• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle





  • hairyfeet@lemmy.mltosolarpunk memes@slrpnk.netbe punk, do vidya
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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.






  • The presenter focuses on argument 1 because he says the other points are “obviously correct” and therefore moral. Imo that’s flawed.

    1. Hunger disease etc are part of a natural cycle which controls population and ecosystem balance.

    2. 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.

    3. 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)