UK Parliament mulls protecting consumers against supernatural claims

[ParanoiA]

That is such crap, just like anything in a newspaper, it's a selling point. As I said before, they are making the claim that Mystic Meg predicts the future, or people wouldn't read it, it's that simple.

 

So if I quote something my mom said about reading palms and sell you the piece of paper it's on, that automatically means that I'm claiming to predict the future? No sir, it means I'm selling you information that was given to me. Do what you want with it, I never claimed ANYTHING more than this is what my mom said. You're paying for the RELAY service.

 

Also, I read the horoscope everytime I read the newspaper. And I don't believe the periods that end the sentences. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes horoscopes. People do read it, for fun, it's that simple.

 

You would be if what the others say, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

So if someone says Pepsi cures cancer then pepsi is obligated to be sure their soda cures cancer? Rethink that Snail, that's way off the mark. You can't control what people claim about your product.

 

What ? We're not talking about the right you have to your property, and people thieving your rejuvenating water.

 

You're not following the logic here. I have a good. Someone else wants that good. By interfering with profiteering, this requires one of two things:

 

A) I have to provide this good at no profit (denying my right to property)

 

B) That someone cannot negotiate for my good (denying them the right to trade)

 

You also have the unintended consequence of potentially denying water to a thirsty person, with no interest in eliminating wrinkles or otherwise.

 

Again, it's not persuading people to not believe in unsubstantiated 'things', it's persuading people that profit making should be built on a sound basis, is that clear ? Please don't mix gaps in scientific theory with this discussion, it has nothing to do with it.

 

It IS a sound basis. Some dude wants pond water, and I sell it to him. That simple. If he wants to drink it - great. If he wants to rub it all over himself and sing elvis tunes - great. If he thinks it will cure his pimples - great. Why is that MY problem? Gaps in scientific theory is an example of "unprovable" things being SOLD to people. Just like the horoscope. Just like palm reading. You're profiting from something you can't prove.

 

By the way, how do you prove someone ISN'T talking to the dead? Similar to how you prove there is no god?

[Phi for All]

Also, I read the horoscope everytime I read the newspaper. And I don't believe the periods that end the sentences. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes horoscopes. People do read it, for fun, it's that simple.

You can at least believe Horoscopes for Scientists. Very accurate, imo. Spot on every time.

[ParanoiA]

You can at least believe Horoscopes for Scientists. Very accurate, imo. Spot on every time.

 

 

This is true, I'm a taurus, and I have no idea why I'm sitting in this weird place. I guess I work here?

[Royston]

Sorry Paranoia, I missed your response, I think I've covered my thoughts on the subject. We may have to agree to disagree, because personally I have zero tolerance to profit made through such questionable means, but I'll address your points all the same.

 

So if I quote something my mom said about reading palms and sell you the piece of paper it's on, that automatically means that I'm claiming to predict the future? No sir, it means I'm selling you information that was given to me. Do what you want with it, I never claimed ANYTHING more than this is what my mom said. You're paying for the RELAY service.

 

Mystic Meg is claiming to predict the future, and the newspaper is using that claim to make money...pretty dishonest if they don't believe in said claim, don't you think ?

 

Also, I read the horoscope everytime I read the newspaper. And I don't believe the periods that end the sentences. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes horoscopes. People do read it, for fun, it's that simple.

 

As Dak pointed out, people also believe in it...so again, unless they make the claim, people won't read it...it's that simple

 

So if someone says Pepsi cures cancer then pepsi is obligated to be sure their soda cures cancer? Rethink that Snail, that's way off the mark. You can't control what people claim about your product.

 

No their obligated to say it's a crock.

 

You're not following the logic here. I have a good. Someone else wants that good. By interfering with profiteering, this requires one of two things:

 

A) I have to provide this good at no profit (denying my right to property)

 

B) That someone cannot negotiate for my good (denying them the right to trade)

 

You also have the unintended consequence of potentially denying water to a thirsty person, with no interest in eliminating wrinkles or otherwise.

