Sylvia Browne: evil or just cruel?

[korenyx]

A friend and I had a disagreement about Sylvia Browne (SB). I said SB was evil but my friend said she reserves evil for people like Stalin and Hitler.
My question is: do you have to kill someone to be evil?
Is causing needless pain evil or is it just cruelty?
My friend puts things on a continum and evil is on one end. She said there are shades of gray and seeing black and white is the mark of a fundementalist (which I am not). I think there are shades of evil.
IMO SB does evil things; does that make her evil?

I told my friend I would ask the Forum for a way to describe SB that is worse than bad but not as bad as evil.

Kore

[Boo]

Have your friend read RSL's latest article on SB. That level of cruelty is evil.




Boo

[angrybeliever]

Tell your friend that when that level of cruelty is a standard operating procedure, THAT is evil.

Sylvia is fond of saying that what decides if an action is evil, is the intent of the person. I need say no more.


AB

[korenyx]

Reading StopSlyviaBrowne is what convinced me SB is evil.
We have another friend who is a Woo; I really need to tell that friend to read it.

Kore

[hgc]

The definition of "evil" is entirely subjective. Personally, I don't even use the word. I think that hearing G.W. Bush's childish sounding intonations about "evildoers" put me off it forever.

[Lisa Simpson]

I think the word 'evil' is tossed around too much. Sylvia is greedy, narcissistic, and utterly without human compassion. But I don't think she's evil.

[RSLancastr]

Korenyx, until you and your friend can agree on a definition of "evil," you're probably not going to come to any agreement on this.

And if your friend's benchmark of "evil" is Stalin and Hitler - people responsible for the murder of millions - then, to her, there have only been a handful of evil people in history.

[tsg]

"Evil" means, to me, "morally wrong" (as opposed to "good" meaning "morally right") . With that definition SB clearly qualifies.

[korenyx]

I think the word 'evil' is tossed around too much. Sylvia is greedy, narcissistic, and utterly without human compassion. But I don't think she's evil.

I think you and my friend are right and I am triviaizing the word and concept of evil by applying it to Slyvia Browne.

Kore.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I generally believe that individuals aren't evil; they may do evil things but they themselves aren't evil.

I'd feel entirely comfortable calling Sylvia Browne evil, though. I've seen her in action on Montel in person and I can tell you she has absolutely no regard for her clients whatsoever. None. Not an ounce of compassion or regard of any kind. Indifference to the point of pure sadism.

The best way I can think of to convince your friend she's evil is to get tickets to a taping of a Sylvia Browne episode on Montel. I went to one and I was stunned speechless at her incredible cruelty. It was one of the most depressing and angering things I've ever seen.

And keep in mind who the people coming to her are: they are people who've been through incredibly traumatic experiences from deaths of close family members to horrific accidents to being diagnosed with a mental illness. It's not just people with haunted dance studios and talking fish coming to her.

It was sobering to come to the slow realization that I was practically the only person in the audience who had not recently lost someone. How someone can exploit someone who's very recently lost their mother, father, brother, sister, husband, wife or child and then so inhumanly mistreat them when they come to you for help is beyond me.

[Andronicus]

Evil. She preys on the needy in their moment of need, feeds them false hope, siphons their finances, all for personal profit. Her influence leads people to self destructive behavior. Evil, but not as evil as Stalin or Hitler.

[hgc]

Evil, but not as evil as Stalin or Hitler.


Ah, but she aspires. Given half the chance, she would gnaw on all our bones, plucking gristle from between her teeth with those raptorous talons.

[Doc Daneeka]

Why can't we all just agree that she is both evil and cruel?

[Tamazon]

Looking a grieving grandmother in the eyes and telling her that her missing 6 year-old granddaughter has been sold into slavery in Japan when she knows that she is making the whole thing up.

Is evil. :mad:

[rjh01]

As Robert said what is evil? It would be better to agree that what SB does is wrong and agree that anything more is a matter of definition.

[kerikiwi]

Sylvia is fond of saying that what decides if an action is evil, is the intent of the person.


That is hardly an original thought of SB's.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)thought that sinfulness must involve intent.
Perhaps SB is plagiarising him with intent!

[korenyx]

I think my friend I and can agree that Slyvia is corrupted. She does have some power; her books always sell and Montel enables her. Whatever gift she thought she had is now being used purely for profit. I don't see her as helping, I see her as cashing in on 'There's a sucker born every minute'. She's L. Ron Hubbard's twin in terms of the damage she does.

BTW, I want to say I love this fourm! I knew when I posted this question I would get a lot to think about and I have. I have never been one of those people who only talks to people I agree with. Talking with others helps me clairify my own thoughts on a suject.

Once again, Thank You.

Kore

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Korenyx, not to sound bombastic but I think you're friend is underestimating how dangerous Sylvia Browne really is. I hate to repeat myself but if you knew what goes on at a Montel taping, you wouldn't hesitate at calling her evil.

