Is there a free speech right to sell tarot card readings?

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**Dec: I think you are correct in your assessment of a key difference between conservatives and libertarians. But I still say that tarot card readings and their “negative effects on the poor” are probably on par with the negative effects of state lotteries on the poor. Not sure how you weigh in on the latter, but maybe some statistics on the average amount of money spent on both by people below the poverty line would be enlightening. **

I don’t know if statistics are available, probably not.

I know a lot of psychics personally and not a one of them has clients below the poverty line. One of my acquaintances recently returned from a trip to New York. His travel and expenses were paid by a wealthy couple having an anniversary party. He charged $300 for a reading and came back with a lot of money.
The poor seldom go to psychics, most are as skeptical as the posters here.

Psychics that are really talented are sought out by the rich and supported by them. Edgar Cayce, John Anderson, James Van Praagh, John Edward, all had/have very rich clients.

That psychics bilk the poor is skeptical mythology.
Generally people that buy lottery tickets are far from being poor.

The more I read these skeptical posts the more I wonder why people write about things they have no knowledge of.
What about the psychics that are not talented? The same as with every business. Bad mechanics, bad bakers, bad hairdressers, and bad psychics soon go out of business.

I really don’t want or need anyone “protecting my interests”, I may get stung once, but I learn that way.

Love
Leroy

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

That psychics bilk the poor is skeptical mythology.

Sure it is. Why bilk the poor when you can bilk the rich?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

*Originally posted by FisherQueen *
**I read tarot cards, and I’m neither a con artist nor an idiot. I don’t think they have Mysterious Psychic Powers or can predict the future. I think they work more like a relative of the Rorschach test. The client sees a card, I tell her what experience the card represents, and encourage her to think about how that experience connects with her current situation. For me, it’s a way to think about your problems from a different direction by adding a random element to your thought processes. It’s also an opportunity to talk out whatever’s on your mind.

For me, tarot is cheap, amateur psychology, not magic. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but I don’t see any reason why what I do should be illegal. **

Interesting. I take a similar approach with I Ching readings. I do them for my wife or occasionally someone else. I just tell her what the hexagrams mean and let her intuit how it applies to her questions. Sometimes I help her out with {It could mean this…it’s not necessarily bad…etc. I try to steer her in an optimistic direction. She’s my wife after all). I obviously don’t believe in any supernatural aspect to the I Ching but I find it helpful as a way to provoke thought and reflection.

[Kimstu]

december: One can make a case the tarot readings are harmful and one can also make the opposite case that they provide some value. In a way, the Freedom of Speech claim is a sneaky way of letting a court decide. I’d rather see the decision of whether to ban tarot readings based on a judgment of whether they do more harm than good.

But whose judgment? Yours? A government commission’s? Who gets to decide which practices “do more harm than good”, and on what grounds? I think the strength of the civil-liberties position here is that it is very prudently reluctant to make those choices on such a broad scale.

Besides, if we were really prepared to regulate all commercial practices depending on how much we think consumers really benefit from them, what would happen to advertising? Who really needs one of those $250 pairs of sneakers that are notorious bones of contention among some lower-income kids? Do the ads for them “do more harm than good”? How about televangelists exhorting viewers to write a generous check for Jesus? How about Rush Limbaugh (or the commentator of your choice) drawing a hefty salary for distorting and misrepresenting his political opponents’ positions?

Where do you draw the line? No fair subjecting to utilitarian scrutiny only those practices that are widely considered oddball (such as tarot) or that you personally disapprove of (such as psychoanalysis). If we’re going to apply such yardsticks to one commercial pursuit, in fairness we have to apply the same yardsticks to all of them.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
England has a system of validating psychics also.

I say bullshit, or I’ve just found a new cause.

*Originally posted by lekatt *
That psychics bilk the poor is skeptical mythology.

This is true only in as much as the poor can’t afford readings at £x a chuck – I wonder who the clientele of “psychic” phone “services” are, those with pricing mechanisms that make them more accessible (£0.y/minute) to the poor.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lekatt *
What about the psychics that are not talented?

But talented at what? No-one, really, NO-ONE has psychic powers, it’s that simple, to claim one does and charge the gullible public is a scam!

[photopat]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**I don’t know if statistics are available, probably not.

I know a lot of psychics personally and not a one of them has clients below the poverty line.**

As has been pointed out, they might not at that (except, see below). Why bother conning people who don’t have any money?

**One of my acquaintances recently returned from a trip to New York. His travel and expenses were paid by a wealthy couple having an anniversary party. He charged $300 for a reading and came back with a lot of money. **

And your point is? So the guy found a couple of marks. Good for him.

Okay, that’s not entirely fair. They may have been completely aware he was just performing his act and didn’t think he actually had any powers. It might have just been a show.