 

OK, gotcha, I didn't quite follow you're original point. The simple answer, tell your customers that there's no evidence that your pond water is beneficial to their complexion, and to get off your property. I'm not sure I follow the thirsty person comment, quite simply because word has got around that your pond water is rejuvenating for the skin, not refreshing to drink.

 

It IS a sound basis. Some dude wants pond water, and I sell it to him. That simple.

 

Stop saying 'that simple', you sound like a physics student.

 

If he wants to drink it - great. If he wants to rub it all over himself and sing elvis tunes - great. If he thinks it will cure his pimples - great. Why is that MY problem?

 

It's your problem if you're charging him for that privilege, why charge him for it ? You can charge him for using your property, but nothing else.

 

Gaps in scientific theory is an example of "unprovable" things being SOLD to people. Just like the horoscope. Just like palm reading. You're profiting from something you can't prove.

 

Oh dear oh dear, I can't think of one reputable pop sci book, that makes it abundantly clear that gaps in scientific knowledge are open ended, the same can't be said for palmistry.

 

By the way, how do you prove someone ISN'T talking to the dead? Similar to how you prove there is no god?

 

You can't, but people that profit from God, or the idea of God are in the same boat, and shouldn't profit from that idea. I know there are some churches in the States that do this i.e contributions are not optional, they use God as a means, to force people to part with their money.

[ParanoiA]

I think I've covered my thoughts on the subject. We may have to agree to disagree, because personally I have zero tolerance to profit made through such questionable means, but I'll address your points all the same.

 

Well don't take this the wrong way, but I feel compelled to respond as long as you keep posting, or until I get worn out. I think we're definitely in 'agree to disagree' territory on this one though.

 

Mystic Meg is claiming to predict the future, and the newspaper is using that claim to make money...pretty dishonest if they don't believe in said claim, don't you think ?

 

Again though, you're not following the logic. Mystic Meg is relaying astrological information. This would be akin to reading lines out of the bible and then paraphrasing them for the newspaper. While it's not obvious, copying and relaying information from one person to another is not the same as making the claim that that information is accurate or even true.

 

So, Mystic Meg providing "astrological information" is not the same as making the claim that "astrology is true and correct". I could just as easily recite astrology, palm reading, anything and everything - and I'm still not making a claim of ANY KIND. I'm telling you what "astrology" says - not what I say.

 

Obviously, this is not made clear by the paper, nor by Mystic Meg. No surprise there. But then, I doubt either of them would ever dream they needed to. I certainly don't see it.

 

No their obligated to say it's a crock.

 

Why is everyone in your world obligated to run around cancelling out what others say about them and their stuff? I really don't get this. Pepsi needs to hire a team of guys just to sniff about the world and see what people are saying about their soft drink and then pay for the advertisements to "say it's a crock"?

 

Shit, I could take down corporations with that logic. Just start an organized rumor mill that costs companies millions of dollars to chase us around cancelling the crap we dream up about them.

 

The simple answer, tell your customers that there's no evidence that your pond water is beneficial to their complexion, and to get off your property.

 

If I'm a decent person and businessman, then I would do this. But why is it legally up to me to educate them? And if I do tell them there's no evidence and they still want to buy it, then why shouldn't I be allowed to sell it to them? You're still forcing your belief system onto others.

 

It's your problem if you're charging him for that privilege, why charge him for it ?

 

Because I have a right to hold property and trade. I don't have to give away my property, and I don't have to restrict ownership of my property. I should be able to freely negotiate ownership of my property.

 

Oh dear oh dear, I can't think of one reputable pop sci book, that makes it abundantly clear that gaps in scientific knowledge are open ended, the same can't be said for palmistry.

 

So you're all cool with it as long as palmistry presents itself as a "theory"?

 

You can't, but people that profit from God, or the idea of God are in the same boat, and shouldn't profit from that idea.

 

I don't agree. You can't prove they aren't talking and working with god. Just like you can't prove psychics don't talk to the dead. If you can't prove they're committing fraud, then you're blatantly trampling on their liberties. And you're morally wrong, in my opinion.

 

 

 

It seems quite clear to me that this proposal is incredibly subjective. You've decided that no one can really talk to dead people, that no one can talk to god and etc..yet you can't prove any of that. You just personally believe this. So that makes it ok to interfere with trade within the citizenry based on what YOU believe, or don't believe - not a scrap of objective truth.

