ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: How did the police do?
Acceptable. Belief systems are not their wheel house, and they stayed neutral. 8 24.24%
Meh. Maybe add something on the scientific efficacy of clairvoyance. 10 30.30%
Unacceptable. By not speaking against it, they sound like they support it. 14 42.42%
Not for me to judge. I trust they do their best in these situations. 1 3.03%
Planet X. Because i knew youíd vote Planet X. 0 0%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 10th December 2016, 08:45 AM   #1
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,015
The Denver Police on Clairvoyants

I just read an account of another clairvoyant who milked their customer out of thousands of dollars.

In the story, the Denver Police gave the following advice:

Quote:
Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they canít shape it. And donít pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.

Personally I think that was ok (I voted 1). Their job is to protect the public and enforce the laws, not opine on belief systems. But I was wondering how others felt about that police statement?
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 09:08 AM   #2
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,418
Unacceptable as it supports the idea that people can see the future, therefore paying for such a service is also supported. It's just saying not to pay them before your reading.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 09:10 AM   #3
William Parcher
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,462
They didn't stay neutral, and they did opine. Do you have a link, please?
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 09:30 AM   #4
William Parcher
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,462
I found the article.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...-issue-warning
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 09:48 AM   #5
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,576
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Wow. The "clairvoyant" wanted $55k for "candles and crystals", and their mark didn't smell a rat?

Methinks the Denver Police could have issued a stronger warning, and said at least that there's no scientific evidence of clairvoyance, not to say that all clairvoyance is a scam.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:13 AM   #6
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Well, they did say "if". I would have preferred the use of subjunctive were, as in "Even if someone were clairvoyant...". But their statement can be read as a skeptical bit of advice that should be obvious.

I voted "meh".
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:19 AM   #7
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
It is not in the police's wheelhouse to declare belief systems valid or invalid. That would be "thoughtcrime"


It is not in the police's wheelhouse to prevent a person offering otherwise legal activities as a product, nor to set the price for any such services, nor tie such services to any expectation of actual future performance. Taken to a logical extreme that would outlaw higher education.

If the alleged clairvoyant crossed some other line of financial shenanigans the police and courts get involved, then it's an ordinary civic crime issue. That happens because scammers get into clairvoyance as a part of the craft of conning, not the other way around.

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 10th December 2016 at 10:22 AM.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:20 AM   #8
William Parcher
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 25,462
"Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they canít shape it."

For example, a clairvoyant may see that you will die in a car accident tomorrow, and you will, but they can't actually stop you from driving tomorrow.


"And donít pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment."

For example, when it comes to vaccinating your children, you should not pay up front. Don't pay until you know that they didn't get diseased and also weren't harmed by the vaccine.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:25 AM   #9
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
"Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it."

For example, a clairvoyant may see that you will die in a car accident tomorrow, and you will, but they can't actually stop you from driving tomorrow.


"And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment."

For example, when it comes to vaccinating your children, you should not pay up front. Don't pay until you know that they didn't get diseased and also weren't harmed by the vaccine.
You're working it too hard. I don't think this thread bends that far.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:34 AM   #10
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Wow. The "clairvoyant" wanted $55k for "candles and crystals", and their mark didn't smell a rat?

Methinks the Denver Police could have issued a stronger warning, and said at least that there's no scientific evidence of clairvoyance, not to say that all clairvoyance is a scam.
"If" is the biggest word in the English language. You can hide just about anything behind one. In this case, "if" protects the police from trampling the rights or affecting the income of law abiding citizens offering legal business practices in the jurisdiction.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 10:42 AM   #11
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I can legally offer my services as a fortune teller, provided I operate my business in accordance with local practice: report income, pay taxes, register trade names as needed, pay employees and do withholding or whatever. Most of that's unneeded if it's me doing business under my own name and taking cash in trade for what is ultimately an exercise in free speech of an artistic nature.

I don't even need to conform to any trade licensing or approval. I can make up my own nonsense out of whole cloth, but that's harder to sell. It helps to have something known to market with. But if I sell "Jedi Secrets Fortune Telling" Disney gets to sue my ass.

And the police still don't get involved, even with unreported income and tax evasion added to the copyright infringement.

When it crosses into fraud or embezzlement complaints, then they come knocking.

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 10th December 2016 at 10:52 AM.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 11:48 AM   #12
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,257
I voted "Meh. Maybe add something on the scientific efficacy of clairvoyance" because in the general case I think that anyone working for the authorities should stick to objective facts, not their opinions either way. And 'something other scientific efficacy of clairvoyance' would be an unequivocable 'every piece of evidence produced with even a reasonable standard of scientific rigour'.

But I don't like the phrasing of the quote, it does imply that some people do have clairvoyant powers and in my opinion is not impartial.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 01:13 PM   #13
Bladesman87
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 162
Quote:
Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it. And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.
I think, semantically, this is an interesting comment in that it does make a statement about the abilities of clairvoyants i.e. that they can't shape the future.

But this is, of course, only subject to the claims of specific practitioners. There are certainly those that claim the future is in flux and foreknowledge can affect outcome.

If a clairvoyant tells you you'll be in a car accident next Tuesday, so then you stay in bed all day, they will undoubtedly claim they "shaped the future" in that way.

So I thought the "meh" option was closest to my thoughts. It's not a bad statement, but it's not clear enough nor does it go quite far enough.
Bladesman87 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2016, 01:22 PM   #14
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Denver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,015
Why do you think the police busted the clairvoyant?

Probably not because it sounded like clairvoyance was a scam. There are plenty around operating 'legally'.

Was it because they did not provide the promised service? Possibly that pushed it more into the scam or rip-off category, so they could take action.