To start with, I'd say many of the studio audience there, more so than the guests, badly needed a psychiatrist, not a psychic. They are people with unimaginable problems. There was a woman who's son had recently committed suicide, a few parents who's children had recently been murdered, someone with a life-long mental illness who wanted to know if she'd be cured and a man who wanted to know if his estranged brother had forgiven him (he didn't say for what) 12 years after he had died.

Many people burst into tears after the reading she gave them. Not something you see on TV when the episode is shown. She upset alot of people greatly by completely and totally botching their reading- just botching it all over the place. The show is very heavily edited down- it takes about 2 and a half hours and the show is less than an hour because that's how much she screws up.

In fact, she is so bad and so careless at cold-reading and missed so many so obvious cues and obvious questions and answers, that I (to my amazement) found myself cold-reading along with her despite never seeing it done in person before. And I was good! Better than she was, anyway. As a sidenote, what an odd feeling to do something you've never tried before and find it coming so easily to you. Goes to show cold-reading takes absolutely no special skill.

As a matter of fact, she's so careless, I wondered if she wasn't going deaf, that many times she totally misunderstood what the sitter was saying or had to have something repeated to her. People were constantly having to repeat their questions over and over to her.

And you wouldn't believe how rude she and Montel really are to these people. Well, the ex-NSers probably would but it took my breath away. People who had just lost children.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't understand the question.

Does anyone who is OK with the word/concept "evil" think it's possible to be cruel and NOT evil?

If so, can I have an example of cruelty that is not evil?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

The question is over degrees.

The OP is asking if she's really pure evil or just bad.

It's cruel to do alot of things that aren't evil.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's cruel to do alot of things that aren't evil.
I don't get that. What's an example of cruelty that isn't evil?

I don't get the distinction between "evil" and "just cruel".

If it's just a matter of degree, then is the question simply is Sylvia as bad as Stalin or Hitler? (My answer--obviously not.) But it sounds like there's some other distinction that I just don't get.

Here's Merriam Webster's definitions of cruel:

1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>
2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>

I guess 2b could be a kind of cruelty that's not necessarily evil (only, I'd say, if it's done without malicious intention). Since it seems we're applying the adjectives to a person rather than specific actions, I think only definition 1 applies.

[tsg]

I question any definition of "evil" that doesn't include willfully misleading the desperate for money.

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Evil" means, to me, "morally wrong" (as opposed to "good" meaning "morally right") . With that definition SB clearly qualifies.

I agree with this definition, and I don't see how someone can possibly be cruel and morally right at the same time.

[rjh01]

I do not think it is useful to call someone evil. You lot cannot even agree on what evil means. As far as I am concerned it is one method of bad-mouthing a person.

Now as long as you all agree on what she does, what does the rest matter?

[tsg]

I do not think it is useful to call someone evil. It's sort of the point of the thread. What are you doing here?

You lot cannot even agree on what evil means. As far as I am concerned it is one method of bad-mouthing a person.

Quite. A method of bad-mouthing a person who desperately needs bad-mouthing. Publicly. Shouted from every rooftop in America. In 3D even.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I don't get that. What's an example of cruelty that isn't evil?

I don't get the distinction between "evil" and "just cruel".

If it's just a matter of degree, then is the question simply is Sylvia as bad as Stalin or Hitler? (My answer--obviously not.) But it sounds like there's some other distinction that I just don't get.

Here's Merriam Webster's definitions of cruel:

I guess 2b could be a kind of cruelty that's not necessarily evil (only, I'd say, if it's done without malicious intention). Since it seems we're applying the adjectives to a person rather than specific actions, I think only definition 1 applies.


Ok, I'll try to work this out aloud.

My definition of evil is someone who's unredeemably bad and acting out of nothing but malice and hate.

Someone who isn't mentally ill, deluded, making a mistake or just plain stupid or any of the other reasons human beings do bad things (in which case you have evil actions but not an evil person) but someone who does evil, has no excuse and doesn't care. I'm not even sure evil individuals even exist myself. Allright, let's say Stalin and Hitler.

Cruel implies that you're just selfish or greedy or have a mean streak. You are capable of hurting others but there are a lot of things you aren't capable of. Evil implies that if you could, you would kill without mercy.

Allright, so we are talking about degrees. "Sylvia Browne is horrible- but is she as bad as Stalin?" :wry smile:

[rjh01]

I strongly disagree with tsg. What is needed is a website like this one www.stopsylviabrowne.com (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com) . It has a proven track record of convincing people to Robert's point of view. Try to find words like evil to describe her on there. You will not find it.

How will "bad-mouthing a person who desperately needs bad-mouthing. Publicly. Shouted from every rooftop in America. In 3D even." convince anyone who is convinced of SB's abilities?

