We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything
We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything
The quote you pulled detracts from your argument. It boils down to smarter people make smarter choices.
From your source, the section- ‘Validity as a measure of intelligence’ provides useful criticism of the iq test but concludes with:
Despite these objections, clinical psychologists generally regard IQ scores as having sufficient statistical validity for many clinical purposes.
Apple ties their hardware to iTunes with no competition. Steam offer a platform which is better than every other piece of COMPETING software on a variety of hardware.
This a UK politician where the NHS is not run for profit. Sumak is a shit who has had private meetings with US health care companies assumably to try to sell of parts of the NHS.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green
Not at all. This article is 17 years old and planes have only gotten more efficient whilst the same old cruise ships continue to so the seas.
Plus a more recent article
https://www.treehugger.com/what-is-greener-boat-vs-plane-emissions-5185547
The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.
Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.
Luxuries are of no significance is not obviously true. Our economic system means that purchasing items of “no moral significance” feeds into a system which supports livelihoods and, in a functional government, provides welfare and health care to populations.
There are multiple areas where money could be focused instead of Oxfam etc which could be seen as moral- R&D, luxuries as per 3
(It might just be that I don’t like philosophy)
Only if you got 10 points for the ear