Scorning Sicko Psychics

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 14, 2013

Kacy,

You can keep hollering that OL people support fraud all you want, but that is not reality.

You define what psychics do as fraud. it looks like most people here would agree with you in a non-formal sense meaning something akin to sleazy, but not a formal crime sense (unless they say otherwise). So this should not be interpreted as anyone agreeing with you since your meaning is that psychics are criminals who need to be put under government control.

I can say playing loud music is assault and battery all I want, but that won't make it that. Then I can yell at people who disagree with me that they support assault and battery and should be ashamed of themselves. That it's a sad day for OL and all that crap. That's what you are doing here.

If you want to use rhetorical tricks instead of facts, at least here where people are somewhat savvy, I suggest you use something a little more sophisticated than muddying waters and emotional blackmail. That's like beginner shit, dude.

I reject any suggestion that a view supporting the protection of people from fraud amounts to a desire for government regulation. The two have nothing to do with each other. And I reject that laws protecting the public from fraud amount to nanny state policies. Fraud is a crime, and an indirect use of force against the defrauded. To protect the public from force and fraud is a legitimate function of government.

That's great. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I don't.

I just disagree that you get to arbitrarily make laws about psychics. I have already addressed fraud in an earlier post.

Anyway, I presume that you don't really want psychics to add your message to their literature. That's just to harass them. Correct? You really want to put them out of business altogether. Is that right? And you want to the government--ultimately--to do your will on this,. Right?

Furthermore, you don't seem to give a damn about the free trade of people who go to psychics unless they agree that you (or those who think like you do) can think for them and "protect them" against themselves by government intervention. Then they become humans with rights (of some sort). Correct again?

That's nanny state, bro. Reject that label all you want, but if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what's wrong with calling it a duck?

Michael

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 14, 2013

You have been making the case that the psychic has no responsibility to inform their clients that psychic insights are not demonstrable.

Kacy,

Bullshit.

Show me one place where I made that case. Your post where I got that from is full of false assertions like this. I'm not going to waste my time saying you got this wrong and you got that wrong.

Disagree if you like, but at least get what I said right. I think you are better than that.

Michael

EDIT: I actually do agree that not informing clients that "psychic insights are not demonstrable" is not a crime, but I have not made that case.

I have said that no psychic I know of claims 100% accuracy. And no psychic I know of has been 100% wrong. There's the "demonstrable" part right there. People can argue about cause and effect, but there are "demonstrable" results. Whether people believe those results are sheer luck or an uga-uga from beyond, that's not the government's role to determine.

KacyRay · May 14, 2013

Anyway, I presume that you don't really want psychics to add your message to their literature. That's just to harass them. Correct? You really want to put them out of business altogether. Is that right? And you want to the government--ultimately--to do your will on this,. Right?
Furthermore, you don't seem to give a damn about the free trade of people who go to psychics unless they agree that you (or those who think like you do) can think for them and "protect them" against themselves by government intervention. Then they become humans with rights (of some sort). Correct again?
That's nanny state, bro. Reject that label all you want, but if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what's wrong with calling it a duck?
Michael

No, the idea that I just want to harass them is fully incorrect. What I want is then to have to play by the same rules as all other honest businessmen. If you're going to market a service, you have to be able to demonstrate that you can provide it. If you cannot demonstrate that the provision of that service is something you can provide, your clientele deserves to be informed of that.

I've said several times that I have no problem with people paying psychics to tell them whatever they want to hear. What I have a problem with is fraud. Why can't you accept that I've never disputed a persons right to pay a self-proclaimed psychic to tell them whatever they want to hear? You keep telling me what I "really want"... rather than listening to me when I tell you what I really want.

What I really want is for fraud not to be accepted as a legitimate business practice. It isn't.

And I'm not talking about protecting people from themselves. I'm talking about protecting them from fraudulent business people who market a service they cannot provide. If that looks like a duck to you, it's probably because you're looking real hard for ducks.

Psychics can operate honestly. There's no reason they can't. If all psychics were tomorrow to magically start telling all their clientele that there has been no scientific demonstration of their abilities, do you really think they'd go out of business? There is no shortage of people who are going to dispense with this information and pay to be told exactly what they want to hear. And there's nothing wrong with that from a legal perspective.

That would be an honest business transaction, and I'd have no problem with that. It's the fraudulent marketing of a service they cannot provide that I have a problem with.

So please... let's stop acting like I want to put psychics out of business through force of law, or that I want to regulate them, or that I'm trying to protect people from their own bad fully-informed decisions, or that I'm trying to regulate ideas, and all this nonsense. I'm only suggesting that people deserve to know what they're paying for.

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 14, 2013

Kacy,

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no psychic claims 100% accuracy?

