Timeline for Why are divination services, psychics and all that stuff not considered fraud?

7 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jun 15 at 20:59	comment	added	Barmar		@Tom Alex Jones also thought (or at least claimed to think) that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, so he's hardly the standard we should use.
Jun 15 at 16:31	vote	accept	CommunityBot
Jun 15 at 16:31	comment	added	user17230		Very interesting, thanks for giving such a detailed and grounded answer.
Jun 15 at 5:40	comment	added	Tom		Fair point, but I would like to know more about where the distinction is drawn. I think it's silly to rely on the advice of a "psychic," but other people rely on e.g. Alex Jones or Rudi Giuliani (to choose two names in the news lately); or Stephen M. Calk, who knowingly relied on Paul Manafort's misrepresentations of his own situation to justify millions in bank loans. I guess my point is that it does not seem clear what that standard means, and I was hoping you would elaborate beyond the trivial proof that there must be substance somewhere for it to warrant a bullet point.
Jun 15 at 4:50	comment	added	bdb484		@Tom I think we have to start with the assumption that if the court's recognized people's right "to rely on whatever advice they like," this element wouldn't exist.
Jun 14 at 22:59	comment	added	Tom		Could you elaborate on the failure of element 8? Or, indeed, element 5? To simply assert it's not reasonable seems very much like begging the question, and it's not clear why a person wouldn't have a right to rely on whatever advice they like.
Jun 14 at 22:28	history	answered	bdb484	CC BY-SA 4.0