Consumer Reports for the Paranormal

[T'ai Chi]

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.

I did read it. You did, but misinterpreted it. For example, it says they have to have intent to deceive, for starters.

Question: Is it legal for psychics to set up shop in Kentucky? Yes or no?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Namecalling will not help your argument.

So, you do not have any peer reviewed studies to support your opinion.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

I did read it. You did, but misinterpreted it.

No, I didn’t. It says this:

A person is guilty of theft by deception when the person obtains property or services of another by deception with intent to deprive the person thereof. A person deceives when the person intentionally:

(a) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention, or other state of mind

Originally posted by jzs:

For example, it says they have to have intent to deceive, for starters.

Yes, which is why I said this:

Originally posted by Garrette:

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

You, I assume, will take issue with me using the word “I” when we are talking legal issues, but I am not denying the legal distinction.

Originally posted by jzs:

Question: Is it legal for psychics to set up shop in Kentucky? Yes or no?

Of course it is.

The law does not make the a priori assumption that the intent to deceive exists.

Nor do I. I point out, again, the qualifier I made before.


Now then, jzs, I have answered your questions and demonstrated that it is against the law to sell psychic services when one knows those services are not real.

Will you answer the questions I put forth to you?

Originally posted by Garrette:

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?

 

[crimresearch]

Siiiiiiiigh....

 

[T'ai Chi]

Namecalling will not help your argument.

So, you do not have any peer reviewed studies to support your opinion.

You haven't answered the questions I've asked you first. You're not immune from inquiry as you might believe you are.

Thanks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Of course it is.

Exactly. Which is why you are misunderstanding things here.

Theft is illegal. It is legal for psychics to step up shop.

So you are using the term incorrectly.

, I have answered your questions and demonstrated that it is against the law to sell psychic services when one knows those services are not real.

Uh, you've moved the goalposts. First we were talking about psychics in general. Now you've added the 'when one knows those services are not real' part. Dishonest.

 

[CFLarsen]

You haven't answered the questions I've asked you first. You're not immune from inquiry as you might believe you are.

Thanks.

I am not claiming that I am immune to inquiry. However, what you are trying to do is stifle any inquiry into your own claims, because you claim that people have not addressed your points in a manner you deem sufficient. And you have made it blatantly clear that nothing will suffice.

You are not interested in debate. You are interested in stirring up ◊◊◊◊, and you take inane pleasure from it. It's pathetic. It's obstructive. It's childish. It's petty.

Just occasionally, you do make a point here and there - usually pretty weak, but nevertheless, you do sometimes make a point. However, you completely destroy it by being so intentionally petty. I don't understand why you insist on destroying yourself this way, but I am certain that you have your reasons.

People try to engage you in serious debate. And it is a serious matter: People get hurt from these psychics. Yet, you choose to ignore that, in favor of your own petty wars.

I challenge you to attend TAM4. I challenge you to meet the people you know from here. I challenge you to debate people face to face. In real life, you cannot run away. In real life, you cannot hide.

What do you say? Are you man enough to face this challenge? Are you man enough to face me?

 

[Darat]

LegalArgument started a very interesting thread; I like the idea of the "consumer reports".

If we could get something like that together I could easily (even before the upgrade! ) format a part of the forum here to highlight and provide an easily referenced link.

To me it seems a real good use of the forum.

 

[Garrette]

To quote crimresearch: Siiiiiiiiigh.....

Okay, in the interest of attempting to keep this a legitimate discussion and on the chance that all parties want to have a legitimate discussion:


1. Here is my position as it relates to this thread and the specific topic brought up by CFLarsen about using anecdotes to counter anecdotes. I will also try to encapsulate the other issues brought up around it:

When a believer (meant in as non-negative a manner as possible) provides an anecdote as evidence, skeptics can legitimately use anecdotes in rebuttal. The purpose is not to demonstrate that the skeptical anecdote is more valid but to demonstrate that all anecdotes are invalid as evidence.

The reason this matters is that psychics and mediums, in addition to being antithetical to reason, cause real harm on most occasions, but not necessarily all. Sometimes the harm is intentional, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is minor, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is monetary, sometimes it is emotional, sometimes it is physical.

A corollary is that the provision of psychical/mediumistic services is illegal when money is received and the provider knows his powers are not real. This is not invalidated by the failure of law enforcement agencies to prosecute nor by the simple fact that psychics/mediums are allowed to set up shop. The latter is simply a manifestation of the "innocent until proven guilty" credo.


2. It appears to me that jzs is not interested in actually discussing the method of using anecdotes to demonstrate that anecdotes are not evidentiary and that he is not interested in discussing any type of harm caused by psychics/mediums. I hope, in the interest of saving this thread, that I am wrong.


3. It further appears that jzs is not interested in answering questions though he is quite insistent upon asking them. To my knowledge I have not failed to answer any questions put forth by jzs but have had my questions in return ignored.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am not claiming that I am immune to inquiry. However, what you are trying to do is stifle any inquiry into your own claims, because you claim that people have not addressed your points in a manner you deem sufficient. And you have made it blatantly clear that nothing will suffice.

You are pretending to be immune from inquiry. I asked you the questions first. Will you ever answer them? Should I make a list and bump it every 5 days until you do?

You are not interested in debate. You are interested in stirring up ◊◊◊◊, and you take inane pleasure from it. It's pathetic. It's obstructive. It's childish. It's petty.

It is doing exactly what you do, but to a lesser extent!

Are you man enough to face me?

So much for your claim that only evidence counts. You've strayed into a personal face-to-face challenge. Go grunt and beat your chest somewhere else.

I think shanek tried to meet you, tried to approach you in person to discuss issues, but you refused to talk to him. Why is that?