And why on earth do you want a scientific statement of anything injected into a religion by government decree?

Quack!

(Everyone who goes to a psychic knows they are not getting science. They are getting religion. So what's the big deal about injecting statements of scientific endorsement? Control and characterizing this as a crime if the psychic doesn't. Nanny-state control over religion. That's the big deal.)

Michael

KacyRay · May 14, 2013

Kacy,
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that no psychic claims 100% accuracy?

Because it's irrelevant. They aren't marketing 100% accuracy, they are marketing special insight. They are marketing a channel of information not available to ordinary people such as the person visiting the psychic.

That's why I've said at least half a dozen times now - they are marketing a product they cannot demonstrate that they can actually provide. They cannot demonstrate their ability to provide this product (or, you might call it a service, since there is no actual item exchanged).

If you are marketing a product or service that you can demonstrate neither the ability to provide, nor the fact that you have ever provided it once it was paid for, that is fraud! Why is this even a point of contention? You know as well as I do that psychics cannot demonstrate that they possess special insight. You know that they cannot demonstrate that they have ever actually provided the very thing they sell. How are we even deliberating this???

And why on earth do you want a scientific statement of anything injected into a religion by government decree?

Not a scientific statement. A disclosure. A disclosure is not a scientific statement. It provides complete information about the product or service being sold.

Let me ask you a question by way of a humorous example: It is commonly known that there are no pills that will make a man's penis grow. Yet such pills are marketed all over the place.

Do you think that I should be able to sell a bottle of pills marked "3 inch penis growth pills" with the description on the label saying "These pills can add three inches to your manhood!". Let's assume that I know full well that these pills will work no better than eating a handful of grapes. Also, let's assume that I don't indicate such knowledge anywhere on the bottle or in my advertizing.

When approaches by people who have tried my product, I tell them "Hey, it doesn't work as well for everyone. I'm sure you grew a bit longer, you just might not realize it. A lot of people tell me it works for them! You can't expect it to work as well for every individual."

Would you consider this a basic free-market transaction? Would you consider it fraud? Do you think the government should intervene?

(Everyone who goes to a psychic knows they are not getting science. They are getting religion. So what's the big deal about injecting statements of scientific endorsement? Control and characterizing this as a crime if the psychic doesn't. Nanny-state control over religion. That's the big deal.)
Michael

This is not true!! In fact, in my discussion group there is an old friend of mine named Erica. She is into paganism and all that stuff. I've spoken to her about it before and she asserts with certainty that psychic insights have been scientifically tested and demonstrated. I think she would be very surprised to hear that everyone who goes to a psychic knows they are not getting science (or in this case, a scientifically demonstrable, legitimate channel to special knowledge).

Quack!

AFLAK!!! :cool:

KacyRay · May 14, 2013

You have been making the case that the psychic has no responsibility to inform their clients that psychic insights are not demonstrable.
Kacy,
Bullshit.

lol.... alright.

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 14, 2013

Because it's irrelevant. They aren't marketing 100% accuracy, they are marketing special insight. They are marketing a channel of information not available to ordinary people such as the person visiting the psychic.

Kacy,

What do you think religion is?

Michael

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 14, 2013

This is not true!! In fact, in my discussion group there is an old friend of mine named Erica. She is into paganism and all that stuff. I've spoken to her about it before and she asserts with certainty that psychic insights have been scientifically tested and demonstrated. I think she would be very surprised to hear that everyone who goes to a psychic knows they are not getting science (or in this case, a scientifically demonstrable, legitimate channel to special knowledge).

Kacy,

All right, I exaggerated. Not 100%. Let's say about 99%.

Setting that aside, let me see if I get this straight.

You believe that if the government forces psychics to advertise that science does not back their claims, this will protect people like Erica from fraud.

Really?

You really believe that?

You really think Erica is somehow being protected?

Against what?

She's going to be down there regardless of what a psychic says.

So who else are you protecting? Those who think psychic stuff is not true, but maybe entertaining?

If not those, then who?

Emotionally distressed people who are grasping at straws?

You really think a disclaimer about science will protect them and make them think before they go to a psychic?

Gimme a break!

Here's something that happened in the Internet marketing world where the FCC did what you wanted done to psychics. The FCC was actually more objective than what you propose (and I don't ever say the government is objective in regulations lightly).

There was the problem of testimonials. But before I begin, let me say as an aside that a public testimonial is conceptually "demonstrable" in legal terms. And if the testimonial says that psychic insights work because they caused a miracle in the person's life, that's pretty "demonstrable." It is being demonstrated to the public. Second hand, maybe, but still demonstrated. That's why the government is all over testimonials. And that's just one kind of demonstration. There are several psychics use. (Whether they are valid according to science or not is not a legal issue. The fact is, they are demonstrations of psychic insights.)

