Tarot readers??

[onewheeldave]

No-one's trying to deny them that right, we're just telling them that they are being stupid, and that they shouldn't do it. No-one's trying to force anything on anyone or deny them their rights. You've point blank refusing to deal with Bloomdido's points because he's used emotive language, yet you have the nerve to set up this ridiculous hyperbolic strawman? C'mon man!

 

From a rationalist perspective, use of emotive language is innapropriate when it comes to debate, especially when it is used with a complete absence of any actual valid argument

[onewheeldave]

You say that, yet you go on to say:

 

 

 

So it's completely 100% clear, yet most of her customers will understand something completely different from what it says, yeah that makes sense.

 

What you seem to be saying is Tarot readers straight up lie in their legal documentation? Surely that's not good business practise?

 

What I actually said was-

 

What's the problem- it seems to be a very clear, consise and unambiguous statement to me- readings are for entertainment purposes only.

 

If people choose to read that and then pay for a reading, then that's their choice- no way are they being conned having read the above

 

If you still want to launch a witch hunt on Tarot readers, then could you at least consider being fair about it, and first tackle the multitude of other businesses who use 'small print' hidden in their contracts to rip of customers, such as broadband sellers, commercial gyms and mobile phone contract vendors.

 

If their 'small print' was a tenth as clear, consise, and honest as the above tarot readers disclaimer, a lot of people would be happier.

 

It's a disclaimer, no doubt primarily meant to deal with the fact that, in our current society, making claims (such as, the dead are real and can be communicated with) that can't be proven within our current scientific framework, or, which are disaproved of by particular authorities, can lead to legal prosecution.

 

As i mention above, such disclaimers are standard in many modern businesses, and, necessary to survive in the current climate: in contrast to most though, which are hidden in small print and written in incomprehensible 'jargonese', at least the mediums one is clear and very easy to understand.

 

It's certainly not going to deceive any of the customers, is it?

[janie48]

I doubt that, for exaqmple I know that religious people tend to be less intelligent than non religious people. I don't think as much work has been done looking at those other groups, but I suspect it would be very similar to studies of religiosity and IQ.

 

How do you define intelligence,you would measure it on academic acchievment i suppose.You have only got to look at some of our politicians to know the answer to that.

 

Arthur Conan Doyle was a physician, and author of the some most famous crime novels ever written,yet he was into Spiritualism.

 

I could give you a long list of notable people with religious beliefs who are regarded as highly intelligent many of them are scientists.

 

I know i'm no intellectual,but i've come across a few thick atheists in my time.

[RootsBooster]

From a rationalist perspective, use of emotive language is innapropriate when it comes to debate, especially when it is used with a complete absence of any actual valid argument

 

I disagree, it may be pointless in some cases, but if it meets the criteria of the subject in question I don't see a problem. I don't see how it can be inappropriate.

Some people are passionate in their belief and opinions, it works both ways as well, not just one-sided.

[RootsBooster]

I wish people like you who bandy around the term 'strawman' would be at least as stringent with their own writings.

 

I have to agree with you in the subject of "straw men", there was a recent thread where I gave a like for like comparison of something and the opposing poster kept crying "straw man!" and refusing to respond to my comparison. Later on he gave his own comparison which was nothing like a like for like, the two examples he gave were incomparable in just about every way.

I called him out on his own straw man and he wouldn't have any of it. It certainly is annoying.

[robina]

In no way do I promise what I cant deliver, I dont window dress it, and there nothing in small print that you dont know, like the gent said, a lot of companies deliberately mislead, but just because there product is accepted then it isnt qiestioned, but I know what I.do is widely criticised, but I'm honest with people, I dont play on grief, as I said I give relevant proof and in no way see it as entertainment at the cosst of someones grief

[onewheeldave]

I disagree, it may be pointless in some cases, but if it meets the criteria of the subject in question I don't see a problem. I don't see how it can be inappropriate.

Some people are passionate in their belief and opinions, it works both ways as well, not just one-sided.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that, when engaged in debate, rationalists have a pronounced tendency to critisise emotive language used by their opponents.

 

That being the case, it is unreasonable for them to them overlook it in cases where it's being used to defend their argument.

 

Plus, of course, a rational debate should be based on rationality: emotive language is used to invoke an emotional response, hence why it's so prevalent amongst politicians, certain 'newspapers' etc and, in the form of propaganda, to persuade a nations young men to go to war when there is no rational justification.

 

Sadly, it is most often used by people to 'argue' a case when they have no actual reasons or arguments to back it up.

 

There's no problem whatsoever with being passionate about a point of view- ideally that would provide sufficient incentive for the person to actually think about that point of view and come up with some good rational points to back it up.

[onewheeldave]

I have to agree with you in the subject of "straw men", there was a recent thread where I gave a like for like comparison of something and the opposing poster kept crying "straw man!" and refusing to respond to my comparison. Later on he gave his own comparison which was nothing like a like for like, the two examples he gave were incomparable in just about every way.

I called him out on his own straw man and he wouldn't have any of it. It certainly is annoying.

 

Don't get annoyed- just stick with it

 

I find it very common that some 'rationalists' who love to cry 'strawman' in these debates are apparently totally blind to it when they're actually producing strawmen themselves.

 

A genuine rationalist, of course, if someone pointed out validly that they're just used a strawman, would simply simply thank that person and endeavour not to repeat the mistake: 'pseudo-rationalists', in contrast, consider themselves to be immune to making such mistakes, and, generally consider anyone who's disagreeing with them to be, by definition, rationally inept.

[onewheeldave]

In no way do I promise what I cant deliver, I dont window dress it, and there nothing in small print that you dont know, like the gent said, a lot of companies deliberately mislead, but just because there product is accepted then it isnt qiestioned, but I know what I.do is widely criticised, but I'm honest with people, I dont play on grief, as I said I give relevant proof and in no way see it as entertainment at the cosst of someones grief

 

No-ones saying that you're an entertainer.

 

The 'entertainment' thing was to do with a disclaimer (posterd prevously in the thread) used by some readers to protect thatselves from potential legal attacks by that minority of the 'rationalist' movement who routinely attack religion, spiritual movements, mediums, alternative health practitioners etc.

 

Not that there's anything wrong, of course, with criticising the claims of mediums, or constructing valid rational arguments against them- it's just that there's a certain minority of 'rationalists' who aren't content to debate, but go much further and claim that anyone using such services are 'stupid' and must be prevented from doing so 'for their own good'.

 

The idea is that, with such a disclaimer, the reader can continue to provide the service to their clients, without making any public claims about the existence of the dead or their abilities to communicate with the dead, and, thus, hopefully, avoiding trouble from that minority of 'rationalists' who seek to remove the rights of members of the public to use such a service.

[RainbowAngel]

getting the thread back on topic....

 

I highly recommend

 

Jessie for Tarot Readings

 

and

 

Pat Campbell for Spirit contact

 

both are amazing lovely ladies, PM me if you would like their numbers