I know of several governing bodies being set up not in the way I have mentioned, but will safe guard psychics/mediums/healers and will be the bodies fault for fraudelent workers on their books, and no it wont just be all sceptical or all believers on the governing bodies, equal amount, and whats wrong with fixing a price why is that illegal, if its set up in the company then what is the problem? and taxpayers wont be paying for these they will be private companies people who refuse to sign up will be the ones where the law will come down on them heavily, they will have no protection, but that is up to them When I have had healing in the past I checked to see if they were registered or not, and l'm sure many other people do this before receiving any treatment! Its in your best interests to do so.
healers and all light workers can offer their services for free but not all want to do this because of giving their time they expect a charge for this.
I have a slightly different take.
With a leap of faith it might be concievable to imagine that self-regulating mediums (or media?) would help to stamp out deliberate fraud.
The problem comes with the nature of mediumship. The accepted principles of (for want of a better term) 'honest mediumship' that a regulator would apply could still be (legally) seen as fraudulent, even if unintentional.
I'm not a legal expert, but when I was writing about the repeal of the FMA my take of the situation was that where, previously, the FDA had not assumed that mediumship was a fraudulent activity in itself but the new legislation does assume mediumship is fraudulent by its nature.
My reading might be off-mark, but that would provide a major stumbling block for any form of self- (or indeed other-) regulation.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
"If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind." - John Stuart Mill
My reading of the new law is that it's quite fair. It boils down to "if you are complained against and don't provide suitable redress, be prepared to go to court and prove that you provided the service". That, really, is what is scaring the psychics - they can no longer hide behind saying "don't take it seriously, it's all a bit of fun". If I had paid what they ask, I'd be very angry to be told "it's all a bit of fun", wouldn't you?
It puts the charlatans on the same footing as any other service provider, the difference is that most providers give you something concrete.
Please, Ive had many dealing with Mr Roll. I have watched all his videos and found incredibly blatent lies thoughout. Stuff which can be independantly verified by anyone with an ounce of sense. He lies on purpose to "prove" his point. If that is how he gets the answers he wants, then what possible use if his information? I call him an idiot because that is exactly what he is, I nor anyone should "fear" what he says. Pitied would be a more apt description.
Firstly, as a fully fledged enemy agent, or “woo” as you so cutely refer to people like me, you might be surprised to know that I share many of your views.
Enemy agent? Not at all faewitch. More like confused member of the flock, as it were. Sceptics do not hate, loathe or detest believers as a general rule. We would just like to show them the many ways they may be mistaken, so they are not taken advantage of. Its philanthropical in nature, not adversarial.
Fae, what exactly are these things you could show sceptics? And if they are so convincing, why haven't the woo community come forward with them before now?
As for being attacked for having opinions I can only assume you spoke to some deadheads. Personally I would never attack anyone for holding a belief - merely try to educate them in the cold, hard, proveable facts.
The only time I would get a bit shirty is if you were to sit there and flagrantly ignore facts because they don't fit your belief system.
"I believe that ghost hunting is a sham, just look at Yvette Fielding being caught out on MH" 'Ah but that was only once! Obviously all the other times something like that happened it had to be genuine!!' "But why couldn't it have happened for the other times too?" 'Because it didn't. The MH team obviously werent getting anything so Yvette decided to spice it up herself' "Ok, so why is it so hard to imagine that maybe they never get anything? And maybe 'heavy breathing' type sounds are always one of the team exhaling loudly deliberately" 'Because ghosts exist! They don't need to do that!' "So why did Yvette do it then?" 'Because they weren't getting anything!' "So they were faking it? They were faking this location being haunted yes?" 'No! They just didnt get anything when they went. Ghosts exist and they always find them!' "But maybe the noise we hear is normally one of the team?" 'No! Ghosts exist! It's the ghosts making noises!' "But why is it that when Yvette is caught out it's just Yvette doing it, but when she's not caught out it must be a ghost?" 'Why doesn't science accept ghosts as real! You're twisting my words to make them fit your beliefs!'
That is the basics of a conversation I had with someone concerning Most Haunted. If anything, it was the bliever who was getting more angry. She ended up tying herself in knots and then pointing the finger at wicked evil science which gives us the cameras with which we can make s*itty TV like MH in the first place.
I didn't need to get angry as I was dealing with facts.
Fae, sorry to drag it up again - but the comment about scientists being "closed-minded" is perhaps a little bit off target.
We are told it is great to be open-minded, and people come out with buzz-phrases like "Your mind is like a parachute, it works best when it's open" etc but really - that's a very limiting view.
When I meet a new person it is good for me to be open-minded. After all, why should I judge someone on just their physical appearance, race or anything else? I shouldn't and should remain open-minded.
However, if I was cooking for someone and decided to "keep an open mind" about putting arsenic in the food because despite all the evidence to the contrary I thought it might make it taste better - would you want to eat the food that I had prepared with an "open-mind"?
If there are facts against something, it is clearly ridiculous to "keep an open mind". Therefore, if someone tells me the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth - should I "keep an open mind" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
There is such a thing as being closed-minded yes, but scientists are not close minded, they're merely "informed"
Hello again....and thank you for the welcome. *sigh of relief*. In response, Bob, and in the spirit of hopefully a communal exchange of knowledge and experience, I would like to suggest that us woos may possibly be able to show you science bods a useful thing or twenty.
I'm sure we could help you all experience a few unexplainables, if you were willing to play, and it would be really interesting to hear what your explanation might be.
