26 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoExcept that like I say, these people come across as really being able to pass concepts across to the bereaved (phsycology? I don't know)(gullible and hopefull audiences?):- if they are not true, they should certainly be brought to account for deception.
Perfectly analogy with believing in God, this stuff about believing in communication with dead people.
If you don't believe in mediums or communication with the departed, why would you believe a God? It's in the same level of faith.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by snowinscotlandWhether they should be "brought to account" for deception depends on a number of factors.
Except that like I say, these people come across as really being able to pass concepts across to the bereaved (phsycology? I don't know)(gullible and hopefull audiences?):- if they are not true, they should certainly be brought to account for deception.
1. If deception is not significantly harmful and may be doing some good then should it be stopped. (I am in no way making any claims that mediums fit this description, merely suggesting that it might be possible).
2. Can you prove that the mediums are being deceptive and that they do not believe what they are doing?
3. Should all religious people be "brought to account" on similar charges?
4. Should some religious people who are known to be deceptive be "brought to account" on similar charges eg some 'faith healers' are clearly deceiving their followers and may be causing significant harm in the process.
5. To what extent are the victims being willingly deceived?
6. Who should make the decision?
27 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the last of your questions would lead to the others being answered.
Whether they should be "brought to account" for deception depends on a number of factors.
1. If deception is not significantly harmful and may be doing some good then should it be stopped. (I am in no way making any claims that mediums fit this description, merely suggesting that it might be possible).
2. Can you prove that the mediums are being decepti ...[text shortened]... what extent are the victims being willingly deceived?
6. Who should make the decision?
6. Who should make the decision?
If someone came to the realisation that they had suffered injury or loss, then could they not ask the courts to consider the matter, and prosocute or sue for compensation. The problem would be what was the injury or loss, and how had it come about.
If a medium for example charges for a session, but as 'entertainment', say, then I doubt there could be much comeback. Someone who messes with the individuals mind eg a hypnotist, would be at a greater risk I would suggest.
If the individual suffered greater injury, eg the individual had for the interim been happy with the deception and genuinely believed they had been in touch with the spirits, but the medium later said that they had made it all up, then that would be cruel indeed, but legally culpable? mmmmmm
'The law is an ass.'
I can't see it happening, until it does of course. To see Colin Fry for example saying things like 'your [deceased] father is standing beside me telling you to take care of your mother and sisters'; how is that challangeable?
