Probably so people don’t take the piss with the legal fees if they’re confident of winning. See the Colette Rooney vs Rebecca Vardey case for example.

We have “Visit Rwanda” advertised at premier league matches so guessing it’s pretty safe. Not saying the plan isn’t abhorrent or anything

It retcons the nuking of shady sands by 14-15 years, so undermines the entire fallout universe they are faithful to. What a boring hill to die on

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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)