Consumer Reports for the Paranormal

[T'ai Chi]

So sources don't exist if there is no direct internet link to them?
The fact that they are provided is irrelevant?

This is pretty poor jzs.

I agree, your strawman is pretty poor.

It is a well researched marketing site - there is no real reason to disbelieve the figure ..

I'm skeptical and asking you for the actual study so I can read about the specifics.

You seem to be wanting me to take you on faith. I have problems with that.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You claim that there are parts of psychic readings that are helpful to the sitter.

That is a lie.

In fact, I've asked people to show it is harmful:

"Do you necessarily view all of it as harmful?"

"I'm asking you to show that the number means it is harmful."

"One can't implicitly assume that a large cost = large loss. That's not necessarily the case; one would have to demonstrate that."

I'm just asking for you, or anyone, to show that it is all harmful. That is what you always assume. Now show a peer reviewed article that is evidence for this. Can you?

And I asked that first, if you were paying attention (which you obviously weren't).

 

[Garrette]

Interesting, jzs,

you are asking us to demonstrate that theft is harmful.

Or you are saying that selling a fraudulent service is not theft.

I suppose you have the same question about the people who invest in Dennis Lee's perpetual motion machines that he always sells but never produces?

 

[CFLarsen]

That is a lie.

No, it's not a lie. You clearly say that some of the advice you get from a psychic reading helps:

Say I (hypothetically) spend $100 on a psychic. Some advice I get helps, some doesn't. Of that $300, or whatever, number spent, how much of it was spent on things that helped? You'd, I assume, say all of it, and I'd say probably some fraction of it.

So, please answer the question: From the transcript with the numbered lines, what parts of the reading helped the sitter?

All you have to do is type the numbers. If you can't find anything, just say so.

 

[Ashles]

I agree, your strawman is pretty poor.

It's not a strawman - a figure has been provided which has a source. Because you cannot link directly to the source you appear to be rejecting the figure.

I'm skeptical and asking you for the actual study so I can read about the specifics.

You seem to be wanting me to take you on faith. I have problems with that.

It's not taking me on faith. There is a figure provided, source referenced. If you wish to doubt the source then I suggest you do some research and check it out. Since you're such a super sceptic.

But all this is really just a way of avoiding talking about the millions of dollars that psychic hotlines make every year.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No, it's not a lie. You clearly say that some of the advice you get from a psychic reading helps:

Yes, it is a lie.

I never claimed that there are helpful parts. I gave a hypothetical, that there could be helpful parts. If you could read and understand, that would help.

So, please answer the question:

What are you failing to comprehend about : I asked you first?

All you have to do is type the numbers. If you can't find anything, just say so.

If you have no peer reviewed studies to support your opinion, just admit it.

 

[Garrette]

Got it.

jzs thinks theft is a-okay.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's not a strawman - a figure has been provided which has a source. Because you cannot link directly to the source you appear to be rejecting the figure.

It is a strawman, because you said

"So sources don't exist if there is no direct internet link to them?
The fact that they are provided is irrelevant?

This is pretty poor jzs.
"

when in fact I am not rejecting anything, not saying "sources don't exist if there is no direct internet link to them" nor am I saying "The fact that they are provided is irrelevant", as you typed above.

I'm asking you for the actual study. You seem to not be able to provide it. Just say so and move on.

There is a figure provided, source referenced.

Anyone can just flash a number. So what.

Source referenced? So? You haven't even read the actual source (ie. to tell how the number was obtained!!!) and you just take it on faith, which is what you are pleading that I do.

But all this is really just a way of avoiding talking about the millions of dollars that psychic hotlines make every year.

Which I am asking to see actual sources, and an explanation that the information obtained is all harmful.

 

[T'ai Chi]

you are asking us to demonstrate that theft is harmful.

If it is all theft, as you claim, then why haven't the authorities jumped on this??

Do you feel that people paying for services they want is theft?

Are you saying the authorities are all incompetent? That you know the definition of theft, but they really don't? What?

I suppose you have the same question about the people who invest in Dennis Lee's perpetual motion machines that he always sells but never produces?

Dodge. We're talking about psychics, not Dennis Lee's machines. Please stay focused. I know it is hard.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Got it.

jzs thinks theft is a-okay.

Wow, you want to be a lying bully? You're off to a smashing start.

