Well he wanted to be rid of negative energy, it could very well have been attachment to that cash, or even trust in that psychic, both have been removed, so he should be on his way.
Pointing out the fact that someone is wrong is not an insult.
I agree that I was out of line with the comment about “his god.” I shouldn’t have said that, and you were right to take me to task for it. The above, however, is an entirely civil comment.
Did you notice that others have posted somewhat worse comments directed at me? Did you see the somewhat inflammatory comment made by VarloZ? Or did you spot E-Sabbath suggestion that I should go and drown myself? Yeah, he was obviously joking, ha ha, but it still amounts to wishing death on someone. That, surely, is a somewhat worse violation of the rules.
I’ve had a lot worse than that, and I just ignore it.
This.
Even the most convinced materialist should be able to agree that a belief in psychics is not more untrue than a belief that someone in Nigeria wants to give you a lot of money.
A scam by definition plays on the victim’s untrue beliefs. To say that in certain cases the victim deserves to be scammed because his personal set of untrue beliefs is particularly offensive to you is simply personal bias.
That said, if the psychic did have a barely legible sign saying that his services are for entertainment purposes only, the whole thing rests on whatever laws there are governing fine print and just how fine it’s allowed to be. That’s a completely different issue from saying that anyone who believes in the supernatural should have no legal recourse if they are scammed by someone who plays on that belief.
No, but saying that “a certain person… is not exactly good at spotting when he’s being scammed. He’s not really in a position to make informed comments here” is.
I don’t think they’re worse, but I agree it’s time for all the personal comments to stop. This goes for everybody: debate the topic, not the personalities.
A Nigerian wanting a foreign partner-in-crime to give you a lot of money in exchange for helping him launder stolen money is merely highly improbable. A fortune teller possessing psychic powers is impossible.
Some untrue beliefs are less reasonable than others. It is the reasonability of the belief and not the offensiveness that is important here.
You’d think there would be some type of monetary line not to cross in the psychics handbook. Scam suckers out of their cash $20-$100 a pop and you’ve got yourself a nice little legitimate business going.
Scam someone out of $150,000??? Not cool.
Even the big leaguers like Sylivia Brown and Jon Edward who charge a premium probably made their fortunes on volume, not bilking a few out of hundreds of thousands.
The majority of them know how to fly under the radar of the law but you get some greedy one taking one customer to the cleaners you’re sending up an immediate red flag.
Why is degree of reasonableness important in the way you suggest? If someone defrauds us by taking advantage of our obviously untrue beliefs we deserve compensation, but if someone defrauds us by taking advantage of our *really *obviously untrue beliefs, we don’t deserve compensation? Seems arbitrary.
I was not telling Peter to go drown himself. He claims to have some skill at being an amateur magician. I told him to go figure out how the trick works and report back. He claims it’s a trick, rather than escapology. (eg, contortionism, lockpicking, strength beyond the usual, and so forth.)
Peter, if there are secret panels or other things in that milk churn, show us. You’re the one saying it’s a trick, after all. And you’re the one claiming special knowledge. You’re clearly smarter than Harry Houdini, the con-man.
How can you prove the Psychic didn’t remove the negative energy, and that their claims are fraudulent? (I do not believe in psychics). You could make a fair case that anyone who gives a psychic that much money for those reasons is likely not mentally competent (is it illegal to take money from obviously mentally challenged people? I don’t know), but I am banking on the person being an idiot.
A fool and their money are soon parted.:dubious:
Whatever you say.
You tell me, do you really think it’s possible to do that through lock picking?
No matter how skilled a lock picker Houdini might have been, there is no way he could sit inside a box, and open locks on the outside of the box.
I’m not in the business of giving away magic secrets.
And there you have distorted my point beyond recognition.
I never said Houdini was a conman. He was a magician who performed conjuring tricks. What I said is that some people mistake the tricks for something real. I do not think there is anything dishonest about that.