Thank you @Hecatoncheires. I have responded to SunriseMonsters no less than three or four times I believe. I pointed out the this is an equity issue (an issue of fairness) because even though on paper it seems that everyone has a fair and even choice to defer their child, the fact of the matter is that only certain groups of people do this, and those people are already more privileged (more wealthy, higher educational levels, less likely to be a member of a minority ethnic group). I made the point that keeping children in their age appropriate academic year (outside of exceptional reasons) would be more of a leveller than allowing more privileged parents to create more privileged circumstances for themselves.
SunriseMonster disagreed with that point. They said it was not a benefit that is only available to wealthy people (although an analysis helpfully shared by a PP demonstrates that this is not true). SunriseMonster did not want to engage with these arguments.
SunriseMonster, like yourself, also did not agree that sometimes people make decisions based on the greater good rather than on the basis of their personal capacity to benefit. I decided not to defer my August born child's school start. I did that in the full knowledge or what I could and couldn't do, and with the ability to make the decision without financial constraints - a position of privilege. There were no exceptional circumstances in my child's case, and I didn't think it was right - morally, so I didn't do it. I could also afford to privately educate my children, Again, I chose not to because I don't think it is right or fair. So yes, people do make moral decisions that they believe will not cause undue harm but would directly benefit themselves or their loved ones, but because we know that we don't exist outside of other people. Society only works to the extent that it works for the most vulnerable and deprived - that is, if you believe in society. Fundamentally, SunriseMonsters and I have different belief systems AND we enact those belief systems in different ways.
Subsequently, SunriseMonsters asked me if I would act abusively towards my children. If I would shout at them, or deprive them of love and affection because some children are deprived of love and affection. SunriseMonsters asked me if I would do harmful things on purpose to my children to level the playing field. They said not doing so gives them an unfair advantage. I still don't understand the logical steps between I don't want to give my children an unfair advantage and some children are abused so I should abuse my children and SunriseMonster could not explain this. They just repeated the same point and said they had applied my "exact stated logic to other parenting scenarios". This is when I realised I was wasting my time. How can one have a reasoned argument with someone who says you should abuse your children to level the playing field. But I didn't mention anything about levelling the playing field or dragging people down (that was SunriseMonster), I was making a point about equity, fairness, and how I act in accordance with my values. SunriseMonster clearly feels badly about their choices or they would not be quite so belligerent and rude themselves. Conversely, I feel good about my choice.
So you say I have deflected and that I have been rather rude. One could accuse SunriseMonster of the same. Perhaps you could mete out your criticism more fairly. Or perhaps you prefer, as many do, to reserve it for people you don't agree with. And perhaps you'll now agree with me that this WAS a waste of 10 minutes of my life!!