| Torillian said: Your life does not matter to statistics, just tossing that out there. So let's see some proof, people. On the idea of winners and losers. I don't think anyone is really advocating that everyone should be in the exact same situation in life, obviously some can and should do better than others. What many of these protections are about is how bad should the lives of those "losers" be. Should they have healthcare in times of need, should they be able to afford to have kids, should their children have access to education in order to have a better outcome than their parents, or are all of these things that are reserved for the "winners" in life? Does your being a winner require you to smash the losers beneath you into the dirt or can they just have a worse but still reasonably livable life than you? These are the questions I think one should consider when besmirching those who don't accomplish as much as they do. |
I'm not denying that social mobility is low, let's just get that out of the way ... (I see it as a non-issue.)
I didn't say that all those things should be reserved for the winners but the chances of losers encountering those odds should be lowered. As far as varying levels of losers that depends on the circumstances ...
Those who owe their creditors big time don't deserve any pity and the same goes for those who depend on a contested one time event like a high reward competition where the winner takes all. Then we have cases where there's just enough resources to make 1 winner out of the 10 people ...
