Posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2021, at 13:58:06
In reply to the function of law and lawyers, posted by alexandra_k on May 24, 2021, at 13:42:26
In word salad land where all there is is 'might is right' and 'my way or the highway' and that is the theory of morality and that is the theory of leadership and that is the theory of the inevitable and irrevokable way that things are in the world.
Didn't you know?
This land where 'everything is arguable' because people argue for arguments sake.
From first year philosophy to beyond:
Philosophy looks like this:
'nononononononononono I disagree'.
'nonononononono that doesn't follow'.
'but what do you meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeean by x?'And so now everything is arguable. By any rational person. Because what do you meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeean by 'rational'.
And things disintegrate or degerate into word salad. And 'that's your opinion' and 'truth is relative' and 'anything goes' is all part of 'my way or the highway' and 'might is right'.
There was a particular point in time where our leader of foreign affairs wanted to claim that she didn't speak English. That we were using words differently to every other nation. Refusing to state that something that uncontroversially met the criterion for 'genocide' constituted 'genocide' (according to the definition).
Actually disintegrating into private language. Metaphors created in order to obfuscate and ignore and hoodwink and swindle. Not to illuminate or clarify or illustrate. Mind numbing oppression and denial. Psychologically...
Where is my Degree?
ahahahhahhahhhahaahahaha you can't maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake us ahahahhhahahhhahahhahhahha
Toddler two year olds throwing their tantrums.
____________________________________
Suppose there actually was a randomised double blind control trial that showed that 100mg of a particular drug resulted in death within 1 hour for 98 / 100 people. Just suppose that there was.
Then suppose that the NZ government (or just some random person from a NZ university) wanted to murder people. You know. Just for fun.
It would go like this:
We don't know that 99mg of that particular drug will kill people. We think it might be good for an off lisence use. We think it might cure diabetes in Maaori people, say. We will need to do an experiement to see. In the name of science research.
Rinse and repeat for all the doses. Right?
They just cherry pick (oooooooooooooooh magical word!!!!) whatever 'information' or 'research findings' that supports what they want and ignore the ones that don't support that (noooooooooooooooo that's you not me!! that's what you do!!!)
If you go with the usual thing of 95 per cent likely the findings are genuine and not chance then that means for every 100 studies you would expecct 5 per cent to have findings that are... Chance. And that's supposing bias is accounted for. Which it is not.
And then you spam studies. And only publish the ones you choose. Where you found something.
ANd we get word salad in much of the science research. And with much of the stats.
Which is why they want raw data to do their own stats.
But you can't trust our raw data.
They don't trust our raw data. They take raw data from us and we don't have anything to do with it's processing at all. Fro obvious reasons
)))))))))))))))
It's quite the scam saying the DHB notes were hacked (pretending like an external did it). They are saying now that they refuse to pay a ransom (no evidence they were asked to pay a ransom) and that patients may be blackmailed over their medical notes.
ahahahha a lofty to call things 'medical notes' when they weren't written by trained clinicians. Hey.
Apparently some will go missing.
Yeah. No surprises there.
Destroying evidnce. That's what they call it in itnernational courts.
I don't believe NZ has the capacity to delete without a trace.
For obvious reasons.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1115291
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20210419/msgs/1115292.html