 

Objective reasoning is the only fair governor of liberty. I choose to err on the side of liberty, you choose to err on the side of control. That's where we agree to disagree.

[Royston]

I appreciate the response Paranoia, because like you (possibly), I'm getting worn out

 

So you're all cool with it as long as palmistry presents itself as a "theory"?

 

Certainly not a scientific theory, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I don't agree. You can't prove they aren't talking and working with god. Just like you can't prove psychics don't talk to the dead. If you can't prove they're committing fraud, then you're blatantly trampling on their liberties. And you're morally wrong, in my opinion.

 

I don't really understand how you're not getting, that making profit means you need to satisfy the customer and provide them with results, that keep the customer coming back. Products and services are an evolving process, that keep the fickle consumer happy, yet the products and services within this context are no different to the dark ages.

 

t seems quite clear to me that this proposal is incredibly subjective. You've decided that no one can really talk to dead people, that no one can talk to god and etc..yet you can't prove any of that. You just personally believe this. So that makes it ok to interfere with trade within the citizenry based on what YOU believe, or don't believe - not a scrap of objective truth.

 

I think you have me pegged all wrong Paranoia, and I find that observation quite insulting, I'm conservative with some issues, liberal with others. I just can't stand to see money pilfered away on such things...I can't stand to see money pilfered away on profit for profit companies, that spend millions each year on failed projects. I think many people have their priorities, on where money should go, utterly skewed. Believe what you want, but money should go into our survival, not squandered on individual self interest.

[gcol]

Interesting how this thread has concentrated on one possible very peripheral aspect of the legislation.

 

As I understand it, a public consultation exercise was held regarding EU regulations to beef up consumer protection in general. The Parliamentary proceedings concern the introduction of these regulations.

 

Of particular interest is the repeal of the fraudulent mediums act, 1951 which replaced the witchcraft act of 1735 and also substituted certain provisions of the 1824 vagrancy act.

 

The spiritualist, clairvoyant mediums, and general hocus pocus industry of course saw it as a threat to its livelihood and are conducting a strong media campaign which of course has been picked up by the popular press (after all, there is not much else of importance going on in the world, is there?)

 

By the way, and I quote from somewhere I can't remember:

 

"Spiritualism and its associated practices is a properly constituted religion recognised by an act of Parliament". So I suppose that is the general "immunity from prosecution" for all religions.

 

Apologies if everyone already knew this.

[ParanoiA]

I don't really understand how you're not getting, that making profit means you need to satisfy the customer and provide them with results, that keep the customer coming back. Products and services are an evolving process, that keep the fickle consumer happy, yet the products and services within this context are no different to the dark ages.

 

Actually, that's exactly what I get. These customers are happy, or else they wouldn't call back. The market corrects itself. Why the need to step in? If the psychics or card readers aren't making the customer happy, then the customer isn't going to come back.

 

It doesn't matter if the service is as old as prostitution or palm reading, if people like it and want to buy it, why bother them? Until you can prove fraud, I don't understand why you'd even want to.

 

I think you have me pegged all wrong Paranoia, and I find that observation quite insulting, I'm conservative with some issues, liberal with others.

 

This contradicts this:

 

I just can't stand to see money pilfered away on such things...I can't stand to see money pilfered away on profit for profit companies, that spend millions each year on failed projects. I think many people have their priorities, on where money should go, utterly skewed. Believe what you want, but money should go into our survival, not squandered on individual self interest.

 

It doesn't matter what YOU think qualifies as "skewed". I blow some of my money on beer, cigars, DVD's, CD's and tons of musical crap - it makes me happy. And it doesn't do anything positive for the world. For the guy next door, getting a card reading makes him happy. It doesn't matter how stupid I think he is. I have to be objective when I judge him and what liberties should be restricted, lest I be judged myself.

 

Don't mean to insult you, but I don't think you realize just how invasive your conclusions really are. Reading that paragraph about priorities, survival, and contempt for self interest is flagrantly arrogant when exercised as law. How can you seriously believe you're being anything other than blatantly oppressive and tyrannical in your presumption that we should all be forced to agree with YOUR ideas of where money should be spent?