But I think it may have been that other quote:

Quote:
...when the clairvoyant began telling the man that bad things were going to happen to him if he did not pay, he contacted police.
So was it the threat that allowed the police to take action, and not the ridiculous amount of money being asked with (as yet) no service provided?

ETA: As I re-read, I'm not even sure the clairvoyant was busted at all.
__________________
Dreams inevitably lead to hideous implosions -- Invader Zim

Last edited by Denver; 10th December 2016 at 01:23 PM.
Denver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 10:29 AM   #15
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,283
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
Well, they did say "if". I would have preferred the use of subjunctive were, as in "Even if someone were clairvoyant...". But their statement can be read as a skeptical bit of advice that should be obvious.

I voted "meh".
Agree. Or use wording something like: "Even if you believe that someone is clairvoyant, be skeptical/cautious and..."
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 12:37 PM   #16
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,257
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Agree. Or use wording something like: "Even if you believe that someone is clairvoyant, be skeptical/cautious and..."
Best wording, and accurate.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2016, 12:47 PM   #17
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
So according to the police it's OK to give a clairvoyant $50K for predicting the sun will rise in the morning, as long as you wait until it's up there in the sky before going to the bank.

Perhaps a better wording would have been, "Clairvoyants who are not fraudulent are deluded, so don't give them your money."
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 04:13 PM   #18
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 845
Unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Denver View Post
I just read an account of another clairvoyant who milked their customer out of thousands of dollars.

In the story, the Denver Police gave the following advice:

Quote:
ďEven if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they canít shape it,Ē DPD warned on Facebook. ďAnd donít pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.Ē

Personally I think that was ok (I voted 1). Their job is to protect the public and enforce the laws, not opine on belief systems. But I was wondering how others felt about that police statement?

Given what is known about "clairvoyants," "psychics," and gypsy scams, I find the Denver Police Department's statement to be inaccurate, incomplete, and therefore, unacceptable.

According to the Denver Police Department's facebook post, "ITíS FRAUDAY: CLAIRVOYANT SCAM" posted December 9 at 12:07pm, the situation is based on a report of fraud by computer, that was filed:
Quote:
On November 15, 2016, officers responded to a report of fraud by computer.

It would be interesting to have more details about this report, such as the "clairvoyant's" name, where the "clairvoyant's" physical location is/was, and more details about the (alleged) fraud.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 04:35 PM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,130
People who claim to be clairvoyant, or who offer clairvoyant services, are citizens, just like any other. They are entitled to not have their beliefs or legal business dealings undermined or delegitimized by the pronouncements of government agents.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 05:42 PM   #20
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
People who claim to be clairvoyant, or who offer clairvoyant services, are citizens, just like any other. They are entitled to not have their beliefs or legal business dealings undermined or delegitimized by the pronouncements of government agents.

I agree. That's what First Amendment, (protected) freedom of speech is for, and the protection of one's civil rights.

But free speech has limitations (in the United States), such as an illegal act or advocacy of an illegal act, fighting words, or incitement, commercial speech, False Statements of facts like in defamation/libel/slander, child pornography, and obscenity.

There is the harm principle and free speech that should not be protected free speech.

This instance cited in the OP of a Denver Police Department report may constitute an illegal act- not protected free speech- but that apparently has yet to been determined.

I find the wording of the Denver PD statement regarding "clairvoyants" troubling.

The Denver PD statement on facebook of: "Even if someone is clairvoyant" could lead someone to infer that someone is "clairvoyant" -- but there is no evidence that anyone possesses "clairvoyant" abilities.

And, when the Denver PD continued with, "get the product first and then provide payment." That could potentially be problematic because it could either delve into unprotected First Amendment free speech, and/or could be at a point where a crime has already occurred.

For me, the DPD wording could've been better.
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

Last edited by Ernie M; 14th December 2016 at 07:24 PM. Reason: Added a sentence about harm principle.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 09:18 PM   #21
Ernie M
Muse
 
Ernie M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 845
I came away feeling a sense that the Denver Police Department may have inadvertently trivialized a (alleged) crime by the word choice of their facebook post: "ITíS FRAUDAY: CLAIRVOYANT SCAM"

I understand the posting date was Friday (December 9, 2016) and perhaps that led to the decision to say "FRAUDAY," [Friday + fraud = Frauday] although the post stated officers responded to a report of fraud by computer- of which was a Tuesday (November 15, 2016).

While an investigation should result in the finding of whether a crime(s) occurred or did not occur, to me, stating "IT'S FRAUDAY" is a flippant remark that can be demeaning and shaming to the (potential) victim.

What message does that send to other victims when the people they would turn to for help end up broadcasting a public, trivializing statement-- "IT'S FRAUDAY"?
__________________
paranormalstateillustrated.com

Taking a close look at what you see and hear
on a "Real Life. Drama." TV series.

Last edited by Ernie M; 14th December 2016 at 09:56 PM. Reason: added a couple of apostrophes.
Ernie M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 09:37 PM   #22
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,550
I voted "Acceptable," but I would have chosen, "Genius." They phrased their statement in a way that didn't turn believers off or make them hate police even more. They gave the right advice within the wrong belief system. It's like when Oskar Schindler convinced Ralph Fiennes not to shoot that kid ... and then he did anyway. It's not a perfect analogy.

ETA: Just read how they publicized it. Probably undid a lot of good the message would otherwise have done.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 14th December 2016 at 09:42 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 10:03 PM   #23
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Wow. The "clairvoyant" wanted $55k for "candles and crystals", and their mark didn't smell a rat?

Methinks the Denver Police could have issued a stronger warning, and said at least that there's no scientific evidence of clairvoyance, not to say that all clairvoyance is a scam.
Still is though!!!!! I say similar often!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.