talkmagic.co.uk

Lord Freddie wrote:All this anti-paranormal stance that is so awfully fashionable these days ...

These days? It's a philosophical tradition that stretches back to the Greek Sophists of the 5th century BC.

Lord Freddie wrote:All this anti-paranormal stance

I think it's anti-conning-vunerable-and-innocent-members-of-the-public-out-of-their-hard-earned-cash-in-order-to-make-them-think-you-are-talking-to-their-gran stance being demonstrated here. Nothing more.

I cannot really see how magicians that do this and are happy for the audience to believe the magician just got in touch with spirits are ANY different from Achord etc.

People believe magicians have real powers. Conan Doyle believed Houdini could pass his body through solid objects. Many people who believe in psychic powers will, when confronted with a magic trick they cannot explain, opt for a paranormal explanation; does that make magic unethical?

We each of us find our own ethical boundaries. If a magician presents "séance theatre" in which a group of sitters get in touch with a spirit local to the venue and unrelated to the sitters, and the magician labels it entertainment, then what, genuinely, is the harm?

I agree there is a debate to be had here, but it ought to be an honest one, not one in which the subject matter is constantly being reframed to that of fleecing the grief-ridden. People will believe what they will, whatever a performer says or does.

Mr_Grue wrote:We each of us find our own ethical boundaries. If a magician presents "séance theatre" in which a group of sitters get in touch with a spirit local to the venue and unrelated to the sitters, and the magician labels it entertainment, then what, genuinely, is the harm?

Thank you! That is what we do.

Wow


Some interesting, some misguided and some downright assumptive comments here.

In the main, Magicians, mentalists and the like use the term entertainment in the description.

I know those who market themselves as real psychics (no-one here btw), those who do an evening, but allow the people to make up their own minds (such as Freddie, paul and co) and those who do recreations.

And to be honest, I have no issue with any of them as a premise or belief.

What I have issue with is the morals some (again no reference here, but I know some of you know the 'event' I'm reffering to) have in 'passing' on messages from the dead etc.

Paul is one of the most ethical charlatans I know, and I use the term Charlatan in the entertainment sense. I can't comment on Freddie or Stephen as I haven't seen them. But Paul I have, many many times.

Always interesting though how people are happy to sit and be opinionated on a forum without knowing the facts and suchlike ... Armchair debunkers eh.

I wonder how many of these 'its not ethical' its wrong peeps, have been to a show, a 'real' psychic, a spiritualist church etc etc. Unless you compare the differences, and study the genre as a whole, you don't really have an informed opinion based on see-ing one or two people.


But I'm guessing my opinion isn't informed as I don't know the answers I'm basing mine on lol xxx

Evie x

screwystewie wrote:

Lord Freddie wrote:All this anti-paranormal stance

I think it's anti-conning-vunerable-and-innocent-members-of-the-public-out-of-their-hard-earned-cash-in-order-to-make-them-think-you-are-talking-to-their-gran stance being demonstrated here. Nothing more.

But everyone who you claim is doing this has already said that's not what they do.

Telling people that what you do is NLP/body language is lying just as much as all this. Probably more so from knowing what guys like Paul and Freddie do... It's just more fashionable...

It seems to me that the performers who work in this area are being open and honest and none of them can be said to extort or con anyone – in fact, to claim they are doing so can be construed as libel and as such will not be tolerated unless there is hard and fast evidence to support that claim. Any moral stance needs to be from those who are on solid moral ground themselves and, on the basis of those without sin casting the first stone, perhaps purveyors of porn aren’t in the best position to criticise anyone?

The wise words of Mandrake speaks! Thank you for understanding us.

Now that that's settled down , I think only Jon and Paul got to answer the original question before we descended into "CHARLATAN!" vs "SATANIST!"

From personal experience, even staunch sceptics can have profound experiences from readings/divination (I include myself in this). Now it goes without saying that my wife can deliver me a 100% accurate bespoke reading since no one knows me or my circumstances better, but what about the Psych Dr confronting his inner turmoil over a deceased friend that he wasn't even aware he was carrying: I wondered if any practitioners have had sceptical audience members have similarly profound experiences. Not demanding examples really, (I know Freddie mentioned Dale's feather story which I read in another thread) just an idea of how common it might be.

Erwin wrote:I wondered if any practitioners have had sceptical audience members have similarly profound experiences

I saw Paul Bell at The Falstaffe Experience, Stratford Upon Avon, not too long ago. The audience was a mixture of skeptics, non believers, true believers, a Mandrake and just about every other category. At the end of the evening it was the hardened skeptic who had the most profound experience which he said had shaken him to the core but not in a bad way.

