1. "Life isn't fair" is a terrible excuse for making life less fair. 2. "Some" and "most" is a terrible way to quantify this. Was "some" 1%? 3%? Judging from my kids' schools, it was less than 5% even in a rich county. 3. Yes, it mostly worked well in neighborhoods with lots of existing privilege, and poorly in disadvantaged neighborhoods. 4. See point 1.
That is a gross oversimplification and distorts the facts so much as to make you argument completely invalid. If people had been disciplined in wearing masks, keeping distance, washing hands, and as soon as available, getting vaccinated, maybe this could have worked without lockdowns. And maybe not.
As it was, the medical system would have collapsed without lockdowns and then death rates would have gone up beyond what is sustainable. The lockdowns served to prevent a collapse of society and they were _needed
Why do people say this as if this is a good reason to not address inequality when it in fact is a self evident statement that not everyone is born on equal footing, that meritocracy doesn't actually exist because of that fact and that we should be striving so everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and choice of decisions so they can in fact make the right ones.
1. "Life isn't fair" is a terrible excuse for making life less fair.
2. "Some" and "most" is a terrible way to quantify this. Was "some" 1%? 3%? Judging from my kids' schools, it was less than 5% even in a rich county.
3. Yes, it mostly worked well in neighborhoods with lots of existing privilege, and poorly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
4. See point 1.
That is a gross oversimplification and distorts the facts so much as to make you argument completely invalid. If people had been disciplined in wearing masks, keeping distance, washing hands, and as soon as available, getting vaccinated, maybe this could have worked without lockdowns. And maybe not.
As it was, the medical system would have collapsed without lockdowns and then death rates would have gone up beyond what is sustainable. The lockdowns served to prevent a collapse of society and they were _needed
1. Life is not fair. It never has been.
Why do people say this as if this is a good reason to not address inequality when it in fact is a self evident statement that not everyone is born on equal footing, that meritocracy doesn't actually exist because of that fact and that we should be striving so everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and choice of decisions so they can in fact make the right ones.
Because they're (currently) benefiting from the non-fairness.
Or think they are.
I really appreciate the totally bad faith summation of "any attempt to address inequality" == "North Korea"
you're better off learning on your own vs. school
This works for like 0.01% of the global population. The rest of human history shows robust public education is vitally important.
I mean, when people don't believe that competence exists
Nobody is saying this except in your own head.