 

It's akin to the argument for forcing people not to eat certain things, or drink certain things based on the idea those things are bad for you. That argument presupposes that all of us should want to live as long as possible, rather than as fun as possible, and is basically forcing people to choose longevity.

 

I think life is too precious to be forced to live under someone else's ideas of right and wrong, what should be done or what shouldn't. That's not to say I don't agree with your sentiment, it's to say that I don't agree it should be legislated. If I've inferred incorrectly, forgive me and correct me.

[Royston]

Don't mean to insult you, but I don't think you realize just how invasive your conclusions really are. Reading that paragraph about priorities, survival, and contempt for self interest is flagrantly arrogant when exercised as law.

 

Don't confuse arrogance with long term solutions.

 

If you want to party on the way, go for it, I do it all the time.

 

However, I make a concerted effort to redeem myself through understanding math, and physics. This isn't subjective, in fact I have long term interests at heart, i.e I have long term survival at heart, and if it wasn't for people like me, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so quench your bleating, and please don't label me as arrogant, because I have long term solutions to consider...I actually find your comment incredibly insulting.

[ParanoiA]

I have long term survival at heart, and if it wasn't for people like me, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, so quench your bleating, and please don't label me as arrogant, because I have long term solutions to consider...I actually find your comment incredibly insulting.

 

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate just how if it wasn't for people like you I wouldn't have a leg to stand on? Are you talking about physics here? How exactly does that make you the authority on what humans should or shouldn't want out of life and what should or shouldn't make them happy?

 

How exactly does your understanding of physics qualify you to determine whether god does or doesn't exist or whether or not someone can talk to dead people? How does your study of any science give you any right to decide the fate of others?

 

I'm finding your whole disposition more insulting each post.

[Royston]

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate just how if it wasn't for people like you I wouldn't have a leg to stand on?

 

To be blunt, because I give a shit, just like you, and I'd like to think that I can offer something that goes beyond the constraints i've been given.

 

Are you talking about physics here? How exactly does that make you the authority on what humans should or shouldn't want out of life and what should or shouldn't make them happy?

 

I never said that, all I said is that I have long term interests at heart, what's wrong with that ?

 

How exactly does your understanding of physics qualify you to determine whether god does or doesn't exist or whether or not someone can talk to dead people? How does your study of any science give you any right to decide the fate of others?

 

I'm finding your whole disposition more insulting each post.

 

Then I don't think we understand each other.

 

I never said that my understanding of physics is an authority, or against any belief, and we're swaying way off topic. FYI I was a little drunk when I made my last post, but I still stick to my guns, in that I would like to contribute to our survival, I don't understand why you think that's a negative attribute ?

 

Paranoia, you insulted me, so I retaliated, it's called human nature.

 

EDIT: this is way too personal for my liking, so please PM me

[ParanoiA]

To be blunt, because I give a shit, just like you, and I'd like to think that I can offer something that goes beyond the constraints i've been given.

 

I never said that, all I said is that I have long term interests at heart, what's wrong with that ?

 

Then I don't think we understand each other.

 

I never said that my understanding of physics is an authority, or against any belief, and we're swaying way off topic. FYI I was a little drunk when I made my last post, but I still stick to my guns, in that I would like to contribute to our survival, I don't understand why you think that's a negative attribute ?

 

Now we get to the guts of it. Our only difference here Snail is that you invest in government and law - tools of coersion - to exercise your nobility, whereas I believe the investment should be in persuasion of free people. For the same reason we're hypocrites for using guns to spread freedom and democracy, we're also hypocrites for using force to practice altruism.

 

I see nothing negative in your long term interests and to contribute to my survival, that's much appreciated, sincerely. I share your vision, though my contribution doesn't likely measure up to yours. You should note that I use every opportunity to convince others to reject unsubstantiated beliefs. It's an important subject for me personally.

