3 ms·
I seem to have been misunderstood due to the bluntness of my reply. But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. >So many di
by Nadya 11y ago
I seem to have been misunderstood due to the bluntness of my reply. But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs.
>So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.
The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time
My bad for selecting a shitty source - I pay absolutely no attention to the political slants of different news agencies - but my point stands: people are making these arguments. They will argue for "equality" by dragging anyone above them down to their level: the LCD.
I can easily see how my parent post could be misconstrued as arguing Swift is making this argument. My argument is that he is investigating this issue largely because people exist that are making these arguments.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> But even your article admits that these people exist in the opening paragraphs. No, it does not "admit", or even indicate, or even hint, that there are people arguing that parents should not read to their children because it creates an unfair advantage. > but my point stands: people are making these arguments. Well, there's 7-ish billion people on the planet, so perhaps somewhere you can find one making the argument you refer to, but when you do, I think its going to be hard to support your claim that the group making that argument is, even approximately, coextensive with the group proposing open salaries.