Randi exploits the skeptics just like Sylvia exploits the grieving.

[EGarrett]

Randi takes money from the skeptics, in this way, he is exploiting the skeptical community in the name of debunking.

Discuss.

(I got this, um, interesting statement from a YouTube video)

[Mark A. Siefert]

Errrr... How?

[EGarrett]

Randi takes money from the skeptics, in this way, he is exploiting the skeptical community in the name of debunking.

(I will edit this into the OP)

[CFLarsen]

Why is "debunking" "exploiting"?

[Jackalgirl]

By that reasoning, anyone who is supported by donations is "exploiting" the people who donate.

This does not jive with the meaning of "exploit", which is (as I understand it, while lazily refusing to go to dictionary.com or somesuch) to take unfair advantage of someone.

To the best of my knowledge, Randi does not use donations for any purposes other than what he states, and the JREF's financial information is readily accessable (since they are a non-profit). Therefore, I fail to see how any exploitation is possible.

Unless the OP video is suggesting that Randi is "taking" money in some other way? I.e., sneaking into their houses like some kind of Anti-Claus? Do you have any links to said video?

[clerihew80]

This statement is either a non sequitur, or the person who wrote it is operating under an absurdly broad definition of the word "exploit." Randi addresses his business primarily towards skeptics. Sylvia addresses hers partly towards the grieving, but to say that they're both exploitative is ridiculous. Does Randi, for example, charge $700 for a 30 minute phone consultation on the chicanery of Uri Geller? Does he wait until skeptics are at their most vulnerable to swoop down and sell them books and merchandise? Does he peddle easy answers or false comfort or a soporific philosophy to troubled, ignorant people?

[CFLarsen]

Unless the OP video is suggesting that Randi is "taking" money in some other way? I.e., sneaking into their houses like some kind of Anti-Claus? Do you have any links to said video?

I really hope you accidentally left out a "Santa" there... ;)

[Jackalgirl]

I really hope you accidentally left out a "Santa" there... ;)

Heh! It wasn't accidental, but I didn't mean you, either. : )

[osmosis]

Randi "exploits" skeptics in exactly the same way any author "exploits" his readers, or any entertainer "exploits" his audience.

That is to say, not at all. Noone forced or coerced me to buy any of his books that I own, just as noone forces us to watch him on TV. To suggest otherwise is to redefine the meaning of the word exploit.

[Walter Wayne]

Randi takes money from the skeptics, in this way, he is exploiting the skeptical community in the name of debunking.

Discuss.

(I got this, um, interesting statement from a YouTube video)Except what Sylvia Browne does isn't consider exploting them because she gets something from the grieving; it is exploiting them because the service they pay for (talking to the dead) isn't the one they get (cold reading), and they ask for the service because they are vulnerable at the time.

If someone did come along who could talk to the dead, would it be exploitation to offer the service to grieving? No.

Randi offers a service, which he is capable of providing and does provide.

Walt

[Lothian]

Taking money is not enough to trigger the term exploiting. Someone selling you something for a fair price is not exploiting.

Dictionary.com

Exploiting- To make use of selfishly or unethically.

For exploiting we need the selfish or unethical element.

Pretending to speak to the dead for financial gain is unethical.

What does Randi do for money that is selfish or unethical ?

[CFLarsen]

Except what Sylvia Browne does isn't consider exploting them because she gets something from the grieving;

I'm not sure I read you right here.

Are you saying that Sylvia Browne does something that isn't exploitation?

If so, what is that?

[Walter Wayne]

I'm not sure I read you right here.

Are you saying that Sylvia Browne does something that isn't exploitation?

If so, what is that?I am saying what characteristic of her work makes it exploitation.

[CFLarsen]

I am saying what characteristic of her work makes it exploitation.

And I am asking you: Is there anything she does that is not exploitation?

If so, what is that?

[brodski]

I am saying what characteristic of her work makes it exploitation.

The fact that the “service” which she claims to offer- and eth service which she charges for- is not the service which she actually offers. She’s a fraud, plain and simple, and that fraud makes her exploitative.
What makes it worse is that she offers false hope to grieving and vulnerable people and families- for profit, that is especially exploitative.

[Shrike]

Except what Sylvia Browne does isn't consider exploting them because she gets something from the grieving; it is exploiting them because the service they pay for (talking to the dead) isn't the one they get (cold reading), and they ask for the service because they are vulnerable at the time.

Not to butt in, but if you quote the entire sentence instead of just the part before the semi-colon, it makes much more sense and answers your question.

[alfaniner]

Why is "debunking" "exploiting"?

A quote from Randi's Commentary from a couple weeks ago:

As I′ve made very clear to Dr. Palmer and to others, I am not a debunker; I am an investigator. If my investigations, by their findings, result in a debunking – and that′s usually the case, when sufficient evidence is presented to enable any proper examination – that′s the natural outcome of such projects.