So no need to be condescending about "demonstrable" like you were above. It's always best to be condescending with stupid people who really do believe stupid things instead of people who study and see things from a different angle than you do (while missing what they are getting at). But that's only a suggestion. I find it distasteful. I vastly prefer good-natured banter. But it's your choice.

Back to Internet marketing. There was a problem with claims of income as lots of make-money courses promised you would become filthy stinking rich just by pushing a button on some software or other and things like that. And they were accompanied by false testimonials from people who claimed to have done so.

So the FCC decided to make a condition that anyone who provided a testimonial and cited actual specific results (monetary or otherwise) had to be able to prove those results, and that any claims of income by the marketer had to be typical for most users.

What happened to the market?

Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.

Nothing got better. Nothing got worse.

I do admit the hype level lowered on the surface, but the covert persuasion stuff increased in marketing messages.

One guy, Frank Kern, who once was condemned in an FCC lawsuit, actually increased his credibility by making fun of the restriction while fulfilling the law. Whenever he sells or gives a course, he says something like this (I'm paraphrasing, but this is more or less how he does it): "I'm required by law to give you fine folks a disclaimer, so let me say that everything I'm going to tell you right now is a lie. If you believe a word of what I say, I think you're a fool. In fact, I think one of the dumbest things you could ever do in life is follow my advice and there is no way in hell you can make money from it."

Everyone chuckles.

People generally pay about $19,000 for a small few sessions of private group coaching with him. And they buy his recorded products at about $2,000 a pop.

Business is good... Thank you, FCC...

You would probably like English law for psychics better than the USA's First Amendment. There psychics have to advertise with the words, "For Entertainment Only" included.

I find that to be legally abhorrent.

I'm more on page with Ayn Rand's statement in "Censorship: Local and Express" from The Ayn Rand Letter:

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners.

In this case, it's psychics, not pornographers, but the principle is the same. Forced speech and restrictions on religion are infringements of the First Amendment. If a person feels he has been defrauded by a religious practice, he can seek damages. So there already is protection under the law.

Michael

Robert Baratheon · May 14, 2013

Kacy, you've repeatedly stated that you don't want to regulate psychics, but you do understand that requiring a disclaimer would be regulation, correct?

Brant Gaede · May 14, 2013

Intellectual wrath. Penis enlargement pills.

That's me!

--Brant

and they work or return the pills with your penis for a full refund!

KacyRay · May 15, 2013

`

You believe that if the government forces psychics to advertise that science does not back their claims, this will protect people like Erica from fraud.

Really?

You really believe that?

Don't know. But I know it would set conditions for an honest business arrangement - conditions that don't currently exist.

You really think Erica is somehow being protected?

Against what?

Fraud. If she or someone like her chooses to make an informed transaction, that's on them. You still haven't addressed my point about marketing something you can't demonstratably provide.

`

So who else are you protecting? Those who think psychic stuff is not true, but maybe entertaining?

If not those, then who?
Emotionally distressed people who are grasping at straws?

For one, yes. But all citizens deserve protection from fraud, so the answer is "everyone". Just as we are all legally protected from libel, slander, breach of contract, plagiarism, etc...

Why would we even need to specify who needs protection from fraud? Do we apply protections selectively? Not sure what this question is intended to get at. Do we need to specify who we are protecting from fraud before we decide to make fraud illegal?

Do you or do you not believe that a psychic selling claims of special insight - insight available to him or her alone - for a fee is a fraudulent transaction? Do you believe that it is an honest transaction? Please, let's just get it out on the table whether or not you feel this is an honest transaction between two individuals, both of whom are receiving in return what they expected in return for their voluntary trade?

Are both parties getting what they think they are getting?

You would probably like English law for psychics better than the USA's First Amendment. There psychics have to advertise with the words, "For Entertainment Only" included.

I find that to be legally abhorrent.

I find fraud to be legally and ethically abhorrent. Particularly fraud that often results in the emotional exploitation of vulnerable people. But defrauding anyone for any reason is wrong and ought to be illegal.`

I'm more on page with Ayn Rand's statement in "Censorship: Local and Express" from The Ayn Rand Letter:
It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners.

In this case, it's psychics, not pornographers, but the principle is the same. Forced speech and restrictions on religion are infringements of the First Amendment. If a person feels he has been defrauded by a religious practice, he can seek damages. So there already is protection under the law.

Michael

I agree with Rand. But this conversation is not about infringing on anyone's rights. Fraud is not free speech. Fraud is not protected by the first amendment. There is no right to commit fraud.

So again, this seems to boil down on a disagreement on whether or not psychics are fraudulent in their business practices. But I'll need to know whether you believe that psychics are honest business people in order to be sure of it.