All right my idea of the difference between an entertainer and a charlatan.

Firstly all magicians, mentalists, bizzarists, whatever, lie. That's what we do, it's the foundation of a magic act, we all lie to our audience, we all mislead them.

There are no real ghosts, N.L.P. doesn't work, the Tarot does not reveal the future, and you can not find out some ones P.I.N. by looking at their hand or eye movement.

None of you have supernatural powers nor are you an expert or even slightly educated in 'psychology' also the hand is not faster than the eye.

Claiming to be able to do something you can't actually do does not make you a charlatan.

Promising people something you can't deliver and then charging them makes you a charlatan.

The people who go to Pauls show are paying money for a spooky wired ghost show, he provides that so he's an entertainer. People go to John Edwards show to contact thier dead relatives he can't provide that so he cons them, he's a charlatan.

If you're presenting a demonstration of your mind reading abilities you're an entertainer, if you're charging people to read their spouces minds to find out if s/he's faithfull you're a charlatan.

Claim what you like, be a psychic, a psychological expert, have god or the devil talk on your behalf, or just say 'it's only a trick'. Just don't promise people something you can't deliver, and if you do don't charge them.

Now I know there are other grey areas (mostly around shut-eyes) but I can't be arsed getting into that right now.

Mr_Grue wrote:I agree there is a debate to be had here, but it ought to be an honest one, not one in which the subject matter is constantly being reframed to that of fleecing the grief-ridden. People will believe what they will, whatever a performer says or does.

I agree. I also think that we should refrain from casting everyone in the same light and making assumptions. I dont just assume that EVERY psychic entertainer is a charlatan, that would be unfair. All Im saying is that i am very skeptical in these matters.

Id like to adress a couple of comments that were aimed at the skeptical posters on this thread. I think being fair should work on both sides.

Freddie wrote that all this anti-paranormal stance is from wannabe Derrens who've read his book.

I cant speak for everybody, but my own personal skeptisism goes back to my teens and early 20s - long before Id even heard of Derren.

Harris wrote that some comments were ''downright assumptive'' and that its ''interesting how people are happy to sit and be opinionated on a forum without knowing the facts....armchair debunkers''.

How do you know this ? Do you actually know if any of us have been to see a 'real' psychic or sat in on a spiritulist church session ? Or are you just being ''downright assumptive without knowing the facts'' ?
Just for the record, yes I have seen supposed 'real' psychics, and yes I have been to numerous spiritulist meetings. In fact Ive been interested in aspects of the paranormal probably as long as magic. I studied (in my teens and early twenties) divination including crystal gazing, palmistry and Tarot - in fact at one time I even did readings. I also studied other areas such as witchcraft, demonology, and ritual magic.
The reason I dont usually mention these things on here is because they always end up in a heated debate. Just because i dont talk about it doesnt mean I dont know anything about it.

I think its important to discuss these sorts of things on here. It should be made clear, especially for people browsing the forum, that we do not advocate charlatism. Im sure guys like Paul Bell and others do their act with tact and taste. I have no problem with that. Im sure we all agree that there is a certain line that shouldnt be crossed. Im also pretty sure that line is in a slightly different place for each of us, which is what will make an intersting (and adult) debate

jim

If ya gonna quote me Jim, make sure you do so properly.

I mention in the next paragrapgh, that as I don't know the answers to who has or has not seen them, my opinion is just as invalid as the opinions I'm saying are invalid ...

Lol

E x

Harris wrote:If ya gonna quote me Jim, make sure you do so properly.
I mention in the next paragrapgh, that as I don't know the answers to who has or has not seen them, my opinion is just as invalid as the opinions I'm saying are invalid ...Lol E x

Yes I know what you said in the last paragraph of your post. Which, to be fair, does make the comment about whether or not folk have seen a real psychic etc more light hearted.

Its difficult on forums such as these to get points across without them being misread. My quotes from yourself and Freddies post wasnt meant to single you out, or cause an arguement. It was merely to illustrate a point that usually occurs on threads such as these. There are one or two members here that tend to chime in on such conversations with the nonsense that people should learn about certain things, or try things for themselves before commenting. In my post i was simply trying to show that were not all daft and uneducated in this sort of thing.

I find these sorts of threads very interesting, in fact Ive always found anything to do with the paranormal extremely fascinating

jim

Oh I dont doubt a percentage are 'educated' (meant not as a jibe but as a statement as to how you can define educated in such matters), but lets be honest there are many who will just chime in for the sake of having a row, safe in the knowledge they are sat in their anonymous homes, with anonymous faces playing armchair opinions.

Im as light hearted as they come.

E x