[EHocking]

Randi takes money from the skeptics, in this way, he is exploiting the skeptical community in the name of debunking.

Discuss.

(I got this, um, interesting statement from a YouTube video)It's not exploitation if you are fully informed of the service you are supporting/joining.

Unlike $ylvia Browne and her ilk...

[CFLarsen]

It's not exploitation if you are fully informed of the service you are supporting/joining.

Unlike $ylvia Browne and her ilk...

Nope. It is still exploitation, even though you are aware of what is going on.

People like Clancie, who once posted here, was fully aware that some psychics were frauds, yet she still believed in them, and even recommended them to others. She knew she was being exploited, but that doesn't stop it from being exploitation.

[PastBrowneFan]

Sounds like classic SB and NS statements, which follow along with L. Ron Hubbards statement of "Don't defend, attack".

If you are backed into a corner, as SB is, then you try to deflect the attention by attacking anything out there, thus her "followers" carry that out by posting something like "Well, Randi makes money off of skeptics".

It's really sad when you have to justify yourself by stating that someone else may be making money, instead of proving that you are authentic.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Randi "exploits" skeptics in exactly the same way any author "exploits" his readers, or any entertainer "exploits" his audience.

That is to say, not at all. No one forced or coerced me to buy any of his books that I own, just as no one forces us to watch him on TV. To suggest otherwise is to redefine the meaning of the word exploit.

Um, Sylvia Browne could say the same thing.

Randi doesn't lie to grieving people and doesn't cheat the naive.

[sackett]

So that's where my money's been going: brainwashed out of my wallet by that sinister old wizard. He put the con back in conjurer.

[BPSCG]

Dictionary.com

Exploiting- To make use of selfishly or unethically.

For exploiting we need the selfish or unethical element.

Pretending to speak to the dead for financial gain is unethical.

What does Randi do for money that is selfish or unethical ?Emphasis mine. I think putting "selfish" into the mix makes for an overly broad definition. You can argue that every human action is selfish in that every action a person takes is done in the belief that it is the action that will give him the most satisfaction.

Exploiting a person involves taking unfair advantage of his weakness. The weakness that $ylvia Brown takes advantage of is her clients' ignorance and/or stupidity. It's unfair because she's committing fraud.

What Randi does is not fraudulent; it is not exploitation.

[Lothian]

Emphasis mine. I think putting "selfish" into the mix makes for an overly broad definition. You can argue that every human action is selfish in that every action a person takes is done in the belief that it is the action that will give him the most satisfaction.

Exploiting a person involves taking unfair advantage of his weakness. The weakness that $ylvia Brown takes advantage of is her clients' ignorance and/or stupidity. It's unfair because she's committing fraud.

What Randi does is not fraudulent; it is not exploitation.I don't disagree. Selfish was part of the dictionary definition.

[EHocking]

Nope. It is still exploitation, even though you are aware of what is going on.

People like Clancie, who once posted here, was fully aware that some psychics were frauds, yet she still believed in them, and even recommended them to others. She knew she was being exploited, but that doesn't stop it from being exploitation.The point being made that RANDI was not expoiting SCEPTICS.

Clancie was not being exploited by Randi.

Randi and the JREF openly declare what the organisation is for, what it charges, what these charges are for and the fully discloses the not for profit nature of JREF.

Aware, in this case, is aware of the conditions of donating money to the JREF and the service or expectations you receive for your donation. Also full disclosure of the conditions of purchase from the shop (which I haven't checked out).

Guaranteed Randi is not selling cubic zirconia as diamonds...

[sackett]

You could argue that skeptics exploit Randi's showbiz skills and visibility.

[EGarrett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts_To4zmEdE&mode=related&search=

That's the video, the statement in question is in the comments section, posted by in2wish4ever...

"James Randi is a villian and he makes money off of the skeptical community."

Does Randi, for example, charge $700 for a 30 minute phone consultation on the chicanery of Uri Geller? Does he wait until skeptics are at their most vulnerable to swoop down and sell them books and merchandise? Does he peddle easy answers or false comfort or a soporific philosophy to troubled, ignorant people?Weellllllll...

He does have The Amazing Meeting, where he takes money, peddles book and merchandise etc. He also has an easy answer (the paranormal doesn't exist) and a philosophy (skepticism). And he tends to show up when it's opportune (i.e. Sylvia Browne's failure etc.)

[CFLarsen]

The point being made that RANDI was not expoiting SCEPTICS.

Clancie was not being exploited by Randi.

Randi and the JREF openly declare what the organisation is for, what it charges, what these charges are for and the fully discloses the not for profit nature of JREF.

