Who should be blamed for bad decisions?

[normaM]

depends on what decision ( s) you refer to - sometimes what we think is a bad decisions can actually be for the best.

[Thinktank]

Who should be blamed for bad decisions?

Should it be the politicians?

The people?

The scientists?

Or people controlling what information people get to see?

Money.
Politicians love money - so they are corrupt.
The people also love money - so they love what corrupt politicians tell them.
The scientists only do research that is paid by big (corrupt) corporations - for money. You'll never see decent scientists out there.
The people who control what information we get to see are the greediest and worst of all - they lie every day for money.

My friend is an example, but most of us are like him. He comes from a poor country, his wife earns $20/hr for cleaning office buildings, he also works, and like all of us - working and earning money is the priority and he makes bad decisions when it comes to his diet. He makes bad health decisions every day - for money, like loading up on fast food because they were working.

The great Dr Bernard Jensen said "people who save money on food usually end up paying for it in doctors bills."

and that's what I see everywhere. Bad decisions - for money. A thousand people would rather get a FREE vaccine, than pay $1,000 per year extra for food.

Bad.
Decision.


..

[edmskeptic]

While BC case law clears the courts to declare people administering "treatments" as "fair" if they don't disclose the risks of their treatment, leaving the obligation to the recipient to do their Due Diligence and find out the risks on their own...

What's not clear is whether it is "fair" for media companies to hide information that might be used by the public in the process of Due Diligence.

e.g. Deleting information about side effects.

@thinktank As far as I know, the courts have not declared this to be legal.

[foenix]

The case law is pretty clear.
There was a case from about 20 years ago, (maybe more), where a patient with sinusitis went to see a naturopath and was given treatment that worked very well for over a year.
However, the patient eventually ended up with arsenic poisoning and sued the naturopath.
The naturopath won because the patient did not do their "Due Diligence" in informing themselves about what exactly they were taking from the naturopath.

Due diligence is very important in the legal world, and as far as BC courts are concerned, "taking a Doctor's word for it" does not constitute due diligence.

In this case the patient because naturopaths aren't real medical doctors although for some unknown reason, they can put a Dr. in front of their name. So yeah, DD is important to make sure you're going to an actual medically trained physician.

[foenix]

While BC case law clears the courts to declare people administering "treatments" as "fair" if they don't disclose the risks of their treatment, leaving the obligation to the recipient to do their Due Diligence and find out the risks on their own...

What's not clear is whether it is "fair" for media companies to hide information that might be used by the public in the process of Due Diligence.

e.g. Deleting information about side effects.

@thinktank As far as I know, the courts have not declared this to be legal.

If you're still going on about the naturopaths and without reading the decision it'a a moot point because it's like going to a neighbour for advise and having bad results. Naturopaths despite wanting to be like medically trained doctors are no better than a well read neighbour. It's a disgrace to have themselves called Doctor.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/naturop ... -1.4890971

[Fancy]

Who should be blamed for bad decisions?

Should it be the politicians?

The people?

The scientists?

Or people controlling what information people get to see?

Obviously those that are making the bad decisions - and there are many of those people.

[Thinktank]

What's not clear is whether it is "fair" for media companies to hide information that might be used by the public in the process of Due Diligence.

During an emergency, like right now when millions of pandemic people are dropping dead everywhere throughout the world, (except in Penticton where the cemetery is the quietest place in Canada - I never saw one funeral there in two years) it's important that media companies hide, cover up, disguise, shield and suppress any information that would help the public make a decision about vaccines because IT'S AN EMERGENCY.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY

Everyone knows the truth is not necessary during an emergency.

[spooker]

What's not clear is whether it is "fair" for media companies to hide information that might be used by the public in the process of Due Diligence.

During an emergency, like right now when millions of pandemic people are dropping dead everywhere throughout the world, (except in Penticton where the cemetery is the quietest place in Canada - I never saw one funeral there in two years) it's important that media companies hide, cover up, disguise, shield and suppress any information that would help the public make a decision about vaccines because IT'S AN EMERGENCY.

IT'S AN EMERGENCY

Everyone knows the truth is not necessary during an emergency.

truth.jpeg

People buying into the idea that there are large conspiracies to hide information are just trying to rationalize their own opinion as fact without proof ...

[TylerM4]

Blame isn't something that has to land on just 1 person/group's shoulders.

Depending on the decision/topic - blame could be applied to all of the entities that have been listed.

At the end of the day - the bulk of the blame should be applied to whomever made the decision. But we should also recognize that some circumstances force decisions to be made in a hurry and/or without the opportunity to gather information/data. A bad decision is a bad decision, but allowances should be made for the circumstances under which the decision was made.

[Jonrox]

Blame it on the rain.

[OKkayak]

Blame it on the rain.

Girl, you know its true.

[edmskeptic]

Here's an example of Due Diligence

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ing_21.pdf

Read pages 22 and 23.

[TylerM4]

Here's an example of Due Diligence

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ing_21.pdf

Read pages 22 and 23.

That's great data that paints a very clear picture.

[normaM]

OKKayak
And when you pack a smile in everything you do

[common_sense_guy]

Who should be blamed for bad decisions?

Should it be the politicians?

The people?

The scientists?

Or people controlling what information people get to see?

The people are to blame, they keep buying into scams decade after decade and century after century.

How would you account for the people who genuinely just aren't smart enough to look things up themselves or do the due diligence? Is it still on them even though they don't have the mental capacity to figure it out?
And if so then you must not be against if people scam little kids who don't know any better. Can't have it both ways