**The poor seldom go to psychics, most are as skeptical as the posters here. **

CITE?!? Are you referring to the poor people who spend more than they can afford on lottery tickets? Are you referring to the poor people who would possibly go to psychics, if they could afford $300 readings?

I hope that many poor people really are as skeptical as some of us here. That gives me hope for them.

Psychics that are really talented are sought out by the rich and supported by them. Edgar Cayce, John Anderson, James Van Praagh, John Edward, all had/have very rich clients.

Here, I suspect you’re at least partially right. As I already said, why bother with poor clients, when a few rich ones can keep somebody in chinos and sports cars very easily. (No offense intended to anybody who isn’t a fraud but wears chinos or drives a sports car.

That psychics bilk the poor is skeptical mythology.

Except, as is often the case for businesses, while a few high paying clients can be wonderful, it’s also a good idea to have a lot of smaller clients too, just in case one loses the biggies. It’s a case of not keeping all ones tarot cards in one basket.

Generally people that buy lottery tickets are far from being poor.

Cite, please???

The more I read these skeptical posts the more I wonder why people write about things they have no knowledge of.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself that question sometime.

What about the psychics that are not talented? The same as with every business. Bad mechanics, bad bakers, bad hairdressers, and bad psychics soon go out of business.

They might, when they are finally brought down. Until then they can make a killing.

**I really don’t want or need anyone “protecting my interests”, I may get stung once, but I learn that way.

Leroy**

That’s fine. You haven’t learned anything yet, but maybe someday you will. In the meantime, skeptics and debunkers will continue trying to get people to understand how frauds work and why “psychics” don’t, and if the people who believe don’t want to listen, that’s their right.

[drachillix]

*Originally posted by december *
I’ve long wondered on what basis a licence would be granted. It’s fun to imagine what the licensing exam would look like. E.g., an answer sheet with no questions or hints.

The exam is probably something like the one to become a priest in most states.

Name:
Address:

[drachillix]

*Originally posted by december *
I’ve long wondered on what basis a licence would be granted.

Make the application fee ugly and hire James Randi to do the testing.

Of course you would need to jail anyone practicing “psychic services” without a licence.

Problem solved.

[lekatt]

In another thread we covered this fraud thing. We found out the skeptics claimed psychics were doing “cold readings”, “warm readings”, and “hot readings.” When we asked for the definition of these things. (Please keep in mind these are skeptical accusations.) No clear definition could be ascertained. Then, when asked if these various “readings” had been tested in controlled conditions, the answer was no. Any controlled surveys? No. So, here we have the skeptics claiming psychics do these “hot, cold, warm reading” things, but have no science to back up what these readings are, or that they may actually be viable as an explanation. The skeptics gave a lot of personal testimonies, opinions, and theories, but no science.

Then came the big question, "Assuming these “reading things” have merit, then what proof do you have that psychics are actually using them? Well, there was no proof of this either, and this was admitted by at least a couple of the skeptics.

Psychics are continuing to do what they do, and skeptics and debunkers continue to call them frauds, but the real frauds are the skeptics who can not honestly show anyone is a fraud.

One thing the skeptics have done is expand their negativity into the world of science and degrade the respect of the scientists. You can’t sling mud, without getting it all over you.

Love
Leroy

[lekatt]

I should have added: I am open to good science on any of the topics I write about on this board. I am not interested in skeptical personal testimonies, opinions, and theories, with no science.

I am finding it harder and harder to take scientists seriously. They have been making a lot of claims, but delivering little.

Statements like “bad” genes cause alcoholism or dumbness, sure don’t help either.

Leroy

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by drachillix *
**The exam is probably something like the one to become a priest in most states.

Name:
Address: **

Yes, very funny, laugh, laugh, laugh.

Skeptics only need a name. No address necessary.

[drachillix]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
I am finding it harder and harder to take scientists seriously. They have been making a lot of claims, but delivering little.

Leroy **

What are your feelings on Sylvia Browns failure to follow through on the JREF testing.

[december]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
december: I’d rather see the decision of whether to ban tarot readings based on a judgment of whether they do more harm than good.

But whose judgment? Yours? A government commission’s? Who gets to decide which practices “do more harm than good”, and on what grounds?

The government, as representative of the people.

I think the strength of the civil-liberties position here is that it is very prudently reluctant to make those choices on such a broad scale.

That’s a reasonable POV for a libertarian. It would argue for the abolition of pretty much all the domestic federal agencies, such as FDA, SEC, DOE, FCC, HHS, etc. it would end Social Security and Medicare. It would prohibit most of what state and local government do in the way of human services, such as welfare, health care, consumer protection, zoning, etc.