If you'd answer questions (like if it is theft, why aren't law enforcement agencies jumping ALL OVER this?), you'd serve yourself better.

Basically you are saying since there is little or no evidence of mediums doing what they claim they can do (I agree), therefore all of what they do is harmful (you haven't shown), and what they do is theft (you certainly haven't shown anything other than your emotion here).

You may not like it (which is irrelevant!) but theft by definition is something that is against the law, which selling psychic services, regardless if there is anything to it or not, is not against the law.

Actual evidence, garratte. Be a skeptic!

 

[Ashles]

when in fact I am not rejecting anything, not saying "sources don't exist if there is no direct internet link to them" nor am I saying "The fact that they are provided is irrelevant", as you typed above.

This is what you seem to be implying.
A figure has been provided - rather than accept it and move on with the discussion you prefer to argue about the ease of accessibility to the data. Did you not read that it was an estimate by Mark Plakius, managing director of Strategic Telemedia?
If you have questions about the study why not contact him then you can analyse his estimate to the level of detail you appear to want to.

I'm asking you for the actual study. You seem to not be able to provide it. Just say so and move on.

What study? It is an estimate by a the person quoted...
Never mind. It's not really the point is it? You're just determined not to discuss the amount of money psychic hotlines make.

Why not just say so and move on?

Anyone can just flash a number. So what.

Source referenced? So? You haven't even read the actual source (ie. to tell how the number was obtained!!!) and you just take it on faith, which is what you are pleading that I do.

Hardly pleading, there would be no point - it's obvious you won't accept it because you don't really want to discuss the issue of psychic hotlines.

If you did then you could have mentioned that you dispute the figure but accept that it is still a highly profitable business and then perhaps we could have got somewhere with the discussion.

Oh sorry, you don't know whether it is a highly profitable business so presumably you wouldn't be able to discuss it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A figure has been provided -

But what can we say about this figure? How was it obtained? What is the estimate of its error? How old is it? How does it translate to showing harm? etc.

If you have questions about the study why not contact him then you can analyse his estimate to the level of detail you appear to want to.

You swallow it, hook, line, and sinker, without even seeing how it was obtained. Got it.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

If it is all theft, as you claim, then why haven't the authorities jumped on this??

Do you feel that people paying for services they want is theft?

Are you saying the authorities are all incompetent? That you know the definition of theft, but they really don't? What?

The same reason the authorities don't crack down on all insurance fraud.

The same reason the authorities don't investigate every cash discrepancy at the end of the day in retail stores.

The same reason the authorities don't address absolutely everything that's out there.

They prioritize. And whether I agree or not, they place this low on the priority list.

And, yes, I feel people paying for services that actually are not what they are advertised as being as theft.

I want my car fixed when it breaks down. If I pay the mechanic to replace a bad part, he tells me he replaced the bad part, all he really did is tighten a screw somewhere, and he charges me for a new part, it's theft.

And you are jumping to quite a few conclusions from my statement, but if you want to argue about the legal definition of theft, I'll be happy to take you on in that arena. It actually is something of which I have significant experience (from the good guy side, mind you). My experience is mainly military law, but also on the civilian sides in Kentucky, Indiana, and Colorado. Pick one of those or any other.

Originally posted by jzs:

Dodge. We're talking about psychics, not Dennis Lee's machines. Please stay focused. I know it is hard.

The dodge is yours.

The context is psychics, but your questions about proving harm are simplistic and misleading. My comment about Dennis Lee demonstrates it.

Originally posted by jzs:

Wow, you want to be a lying bully? You're off to a smashing start.

I admit my statement was rude, but I do not admit it was a lie, because it was not. It is a logical conclusion based on your posts.

To make you happy though, I can restate it as such:

jzs: your posts indicate that you do not think theft is wrong. In particular, your mis-statements of the point about using anecdotes to counter anecdotes, your shifting of goalposts when presented numbers, and your questions about "proving harm" indicate that you think theft by psychics and mediums is okay. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Originally posted by jzs:

If you'd answer questions (like if it is theft, why aren't law enforcement agencies jumping ALL OVER this?), you'd serve yourself better.

Answered above.

Your turn:

Do you consider it to be theft (in either a legal sense or a moral sense, your choice, but please specify) for anyone to charge for a service when the service is not actually provided?