If you think they are... then that's really a different conversation. If you think they aren't, then you are arguing for the right of scam artists to defraud people. Either way, there is no question as to whether fraud is a right. It not legal, it's not ethical, and it's not protected.

KacyRay · May 15, 2013

Kacy, you've repeatedly stated that you don't want to regulate psychics, but you do understand that requiring a disclaimer would be regulation, correct?

Maybe the disclaimer was the wrong approach to the right idea. But I do not see "regulation" as the only necessary antidote to fraud.

Is it regulation for both parties of a contract to be legally required to each keep their end of the contract? Is it regulation for the government to get involved when it turns out that, in a given contract between two individual actors, not only did one side fail to provide what they promised, but never had the ability to provide it to begin with?

Laws are not regulations. There are laws against fraud. That's why it's so frustrating when I'm trying to argue for the enforcement of a law and everyone keeps going on and on about regulations. Regulations and laws are two different things.

Again, if you want to argue that psychics are honest brokers, acting in good faith that they are providing a legitimate product, then I will entertain that argument. But I KNOW fraud is illegal. And I KNOW it's wrong. And if a particular act is a legitimate crime, with a legitimate victim, then an argument that people should be protected from said crime is NOT an argument for a nanny state.

So psychics are either frauds, or they are not. I say they are.

Now, are those who solicit their services always defrauded victims? No. They aren't always. Often times, people go see psychics for entertainment, and that's fine. That is an honest transaction.

But there is an abundance of people who rely on these frauds for "inside information" not otherwise available to the ordinary person. That's what they're paying for. And that's what the psychic is selling them. But the psychic cannot provide it (or at least, they can't demonstrate that they have). Still, they accept payment and render a service which is not what the person paying for it is expecting.

I call that fraud.

Robert Baratheon · May 15, 2013

Laws are not regulations. There are laws against fraud. That's why it's so frustrating when I'm trying to argue for the enforcement of a law and everyone keeps going on and on about regulations. Regulations and laws are two different things.

You're literally correct that laws are not regulations, but I think you might be a bit confused over the actual distinction between the two. Functionally, they have the same effect, which is to specify what a covered entity must and must not do. Laws and regulations both carry force of law behind them. The key difference is whether the legal requirement is enacted by Congress directly (law) or by an administrative agency empowered by Congress to act on its behalf (regulation). From the perspective of the individual, it doesn't make a practical difference whether you are required by statute or regulation to install 42" guardrails on stairwells - you're still going to Home Depot at the end of the day. This is why "regulation," in the colloquial sense of the word, can refer to either type of action.

Brant Gaede · May 15, 2013

Kacy, you've repeatedly stated that you don't want to regulate psychics, but you do understand that requiring a disclaimer would be regulation, correct?
Maybe the disclaimer was the wrong approach to the right idea. But I do not see "regulation" as the only necessary antidote to fraud.
Is it regulation for both parties of a contract to be legally required to each keep their end of the contract? Is it regulation for the government to get involved when it turns out that, in a given contract between two individual actors, not only did one side fail to provide what they promised, but never had the ability to provide it to begin with?
Laws are not regulations. There are laws against fraud. That's why it's so frustrating when I'm trying to argue for the enforcement of a law and everyone keeps going on and on about regulations. Regulations and laws are two different things.
Again, if you want to argue that psychics are honest brokers, acting in good faith that they are providing a legitimate product, then I will entertain that argument. But I KNOW fraud is illegal. And I KNOW it's wrong. And if a particular act is a legitimate crime, with a legitimate victim, then an argument that people should be protected from said crime is NOT an argument for a nanny state.
So psychics are either frauds, or they are not. I say they are.
Now, are those who solicit their services always defrauded victims? No. They aren't always. Often times, people go see psychics for entertainment, and that's fine. That is an honest transaction.
But there is an abundance of people who rely on these frauds for "inside information" not otherwise available to the ordinary person. That's what they're paying for. And that's what the psychic is selling them. But the psychic cannot provide it (or at least, they can't demonstrate that they have). Still, they accept payment and render a service which is not what the person paying for it is expecting.
I call that fraud.

But what you call "fraud" is wanting a law--aka, "regulation."

When the psychic told me the Power Ball numbers and I didn't win, I went back and beat the crap out of her and stole her crystal ball--she got the message: don't fuck with a libertarian anarchist (I'm not one but didn't tell her that thus perpetrating a fraud on her and lib. anarchists generally [i was arrested because I wasn't wearing a sign that said if you defraud me I'll beat the crap out of you and steal your stuff])

intellectual wrather

Michael Stuart Kelly · May 15, 2013

Kacy,

My, my, argument by repetition?

You want to play games?

Hell, that's easy.

But I know it would set conditions for an honest business arrangement - conditions that don't currently exist.