--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@...> wrote: > > On Apr 11, 2011, at 7:31 AM, Vaj wrote: > > > > > In my case, it specifically refers to the fact that > > > > he was directly responsible for encouraging people > > > > to take an ayurvedic approach to life threatening > > > > diseases, and then these same people died because > > > > of that "enlightened" advice. > > > > > > Vaj, do you really believe this makes MMY "guilty" of > > > something? What, specifically? Giving dumb advice? > > > > - Giving medical advice without a license, resulting in death. > > If people asked him, he wasn't breaking any laws in > stating his opinion. Do you need a license now to > have opinions?
There may, in fact, be a place in future law for the "potential societal impact" of things expressed as opinion. For example, if you or I or pretty much anyone on this forum (which, as I suggested, prob- ably reaches a total of 20 people weekly) said, "Smoke cigarettes all you want, because they don't cause cancer," there is pretty much no harm, no foul. Nobody cares what we say, or the fact that we said it. But what if Oprah said it? What if a person whose words thousands (and in MMY's case tens of thousands) of people considered synonymous with the "word of God" said it? When *he* says, "Don't have anything to do with Western medecine," (which he did, in public and on tape, numerous times), it has more of a potential societal impact than if we nobodys said it. Just sayin'. Me, I kinda think that anyone who took his word about anything, much less matters of life and death, was kind of an idiot and deserved what they got. So I'm not really the best person to ask questions like this of. You decide. :-)