[iNow]

I suspect you both agree much more than you find evident at this juncture, it's just that ParanoiA is very aware of legistlation removing personal freedom, so this is his focus, but Snail is aware of problems which need fixing, so that it his. You've just chosen different approaches, and ultimately agree the desired outcome. Regardless...

 

 

Part of me is beginning to suspect that supernatural claims are, in fact, hindering the survival of our entire species. I see it most evident in denialist behaviors as pertains the global climate change, but frequently in other parts of our goverment and policy as well.

 

In the US, we have the establishment clause, and for an organized body premised on a seperation of church and state, it's frankly rather incredible the enormous impact the church is having on the state.

 

My support of the "freedom of's" in the US is waning in favor of clear and well articulated rejection of such "supernatural" nonsense.

 

I'm not being 100% coherent here, and I apologize, but my point is that there is something to be said about actively trying to remove the "supernatural" from our culture and planet. It gets in the way of too many important things. If that makes me an elitist, or arrogant (since it's what's important to me), then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

[ParanoiA]

Just some food for thought...

 

It's not difficult to relate with the impulse to use goverment and law to coerce humans to live and behave as I think they should, as I believe would benefit all of mankind, however it's quite difficult to relate with the follow through of such logic. Just as a scientist would never assume himself above the scientific method, I can't assume myself above persuasion, nor can I relate with anyone else who can.

 

The scientific method is actually a kind of persuasive mechanism if you think about it. It requires that you test and provide evidence to support your theories - to convince "science", so to speak. No self respecting scientist, no matter how convinced of his own theory he may be, would excuse himself from this method. If it were even possible, he wouldn't circumvent the scientific method by using coersion to make the rest of science agree with him.

 

In the same way, I don't see how anyone can seek to circumvent persuasion with coersion with a clear conscience, no matter how altruistic their intent. While persuasion isn't free from defect, it's much further removed from it than forced compliance. Force doesn't require you to be right. Or fair. Persuasion, however arguable, requires you to convince others of their own free will and thought - requires you to be right, or at least plural.

 

So, while I whole heartedly share the view of removing the supernatural mumbo jumbo from our existence, I can only do that by convincing others, not with law. That's at the heart of this thread, I think, because the proposed legislation is built on the notion that people shouldn't provide profit to others feeding their beliefs - which as been implicitly determined false (and is somewhat irrelevant).

 

All of this supernatural crap...is crap. But I must obligate myself to the only method I can rely on to be sure I'm right, to be sure that other's intellect and intelligence has ground through the logic and spit out the same answer I got. Don't we owe that to each other?

[Pangloss]

My support of the "freedom of's" in the US is waning in favor of clear and well articulated rejection of such "supernatural" nonsense.

 

I'm not being 100% coherent here, and I apologize, but my point is that there is something to be said about actively trying to remove the "supernatural" from our culture and planet. It gets in the way of too many important things. If that makes me an elitist, or arrogant (since it's what's important to me), then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

 

You would remove that freedom even if they're just minding their own business and not defrauding anybody? Or is that not what you meant?

 

I don't want to put words in your mouth here, but if that IS what you mean it's interesting that you said that in the same post that you brought up the establishment clause, because the purpose of that clause was not to remove religion from government, but to protect the right of individuals to continue to perform their own religious beliefs, free of government intervention.

 

(But if you just meant "convince" and "persuade" against that sort of thing, I'm all for that.)

[Mr Skeptic]

So if someone says Pepsi cures cancer then pepsi is obligated to be sure their soda cures cancer? [...] You can't control what people claim about your product.

 

I'd think that Pepsi would get is some serious trouble if they in any way supported the claim that others say Pepsi cures cancer. They might even be obligated to state that they've seen no evidence that Pepsi cures cancer if other's claims that Pepsi cures cancer became sufficiently prevalent, or if they were asked directly.

[Severian]

I don't see why there has to be a special law. If you agree to deliver a product and then don't deliver, then you are in violation of contract, irrespective of whether or not the product is supernatural.

[Sayonara]

I don't see why there has to be a special law. If you agree to deliver a product and then don't deliver, then you are in violation of contract, irrespective of whether or not the product is supernatural.

 

I agree entirely. There is no reason to pick and choose.