--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- 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.
You may be right. But let's hope you're wrong, eh?
It wouldn't be new though: Think Socrates and
hemlock and "corrupting the minds of the young".
> 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. :-)
>