What is tsg and people like him doing on this website if he cannot see such basic things?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree with this definition, and I don't see how someone can possibly be cruel and morally right at the same time.

To me, it's a matter of degrees. Punishing your kids in unreasonably harsh ways is cruel. Leaving your wife because she's become overweight is cruel. Putting your sick and elderly mother in the care of an middle-aged Polish/ Russian/ Trinidadian/ Mexican alien whose previous job was cleaning floors because you don't want to spend on a nursing home is cruel. It's being a 5 letter word for "jerk".

Genocide and slavery are evil. Being evil is being a sadist.

It's also a matter of semantics. They imply two completely different things. "Evil" is a concept that means "badness" to the highest extent while "cruel" is an adjective to describe an action or personality trait.

Also, you may not be able to be cruel and morally right but I think you can be evil without neccessarily being cruel. Destroying the whole of the Amazon rainforest would be pretty close to evil but not neccessarily cruel. I might call selling crack to a five-year-old evil but not cruel.

[tsg]

I strongly disagree with tsg. What is needed is a website like this one www.stopsylviabrowne.com (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com) . It has a proven track record of convincing people to Robert's point of view. Try to find words like evil to describe her on there. You will not find it.

All that means in Robert S. Lancaster has chosen not to call her evil on his website. No more, no less.

How will "bad-mouthing a person who desperately needs bad-mouthing. Publicly. Shouted from every rooftop in America. In 3D even." convince anyone who is convinced of SB's abilities?

First, who says I'm trying to convince anybody? Second, what makes you think it won't?

What is tsg and people like him doing on this website if he cannot see such basic things?

I'm posting my opinions, just like you. I didn't realize there was a test for membership. Evidently somebody dropped the ball because, well, here I am posting my opinions without ever having taken it. I even get to call you an idiot if I so choose. Wow, things are really screwed up if someone like me can just come in here and post their thoughts and opinions without someone else's approval. What the hell is happening to this country? I mean, really. Free exchange of ideas? That's bloody communism, that is. What we need is some kind of super opinion authority who's in charge of deciding what opinions are appropriate to a skepticism forum. I mean, what's the world going to come to if people can just walk around posting their opinions to a forum without any kind of checks to keep the opinions people might disagree with out? Hell in a hand basket, I tells ya'! Next thing you know they'll be giving them the vote! I say we act now and petition the Powers That Be for some kind of filter that would protect us narrow minded fools from having to hear such things as Might Upset Us. Freedom to be Ignorant is one of the most fundamental rights this country (well, some country, anyway) was founded upon! Fight for the Right to Be Uninformed! Act now! Supplies are limited! One per customer! Your Mileage May Vary!

Note: The preceding could have been quite a bit shorter if we had a decent sarcasm smilie.

[RSLancastr]

All that means in Robert S. Lancaster has chosen not to call her evil on his website. No more, no less.But I have called what she does evil. Not on the site, but on the Anderson Cooper interview.

[rjh01]

This evil thing. We call SB evil. She calls us dark entities. Neither of us have proved anything. Her followers look at what has been said and stick with her. Now I have shown how it will not work. Since you have said in post 25 it would work, please explain how it will work.

We say she has done a, b and c which are evil (immoral or illegal) acts and SB is stuffed. She can either deny she has done those things, deny they are wrong or ignore us. Her (and our) followers look at what both groups have said and vote with their feet. This is what has happened with Robert and his site.

Big difference between calling her evil and calling her acts evil.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's also a matter of semantics. They imply two completely different things. "Evil" is a concept that means "badness" to the highest extent while "cruel" is an adjective to describe an action or personality trait.


Evil can also be an adjective, and is used as an adjective in the thread title and OP. (And both adjectives may be used to describe a person--Merriam Webster even gives as an example "a cruel tyrant".) The definition you gave is for the noun "evil" which might better be compared to the noun "cruelty".

I agree that the words aren't synonymous, but I still say you can't be a cruel person without also being an evil person.

I could see making a distinction between "just bad" and "evil" if you're just talking about degrees and nothing more.

Anyway, Sylvia is a liar and a con-asrtist who defrauds people who come to her for help. She preys on the desperate and ignorant. She's gotten wealthy doing so. Bad as that is, even in law, it's not considered as reprehensible as violent crimes like murder and rape. (And doesn't even come close to mass murder.)

I tend to agree with rjh that debating which name to call her isn't very useful. It's no more a reasoned response to her actions than "Kiss off" is a reasoned response to RSL's work.

I could see value in debating what laws she may have broken--discussing legal theories that might hold her accountable for some of the things she's done.

[RSL's better half]

IMO, it matters not what label you put on the piece of garbage named Sylvia Browne. Perhaps as much thought which has been displayed here could be put to better use - i.e. what more can be done to stop her? Hmm. A new thread?