Aware, in this case, is aware of the conditions of donating money to the JREF and the service or expectations you receive for your donation. Also full disclosure of the conditions of purchase from the shop (which I haven't checked out).

Guaranteed Randi is not selling cubic zirconia as diamonds...

The point I made was that Clancie was being exploited by psychics she knew to be fake.

[CFLarsen]

He does have The Amazing Meeting, where he takes money, peddles book and merchandise etc. He also has an easy answer (the paranormal doesn't exist) and a philosophy (skepticism). And he tends to show up when it's opportune (i.e. Sylvia Browne's failure etc.)

There is one crucial difference, though.

Randi has evidence. Sylvia Browne does not.

[Moochie]

Randi "exploits" skeptics in exactly the same way any author "exploits" his readers, or any entertainer "exploits" his audience.

That is to say, not at all. Noone forced or coerced me to buy any of his books that I own, just as noone forces us to watch him on TV. To suggest otherwise is to redefine the meaning of the word exploit.


Do you mean Peter Noone, former lead singer with Herman's Hermits?

M.

[BPSCG]

He does have The Amazing Meeting, where he takes money, peddles book and merchandise etc. That is not exploitation, any more than a grocery store selling you pretzels is exploitation. There's no exploitation without the taking of unfair advantage of someone's ignorance or stupidity. Randi certainly takes advantage of people's ignorance - you buy his books because you are ignorant and want to be educated - but he does not take unfair advantage: he does not commit fraud.

[EGarrett]

Unfortunately, I can't even pretend to be Devil's Advocate in this one. The argument is too weak.

Where's Tai Chi when you need him?

[EHocking]

The point I made was that Clancie was being exploited by psychics she knew to be fake.OK, it we seem to be in agreement here Claus, I think. But to cross eyes and dot the t.

The point raised by the OP was that a critic claims that Randi exploits *sceptics* by taking their money by way of pledges to the Challenge, donations to the JREF, sales of merchandise, meetings, big days out etc, and that this is exactly the same manner of "exploitation" whereby $ylvia Browne and her ilk reaps income from her/their gulls.

This Clancie person's case (you've got a good memory there, Claus) is not the same at all. As you say - he/she was content to be exploited by so-called psychics even though he/she perhaps should have known better. Randi was not expoiting Clancie in any way whatsoever.

Randi didn't charge Clancie $700 for 1/2 an hour's participation on the forum, nor demand money for his weekly missives or overcharge for grossly misadvertised merchandise to anyone coming across his site.

[Civilized Worm]

In other news; starving africans accused of exploiting aged rock stars.

[Miss Anthrope]

In other news; starving africans accused of exploiting aged rock stars.

:clap:

[Stellafane]

Randi takes money from the skeptics, in this way, he is exploiting the skeptical community in the name of debunking.

Discuss.

(I got this, um, interesting statement from a YouTube video)

This would only be true if Randi were in fact psychic and a genuine magician, but instead misrepresented himself as a skeptic to take advantage of the lucrative debunker market.

That sentence is so ridiculous on some many levels I can scarcely believe I wrote it.

[CFLarsen]

OK, it we seem to be in agreement here Claus, I think. But to cross eyes and dot the t.

The point raised by the OP was that a critic claims that Randi exploits *sceptics* by taking their money by way of pledges to the Challenge, donations to the JREF, sales of merchandise, meetings, big days out etc, and that this is exactly the same manner of "exploitation" whereby $ylvia Browne and her ilk reaps income from her/their gulls.

This Clancie person's case (you've got a good memory there, Claus)

Oh, yes. ;)

is not the same at all.

As you say - he/she was content to be exploited by so-called psychics even though he/she perhaps should have known better. Randi was not expoiting Clancie in any way whatsoever.

Randi didn't charge Clancie $700 for 1/2 an hour's participation on the forum, nor demand money for his weekly missives or overcharge for grossly misadvertised merchandise to anyone coming across his site.

But she was exploited by the psychics, even though she knew what was going on. She did not get what she was paying for - and she knew it.

With Randi, we know what we pay for, and we get it, too.

[EHocking]

...
With Randi, we know what we pay for, and we get it, too.
That was the point of my initial post. I think we're strenuously agreeing with each other here, Claus!

[CFLarsen]

That was the point of my initial post. I think we're strenuously agreeing with each other here, Claus!

.....I disagree......

[Mr. Stick]

Do you mean Peter Noone, former lead singer with Herman's Hermits?

M.

:D And please, please, please stop misspelling skeptic as "sceptic"

.....I disagree......

Evidence? ;)

[CFLarsen]

Evidence? ;)

Evidence, schmevidence...

[Soapy Sam]

Psychics- Always brush with antisceptic (TM) toothpaste to keep your spiritual smile.