Where do you draw the line? No fair subjecting to utilitarian scrutiny only those practices that are widely considered oddball (such as tarot) or that you personally disapprove of (such as psychoanalysis). If we’re going to apply such yardsticks to one commercial pursuit, in fairness we have to apply the same yardsticks to all of them.

“Fairness” is quite a requirement, particularly if it’s defined to include perfect consistency. That’s too high a standard IMHO. It implies that we cannot ban any hard drugs unless we also ban all of them and alcohol as well. We cannot regulate prescription drugs unless we also regulate over-the-counter “natural” drugs.

I do agree that our law should seek fairness, but we should recognize that it’s unattainable.

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by drachillix *
**What are your feelings on Sylvia Browns failure to follow through on the JREF testing. **

Actually, I think she made a sound decision.

When and if Randi lets independent researchers in on his methods, it might be alright. But until fairness can be assured it is foolish for anyone to try.

I have seen Randi on several TV shows and the audience laughed at what he said about psychics on all of them. I don’t consider him a serious researcher, and apparently the audience didn’t either.

Love
Leroy

[photopat]

Leroy, I haven’t seen Randi on TV, so I admit this is just a guess, but I have a feeling the audiences weren’t laughing to ridicule him, simply because he was funny while tearing psychics to shreds.

By the way, **STOP THINKING THAT THE SKEPTICS HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT PSYCHIC POWER DOESN’T EXIST. IT’S UP TO THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE POWERS TO PROVE THEY DO!!!

YOU FREAKING MORON!**

[drachillix]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**Actually, I think she made a sound decision.

When and if Randi lets independent researchers in on his methods, it might be alright. But until fairness can be assured it is foolish for anyone to try.

You mean like publish the test criteria on his website

If she felt that the test was unfair why did she agree to it?

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by photopat *
**Leroy, I haven’t seen Randi on TV, so I admit this is just a guess, but I have a feeling the audiences weren’t laughing to ridicule him, simply because he was funny while tearing psychics to shreds.

By the way, **STOP THINKING THAT THE SKEPTICS HAVE TO PROVIDE PROOF THAT PSYCHIC POWER DOESN’T EXIST. IT’S UP TO THE PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THEY HAVE POWERS TO PROVE THEY DO!!!

YOU FREAKING MORON!** **

If you accuse someone of being a crook, he can sue you for slander if he wants, the judge will want to know what made you call him a crook and what proof you have that he is a crook, and if you can’t supply reasonable proof that you told the truth, guess what, you will lose.

Now if someone says he talks to “dead people,” he would be expected to proof that. Psychics do that by accurate readings that keep the clients coming back.

Most psychics have a large following of clients who will swear to the accurateness of their reader. Now is there really “dead people” out there to talk to. Science says yes, there is now scientific proof that consciousness continues after the death of the body. Readers Digest aug 2003 article on the research, right on the front cover, can’t miss it.

You can’t call the Pope a Baptist and get away with it unless you have proof, surely you can understand this simple need to back up what you say. It is sometimes called false witnessing or just plain prevarication. People who do not back up their name calling with proof are dishonest, lack intregrity, and morality. It also has to do with simple respect for others.

Of course, you could say “in my opinion” this man is a crook. But we all know what opinions are worth.

Do you get it now? Should I offer more reasons?

Love
Leroy

[lekatt]

*Originally posted by drachillix *
**You mean like publish the test criteria on his website

If she felt that the test was unfair why did she agree to it? **

Anyone can say what they do, we need to have an independent person just to make sure. Randi has refused to do this.

Randi says she did, does he have her application proving that statement. I seriously doubt it. But if you can produce it, I will stand corrected.

Love
Leroy

[drachillix]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
Anyone can say what they do, we need to have an independent person just to make sure. Randi has refused to do this.

Welcome to GD, cite please.

From my link

And one more thing: we would have an independent party, approved by both sides, present at all procedures, and everything would be videotaped, and the original videotape would be retained by that independent party. It could be someone from your staff, if you wished, Larry, and if Sylvia approved, of course.

Randi says she did, does he have her application proving that statement. I seriously doubt it. But if you can produce it, I will stand corrected.

Also from the link, the challenge was accepted on an episode of larry king live broadcast on Sept 3, 2001 with hundreds of thousands of nationwide witnesses.

[photopat]

Drachillix, the link you’ve provided and the quotes from it are certainly sufficient to show that Browne accepted and that Randi agreed to have independent corroboration of her claims.

Unfortunately, what lekatt wants is proof that Browne accepted and that Randi agreed to have independent corroboration of her claims.

What’s the difference? Obviously there isn’t one, except to lekatt. In his mind, until he says it’s proof, it isn’t, and if it goes against what he believes to be true, he won’t say it’s proof.

He’s funny that way.*

Nominated for Understatement of the Year Award.