But you made it sound as if it was set in stone when people like Bill Gates sort of shit on your post... 

Nah, I was born into a rich family and became incredibly successful because I'm incredibly smart and not lazy like them liberals who want a handout.

I even have a friend who came from a poor family and became successful so there goes your argument.

This is all the proof you need. Forget silly statistics. The world is fair /s

I said generally, which means exactly that.

It just has to be that way right now and for no particular reason ... 

Winners and losers are definitely not decided at birth ... 

What you do does matter in life regardless of the differing advantages each person has. My family was at the lower end of the household income scale but today I can see a realistic path to being a multi-millionaire whereas I see nothing other than a dead end for my sibling and the path between me and my sibling only diverged half a decade ago ... (In that small amount of time our prospects in life changed drastically!)

There can only be a few who will prevail in this world and as such winner's must come at the expense of loser's ... (You see this all the time competition and should see it in the console wars too.) 

"to the victor belong the spoils" ... 

That's survivorship bias. You believe that because you came from a not-so-well-off family and did things that lead to your success, while ignoring the fact that there are many others who have done or tried the same thing and failed. It's like you don't even think of the "losers" as human.

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.  

Its not.  Things like wanting to end overtime pay for people working overtime, things like ending guidelines that help protect our enviorment and keep our air clear have nothing to do with personal responsibility.  Its about making sure that the people actually have protections against corporations that would otherwise fuck them over without batting an eye.  Surly you understand that corporations should not have supreme authority.  Surly you believe that governments should have protection of its people and not profits as their main driver.  How does personal responsiblity help the people in flint whose water supplied was poisoned?  That is insanity.  Don't be an absolutist.  You can vouche for fewer regulations, but I promise you if you tell corporations they can do anything they want, they will.  Personal responsibility is making sure we protect measures that protect us. 

I can sympathize with the losers too y'know ? It's just false equivalence to assume that the losers walk the same path as the victors ... 

Everyone starts with a different path too, some easier and some more difficult but I don't believe social mobility was meant to be high in this world so that is why we see those born in lower status stay with a lower status but rest assured there does exist a path to get into high status ... 

Income's a failsafe, not an end... 

It's not a bias. Are you implying people are dependent on the state. The opportunity arises due to striking the iron while it's hot, not because the government gave you a lot of money. 

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 ...