. now there's some risk taking huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless they're charging everyone equally for the insurance and more money, then it is a problem. People need to learn to control themselves, no matter what beliefs you have. Vandalism is not the answer. Period. The Vandalism is very obviously a strike out at the atheist ads, and the company paying to put their ads up shouldn't be punished or forced to hide what they are because it offends others. this could be true it could also be true that the company risking the ads shouldnt be FORCED to risk a loss that otherwise might not be incurred,,, That does not give them the right to charge outrageous prices for an atheist add. It makes them look like they themselves are objecting to the content of the add, which is a possibility. The vandalism might be just an excuse. sure does give them the right. that's what insurance is all aboout. if you don't see the difference in risk assessment between an atheist ad on the side of a bus in arkansas and a christian ad then you're just not looking at the whole picture here. ofcourse there is a risk of vandalism here. i've understood a long time that christians can be the most violent groups in society. with a history like their's who could not see the risk here? this is not at all unlike a cigarette smoker who will pay far higher premiums for life insurance than a nonsmoker. smoking very likely will kill you at an earlier age than a nonsmoker. if the premiums were equal that would mean fewer premium dollars from the smoker and less time to gain profit through investment. works the same on the life of that bus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Sun 06/12/11 04:58 AM
|
|
I am not saying they are bad I am just saying if the property of the advertising agency is facing extra risk because of what is being advertise no matter what it is they should be allowed to charge a higher rate based on the risk of damages involved. Just like I think the rate of say a concert hall for an opera versus that of a band known to have mosh pits and violent fans should pay more. That being said I think 36k for 5k worth of adds to be excessive and they have a right to bring it to trail, but if they can prove that the fee is justified based on the percentage of signs vandalized and costs of repair than I think it shouldn't be considered wrong. Well maybe they do, and maybe they don't. $36,000 is a bit excessive. If they insist on charging that, they should break it up between the too groups. But We will see what the court decides. why do you say it's excessive? are you an experienced risk assessor? i can assure you that the insurance company has highly trained and experienced pros who think this premium not in the least excessive. a quarter million dollar bus with "rah, rah ateism" emblazoned on the side driving through arkansas streets times i don't know how many buses??? won't bother to do the math but my guess is the premiums would compares favorably to the premiums to insurer the same total value of new corvettes driven by a bunch eighteen year olds through manhatten. ya think that would be cheap? no figure the premiums quoted on those same vettes driven by fifty year olds with good driving records who live in boise. should both groups pay equal premiums??? insurance is all about transfering risk for a fee. risks are not all equal so neither is the fee. simple really. |
|
|
|
|
