Free speech.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I find it interesting that the same people who will happily ridicule the idea that a group of lawyers might represent some villagers in Afghanistan for anything other than the money they can make from it, won't for a second countenance the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is producing an ever increasing array of vaccines for anything other than the good of society.

The naivety of that belief is staggering.

My experience of lawyers is not one that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, in miserable circumstances they have been the only ones to derive any benefit but that's kind of an occupational hazard when you get involved in the law. Laws are generally drawn up because there is a problem and society sees a need to address the problem. The outcomes are rarely if ever good for all concerned. I can tell my fair share of "lawyers are scum" jokes but I can easily accept there are many who genuinely want to do a good job.
I guess the pharmaceutical industry and the medical world is not that different. The intent is that people can lead healthier lives, free from the ravages of disease. The sad fact is, not everyone can be saved, life is after all a fatal disease and the solutions that emerge are not flawless and do not work for everyone.
On the whole, polio, smallpox, TB, measles and the like do not wipe out entire populations like they used to. Now people live long enough to develop heart disease, cancer, diabetes and have strokes. Quite a scam big pharma has going there.

[Katman]

The intent is that people can lead healthier lives, free from the ravages of disease.

Well that may be one intent.

Making a staggering amount of money may be another.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Well that may be one intent.

Making a staggering amount of money may be another.

you could level that accusation at any number of organisations offering a service, including those lawyers.

(Thanks to ACC we are spared the ambulance chasing lawyers who promise to work hard in your interests to get that personal injury claim through the courts.)

Real Estate agents? Funeral Directors? Training and Education Providers? Insurance companies? Energy Providers? Car and motorcycle manufacturers? Oil Companies? Banks? Any number of others I haven't thought of that provide a service intended to be "just to meet your need"

Which of these do you want to do without? What do you propose replaces them? Perhaps we don't need a pharmaceutical industry?

[Katman]

Which of these do you want to do without? What do you propose replaces them? Perhaps we don't need a pharmaceutical industry?

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

[SPman]

You're academic? Well that explains it.
Sometimes things are self evident.

Clearly the kinds people that go for the social sciences have a different mind set than those that go for real science.

Not really - for starters they all have to think and critically evaluate - factors missing in a large sector of the population it would seem.....

[Laava]

Thanks. seriously.

By the way, I was lying in bed last night and I have invented a newish device.

I am going to take existing drone technology, and I am going to get some vaccines and I am going to fly the drone into fuckwith anti-vaxxers houses and basically cropdust vaccines over the sleeping children. I will also cropdust contraception over the sleeping adults who are clearly unfit to breed.

When I rule you all (and I will) shit's gonna change, yo.

Your transmorph into Axehole is nearly complete!

[Ulsterkiwi]

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

hmmmm that is vexing

Akzle aside, I guess we all chase the $ to some extent or other (and I suspect even Akzle has to use currency of some sort other than weed.)

There is money to be made in pharma, no doubt. I wonder how we would manage without them. Lawyers? I think I would be prepared to try harder to manage without

[Mike.Gayner]

This thread has so much AIDS.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Gotta share the love. And I'm assuming you are sober now?

sober-ish.....

[Ulsterkiwi]

This thread has so much AIDS.

best to take Jacob Zuma's advice then and go have a shower, that way you won't get infected.

[Moi]

This thread has so much AIDS.

What are you trying to say?

[yokel]

Sometimes LOL just doesn't cover it. That is fucking hilarious coming from a guy who posts links to Alex Jones. Pure gold.

Is Alex Jones a scientist? Nope he's just a journalist.
And seen as the mainstream media has gone full retard PC leftist that leaves it up to other alternative information streams.

Ah come on now, how can you be unaware that academia has been largely socialist/liberal leaning for generations? And continues to head further in that direction wrt the gen pop all the time.

I notice this the other day: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/educ...ural-diversity

But you're presumably capable of a little research yourself...

Haha

"We don't need more right-wing professors. What we need is lecturers with the intellectual integrity to openly present a true diversity of arguments and beliefs – ideas and opinions that may challenge their own deeply held convictions and, more importantly, that challenge their students to think."

Looks like this muppet wants to remain in his echo chamber.

"By contrast, we wouldn't want or expect over many conservative lecturers – after all, the very definition of "conservative" is someone who rejects change or innovation, and this is the antithesis of what education should be about."

So is having a man competing against women in weightlifting a matter of "innovation"?

This clown has no clue as to a conservative is, but by championing the "archaic" idea of free speech he's turning to the dark side.

Anyone that supports free speech is moving to the right.

For those who persist with the idea that Universities are the seat of leftist-nanny state-protectionism just a wee note about a work email I have just received.

Its interesting that the vaccination issue has been brought up in this thread. Andrew Wakefield was former doctor who published a study in the Lancet a few years ago presenting evidence that the MMR vaccine was linked to the incidence of autism. The publication of the study in a high impact journal like The Lancet, was in itself testament to the principles of free speech which science, medicine and academia aspire to; as what was presented in the study clearly went contrary to accepted knowledge at that time, i.e. vaccines or at least the MMR vaccine was not safe.
Subsequent to the publication of the study and the huge controversy it created, it was discovered that Mr Wakefield had in fact fabricated the data which were presented in his published paper and there was actually no substance to the claims made in it. Mr Wakefield was struck off the medical register as a consequence and his paper was withdrawn. I am the Deputy Editor of a small scientific journal and I can tell you that is not an action which is taken lightly.

Fast forward to 2017 and Mr Wakefield has made a movie called "Vaxxed" which continues to uphold the idea that MMR vaccine leads to autism. Remember the study has been debunked and no new data has emerged to support Mr Wakefield's assertions.

A room has been booked at the University of Otago in Dunedin to screen the movie and there has been some concern expressed about this indicating the University endorses Mr Wakefield's assertions.
My PVC has written to explain that is not the case, in fact there are both scientific and moral objections to the content of the movie.
BUT and its a big BUT, the University:

"..... firmly upholds the right to free speech as one of its core values.

The screening here is able to go ahead simply to uphold the principle of free speech, but the University does not condone the movie or its contents. Therefore, the screening should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the views and opinions expressed in the movie."

I am not sure how that sits with those who think the perceived erosion of free speech is the responsibility of Universities but I hope before perpetuating that myth you consider what I am relating above as a piece of actual evidence rather than "something I heard at the pub"
Freedom of speech is giving space and voice to views that you neither agree with nor can support because its evidence not vitriol and hearsay which should persuade individuals what they determine to be correct.

Whoops, looks like you misted something during your "fast forwarding".

Yes it's a pain in the arse having principles, but there's good reason why something should be a principle.

https://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/...nal-misconduct

[Woodman]

I suspect you've missed my point.

It was the double standard some people show when dismissing the actions of one group as nothing more than an exercise in chasing money while totaling ignoring the possibility that the same pursuit is being carried out by a different group that they laud as honourable.

Mate, everyone is in it for the money, you, me, mother Teresa, everyone. Get over it and move on.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Your transmorph into Axehole is nearly complete!

Aw thanks. You know he is my lesbian lover, right?

[Woodman]

Aw thanks. You know he is my lesbian lover, right?

Eeeew Goat licking, that's just sick.