 

[T'ai Chi]

This is not invalidated by the failure of law enforcement agencies to prosecute nor by the simple fact that psychics/mediums are allowed to set up shop.

Sure it is. If it was theft, by definition it would be illegal, and it wouldn't be allowed. They wouldn't even be allowed to set up shop.

Apparently the law has different views than you.

 

[Garrette]

Last time I try:

Will you please answer the questions I have asked?

Here they are again to make it easy:

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?

And this new one:

Regardless if the provision of psychical/'mediumistic services with the knowledge that the psychic/medium does not possess them qualifies as illegal, do you consider such provision harmful in any sense?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

If it was theft, by definition it would be illegal,

It is, when intentional. As I've demonstrated.

Originally posted by jzs:

and it wouldn't be allowed.

Of course there are absolutely no instances of something illegal occurring and not being investigated or prosecuted.

Originally posted by jzs:

They wouldn't even be allowed to set up shop.

By this standard then investment firms would never be allowed to set up shop. Either that, no investment firm has ever been the cover for a ponzi scheme or some other illegal enterprise.

 

[CFLarsen]

To quote crimresearch: Siiiiiiiiigh.....

For once, I agree with him. We are not getting anywhere with jzs.

When a believer (meant in as non-negative a manner as possible) provides an anecdote as evidence, skeptics can legitimately use anecdotes in rebuttal. The purpose is not to demonstrate that the skeptical anecdote is more valid but to demonstrate that all anecdotes are invalid as evidence.

Precisely.

The reason this matters is that psychics and mediums, in addition to being antithetical to reason, cause real harm on most occasions, but not necessarily all. Sometimes the harm is intentional, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is minor, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is monetary, sometimes it is emotional, sometimes it is physical.

I have no problems accepting the fact that there are self-deluded psychics. That doesn't make the harm any less.

A corollary is that the provision of psychical/mediumistic services is illegal when money is received and the provider knows his powers are not real. This is not invalidated by the failure of law enforcement agencies to prosecute nor by the simple fact that psychics/mediums are allowed to set up shop. The latter is simply a manifestation of the "innocent until proven guilty" credo.

It is very much a case of insufficient means to pursue justice. It is also a case of unwilling government bodies to persecute paranormal frauds.

It appears to me that jzs is not interested in actually discussing the method of using anecdotes to demonstrate that anecdotes are not evidentiary and that he is not interested in discussing any type of harm caused by psychics/mediums. I hope, in the interest of saving this thread, that I am wrong.

Unfortunately, jzs is not interested in real debate. Jzs can, of course, prove me wrong, by actually engaging in real debate. Time will tell, and right soon.

It further appears that jzs is not interested in answering questions though he is quite insistent upon asking them. To my knowledge I have not failed to answer any questions put forth by jzs but have had my questions in return ignored.

You haven't failed. Jzs has ignored, avoided and obscured any chance of serious debate. His choice, though. For some reason.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is, when intentional. As I've demonstrated.

But you're caught moving the goalposts again. This was never in question.

 

[CFLarsen]

So much for your claim that only evidence counts. You've strayed into a personal face-to-face challenge. Go grunt and beat your chest somewhere else.

Meet me in a real-life debate, Justin. Face to face. You bring your evidence, I'll bring mine. What do you say?

I think shanek tried to meet you, tried to approach you in person to discuss issues, but you refused to talk to him. Why is that?

That is an entirely different issue, and you know it. It was not a question of debating issues. However, I will not bring that up again, due to a promise I made. And I will respect that, regardless of what you might think.

 

[CFLarsen]

jzs,

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?

Regardless if the provision of psychical/'mediumistic services with the knowledge that the psychic/medium does not possess them qualifies as illegal, do you consider such provision harmful in any sense?

Why don't you want to answer those questions? Are they too hard for you? Have you met your match?

Is it really that easy?

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by jzs:

But you're caught moving the goalposts again. This was never in question.

First, my defense mode: I honestly don't think so.


Second, I'll turn my defensive mode off.

For sake of this argument, and to demonstrate that I really do just want to have a real debate or discussion on this issue, I will take you at your word that despite what I intended to say, I actually said what you are saying I did. If so, I was wrong and meant what I said recently in my clarification.

Now that I've admitted I may not have communicated well and now that you know my actual position, can we move on?

Will you answer the questions, please?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Meet me in a real-life debate, Justin. Face to face. You bring your evidence, I'll bring mine. What do you say?

Debate what? What are you talking about, or do you know? I don't even think we disagree on the big issues.

What do I say? I say, as I've been saying (but this only proves it) all along, you're a bully. You'll get as much serious attention from me as the creationists do from Dawkins. Go beat your chest elsewhere.

Shanek tried to talk with you. You didn't want to.

However, I will not bring that up again, due to a promise I made. And I will respect that, regardless of what you might think.

I wouldn't bring it up either if I were you. It must be ultra secret..probably has to do with similar IPs or the bleedin obvious physical harm you can't talk about.

 

[CFLarsen]

Debate what? What are you talking about, or do you know? I don't even think we disagree on the big issues.

What do I say? I say, as I've been saying (but this only proves it) all along, you're a bully. You'll get as much serious attention from me as the creationists do from Dawkins. Go beat your chest elsewhere.

I'm not beating my chest. I am putting myself out there, for you to attack, for you to destroy. But not in a place where you can disappear when you feel like it. I am inviting you, nay, challenging you to debate me at TAM4. Go on, strut your "science". Make your claims. Show your evidence. Expose me. But do it in public, do it in front of an audience you cannot escape.

I know I will be at TAM4. Question is, will you?

Will you be there, Justin? Can you face the music in a place where you cannot run away?

Or will you run to Momma, crying "bully"? Yeah, it seems like it.