Do you consider it to be theft even if the customer is unaware that the service was not actually provided?

 

[Ashles]

You may not like it (which is irrelevant!) but theft by definition is something that is against the law, which selling psychic services, regardless if there is anything to it or not, is not against the law.

Actual evidence, garratte. Be a skeptic!

Well I don't know about theft but fraud is defined as a deception deliberately practiced to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

If the mediums are not genuinely contacting the dead, but are getting paid to do so, then how is this not fraud?

We could divide them into 2 groups:
Those who know full well they are not really talking to the dead - sems like they would be obviously committing fraud.
Those who believe they are contacting the dead - not necessarily deliberately committing fraud (is that a defense?) but refuse to admit to possibility that they are deceiving themselves.

Surely both should be equally prosecutable?

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, it is a lie.

I never claimed that there are helpful parts. I gave a hypothetical, that there could be helpful parts. If you could read and understand, that would help.

I can both read and understand, but if you want to chicken out, fine with me.

What are you failing to comprehend about : I asked you first?

Don't play these childish games. They are not helping you in any way, quite contrary.

If you have no peer reviewed studies to support your opinion, just admit it.

If you want to play that game, fine:

I gave a hypothetical, that there could be helpful parts.

Do you have any peer reviewed studies to support your opinion, yes or no?

 

[Ashles]

You swallow it, hook, line, and sinker, without even seeing how it was obtained. Got it.

If another figure is provided anywhere then we can look at that. I don't suppose you've made any efort to source a figure yourself, just continue to moan about the one we have provided.

I am making a certain degree of asssumption with the figure (as we prettty much have to with all these internet estimates)
A) The guy who made the estimate had at least a reasonable amount of information on which to base his estimate (like the actual figure provided for average call costs - that one has a specific reference you can follow up)
B) That psychic hotlines do actually make a profit

I'm not actually particularly attached to the figure - if it was $5 million I would still consider the practise equally fraudulent.
But sadly it looks like we'll never get to that part of the conversation.

Good work jzs, you certainly made sure this conversation never proceeded beyond the tedious.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

Basically you are saying since there is little or no evidence of mediums doing what they claim they can do (I agree), therefore all of what they do is harmful (you haven't shown), and what they do is theft (you certainly haven't shown anything other than your emotion here).

While I admit I am showing more emotion in this thread than is usual for me, I do not think it has affected the core of my argument or my ability to analyze what you are saying.

You, have in fact, misrepresented me here.

I do say that some (even a large part) of what they do is harmful, but I do not recall making it a point in this thread except that theft in and of itself is harmful.

I do say it is theft. (For the record, I am willing to make exceptions for self-deluded psychics/mediums charging for their services).

Originally posted by jzs:

You may not like it (which is irrelevant!) but theft by definition is something that is against the law, which selling psychic services, regardless if there is anything to it or not, is not against the law.

Try looking
in the Kentucky Revised Statutes for their definition of Theft by Deception.

Psychics and mediums qualify, even if not pursued or prosecuted for it.

Originally posted by jzs:

Actual evidence, garratte. Be a skeptic!

I think I'm doing nicely, thanks. Even if not perfectly.

Edited for format

 

[T'ai Chi]

Don't play these childish games. They are not helping you in any way, quite contrary.

So yuo fail to answer my question. Got it.

Do you have any peer reviewed studies to support your opinion, yes or no?

Again... I asked you first. You don't seem to read and understand.

All these situps.. please keep it up (pics of proof to come in a while). You're only benefitting me, bully.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Psychics and mediums qualify, even if not pursued or prosecuted for it.

It might be according to skeptic groups, but according to the law, it is not theft. Else they wouldn't be allowed to set up a business. Right? They'd be shut down.

You seem to ignore or misinterpret (as in the case here) the law when it suits your beliefs. I don't.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

It might be according to skeptic groups, but according to the law, it is not theft. Else they wouldn't be allowed to set up a business. Right? They'd be shut down.

You seem to ignore or misinterpret (as in the case here) the law when it suits your beliefs. I don't.

So you didn't read the link but feel justified in saying I'm wrong.

The link is the actual statute from the commonwealth of Kentucky. It discusses what it calls "Theft by Deception."

The taking of money in return for fraudulent services is covered.