Sure, go ahead, Im all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
We might be able to show you guys a few ways maybe *you* are mistaken? (There's a hard line Physics PhD student somewhere muttering "How DARE she....!! She's a WOO!!...I can hear him!)
Can you provide an example?
I'm sorry if I sounded a little defensive, but my past run ins with sciency types have been along the lines of "Grab the matches....she's got opinions!!!!!" Not pleasant at all. Getting reasonable conversation out of scientists had been hard, but here I am, finally.
Your in luck, I am familiar with science Ask your questions.
Thank you for worrying that we might be taken advantage of. Not in any Universe, honey!;D What most people, including sadly, most New Agers, don't take time to learn is that one of the most inportant habits anyone on a serious spiritual path must learn and apply rigorously is to questions everything and everyone, without exception. I will expand on how and why if asked...I don't want to bore you and bang on about esoteric stuff if no-one is listening, but some of us are not as frail as you might expect........
Well its nice that you question somethings, but what about your beliefs? Surely you have questioned those to see if they are factual? If so which particular brand of woo do you subscribe to and why?
Factual spiritual beliefs. Not sure they exist at all in our dense reality, unless you're talking about good old fashioned Catholic miracles
Catholic miracles are not factual. They are a tool of the organised church to promote a religion and uphold or reaffirm a faith. They are used as examples by an overseer to maintain a hold over the credulous. (much like mediums and their ectoplasm images)
, where we can actually measure the amount of blood cried by the Black Madonna statue in the little church in Brazil.
Statues do not cry blood, stone, marble, plaster or any other construction material used in the creation of statues does not, nor ever has contained a vascular system. If this statue was seen to appear to be crying tears of blood I would posit the blood was placed there by a regular human hoaxer. Who tested this "blood"? how was this "blood" different from human or animal blood? What is it about this blood that makes it a miracle apart from it allegedly stemming from an inanimate object?
How would I show that a belief is factual? To me, I believe it, therefore it is a fact.
For it to be a fact, it must be apparent to anyone, not just yourself. If it is not, it is merely self conviction, stemming from personal bias.
I have intuited information,
I have no idea what that means, can you clarify?
talked very clearly with spirits,
Yes imagination is a wonderful thing.
How did you know it was a ghost? How do you even define "ghost"?
regressed to past lives
Like I said, Imagination is a wonderful thing.
, and meditated into other worlds that run parallel with ours.
See the previous two comments above.
For the moment, I can't prove any of this to you...
For the moment? ;D
your proof is perhaps your own responsibility, as with your spiritual path, if you choose to have one.
Actually the burden of proof is upon those making the claims, not those doubting them.
It's kinda like the woo groupies who want all the work done for them, when it clearly can't be. When I question it for myself, I know the safe perameters in which to do spiritual work , which I always am very careful about, and I check and recheck the information in as many ways as I can, sometimes leaving it for a while and asking again. I don't feel that I can give you any more information than that just now without you thinking I'm a total nut, as your experience of what I'm talking about is limited....and I DON'T mean that in any derogatory was, I promise you.
To be honest, you are completely unaware of my level of experience. I can assure you I am quite well versed in all manner of woo belief.
I almost wasn't going to answer this last bit, but why not, eh? My brand of woo, as you so sweetly put it...., is pagan, faery witchcraft, to be precise. It's an ancient tradition, and it took me along time to find exactly how I should work. And why? Cos I'm half faery, that's why, and they came to get me...*wink!*
Pagan belief, is I think, anthropologically interesting. Understanding how primative peoples made sense of their world is all very interesting, however modern paganism is a reinvention. Little documented data remains. I suspect modern paganism is very innacurate compared to the older variety. Witchcraft? as in herbalism, midwifery and curatives? or spells etc? or is "faery witchcraft" something else altogether? Am I reading this right, you claim to be half "mythological creature"?
Maybe there is a physiological way to measure spirituality, or spiritual responsiveness,
like the work done in tracing acupuncture meridians with radioactive tracers...will dig out the link if you are interested
Work done, is not "facts" made. It is just as likely to fail as it is to succeed. I know the study. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3008958 but what do you think the studies results mean? That accupuncture works? That meridians are real?
...like measuring brain wave frequency in meditation, which is really well documented
Im not sure what your point is here? Do you assume science does not know of, or understand the mechanism behind meditation? That the fact that some people can mediate is somehow, magical?
....just a thought....I'm thinking out loud here, so don't shout at me please!! But then, to measure a person's responsiveness, wouldn't we need to measure what they are responding to? Or would we?
I dont shout, youll know when I do itll all be in capslock
It is important to have the facts - otherwise what we are buying into may be a load of horses*it.
In regards to "your proof is perhaps your own responsibility, as with your spiritual path, if you choose to have one." it is impossible to prove a negative.
Bertrand Russell points out that if he believed that there was a teapot orbiting the sun in our solar syste, but it was too small to be seen by even our most powerful telescopes, everyone should surely have to accept this belief as it could not be disproved.
However, if you were to state belief in this, people would call you a nutter. Because spiritualism/paganism is a "religion", people are expected not to pass this judgement on people who hold these beliefs. So if it was part of my religion that I believed in this teapot, no one would be allowed to doubt me but as I'm not religious they can?
There are some huge double standards applied here and it really would be entirely on me to PROVE that the teapot existed - not up to anyone else to prove that it did not exist.
Therefore the burden of proof is never on the skeptic, but on the believer.
After all, if a scientist says to you that you could shoot yourself in the head with no ill effect, you would want the proof rather than believing it blindly.
That's all we ask of you - show us the proof so our belief is guided and not misguided