Freethought & Rationalism Archive

john_v_h · 07-17-2003, 05:36 PM

San Francisco has decided to license fortunetellers. "Talking to dead people" is one of the ordinance's 45 definitions of fortunetelling. The city hopes to make about $46,000 in permit revenue.

Oh, and yes, the new regulation is supposed to prevent fraud.

Feather · 07-17-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_v_h

Oh, and yes, the new regulation is supposed to prevent fraud.

This is the part that made me laugh the most. How is it supposed to prevent something they're actively licensing?!

Deacon Doubtmonger · 07-17-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Feather
How is it supposed to prevent something they're actively licensing?!

The article noted above states that the city only wants to start paper trails on fortunetellers in the event customers want recourse against them and they try to weasel out of it; nothing was said about establishing criteria by which to judge their competence, or even whether or not they have the claimed abilities. This would be like allowing anyone to put "M.D." after their name as long as they got fingerprinted, posted their rates and issued receipts.

Of course, if these puke-wits really were psychic, such a license would be useless, as they could predict the police's every move and always be one step ahead of them.

My prediction (do I need a license to say this?): We won't be seeing any test-prep books called How to Pass the Fortuneteller Accuracy Rating Test (FART) anytime soon.

Deacon Doubtmonger

Calzaer · 07-17-2003, 11:16 PM

I actually think some sort of aptitude test would be a great thing.

Godless Dave · 07-18-2003, 04:53 AM

Yeah, give them an SAT-style bubble sheet but not the questions and tell them to fill in the correct answers.

HumanisTim · 07-19-2003, 02:56 PM

Could there end up being consitutional problems with this new law? Do many of these so called fortune tellers consider it to be part of their belief system. If so I'd imagine it would be much more difficult to target them. As that would fall under religious discrimation. I do believe the practice of fortune telling is fraud and should be stopped but I do question th legality of stopping or licsensing it.

jayh · 07-19-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_v_h
San Francisco has decided to license fortunetellers. "Talking to dead people" is one of the ordinance's 45 definitions of fortunetelling. The city hopes to make about $46,000 in permit revenue.

Oh, and yes, the new regulation is supposed to prevent fraud.

Here we go again. Meddling politicians where they simply don't belong.

Of course I guess the real reason is just another means of confiscating more money.

nogods4me · 07-21-2003, 06:48 AM

Well, if they really wanted to make some money, they could just fiome them all for false advertising or fraud. Seems to me that protecting the public from blatently fraudulent businesses is a more appropriate activity for government than regulating said frauds.

lowmagnet · 07-22-2003, 10:31 AM

Wow. Licensing con artists.

I know of nobody, beside the purely delusional, that considers his/her 'psychic' abilities real, or part of a religion. They may say that to avoid 'persecution' but one has to learn the con from somewhere. It's not a 'gift'.

Calzaer · 07-22-2003, 11:20 AM

Quote:

I know of nobody, beside the purely delusional, that considers his/her 'psychic' abilities real, or part of a religion.

Interesting manner of phrasing there. So if you ever do meet someone who claims real psychic abilities, or psychic abilities as part of a religion, they're automatically delusional? Can't win for trying on this one.

07-17-2003, 05:36 PM	#1
john_v_h Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 1,760	John Edward Will Need a License San Francisco has decided to license fortunetellers. "Talking to dead people" is one of the ordinance's 45 definitions of fortunetelling. The city hopes to make about $46,000 in permit revenue. Oh, and yes, the new regulation is supposed to prevent fraud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2003, 11:16 PM	#4
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	I actually think some sort of aptitude test would be a great thing.

07-18-2003, 04:53 AM	#5
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Yeah, give them an SAT-style bubble sheet but not the questions and tell them to fill in the correct answers.

07-19-2003, 02:56 PM	#6
HumanisTim Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Reading,PA Posts: 233	Could there end up being consitutional problems with this new law? Do many of these so called fortune tellers consider it to be part of their belief system. If so I'd imagine it would be much more difficult to target them. As that would fall under religious discrimation. I do believe the practice of fortune telling is fraud and should be stopped but I do question th legality of stopping or licsensing it.

07-21-2003, 06:48 AM	#8
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	Well, if they really wanted to make some money, they could just fiome them all for false advertising or fraud. Seems to me that protecting the public from blatently fraudulent businesses is a more appropriate activity for government than regulating said frauds.

07-22-2003, 10:31 AM	#9
lowmagnet Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Raleigh, NC Posts: 959	Wow. Licensing con artists. I know of nobody, beside the purely delusional, that considers his/her 'psychic' abilities real, or part of a religion. They may say that to avoid 'persecution' but one has to learn the con from somewhere. It's not a 'gift'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.