Ban astrology

I will start by pointing out that my criticisms of banning astrology (etc) went unanswered: as I previously stated, the law exists to protect its people and Astrology is not harming anyone (you can just choose not to do it), and no comment was made on this or my note that a logical argument would need to be made to ban all pseudosciences. I will first offer a rebuttal to my opponent's arguments, and then come back to the importance of this at the end. Though I found little substance in my opponent's arguments aside from the (already agreed upon) facts about how astrology doesn't really make accurate or scientific predictions, I will now refute the two new statements that I was able to find: 1. "The business of these activities. That is the main part. I couldn't find any source that was explaining how much money there actually is in that dark business. " Response: There is a lot of money in pseudoscience, but that's my point as much as it is yours. We can agree that it's a large industry, and that's why it's economically important not to just 'ban' it. See my final point for more information on this. 2. "If there is no scientific proof bout these astrologists, fortune tellers. .. Why should we allow a big business to run on lies to disuse our modern educated society? " Response: Because people want it. Regular people that subscribe to these things are the very reason that the businesses are big- even though a quick Google search can tell you all about how fortune tellers are quack-science, they still make a lot of money because people still go to see them. Some people do it for comfort, or just a sense of wonder that there might be something at play that they don't really understand at all, or for the superstitious hope that it would be a lucky thing to do. This is coming curiously close to religion, which is a nice segway for the next argument I would like to make (below). As I previously mentioned, any valid argument for banning astrology would logically have to encompass every other pseudoscience, as well as any concept or idea without sound scientific backing. A prime, aforementioned example is religion! My opponent stated: "If there is no scientific proof bout these astrologists, fortune tellers. .. Why should we allow a big business to run on lies to disuse our modern educated society? ". Religion is an enormous business. While no one outside of the Vatican actually knows how much money the Catholic Church has (because religious groups don't need to follow regular accounting or disclosure rules), a 2012 study estimated the Church's annual spending to be roughly $170 billion[1]. Because we can draw so many similarities between astrology and religion (not to insinuate that they are both invalid, just that neither have strong, scientific backing), any argument to ban astrology would also be an argument to ban religion. Likewise, any reason my opponent can find that would save religion from being banned in the instance of an astrology ban will similarly work to save astrology. Both religion and astrology have a good side, and something to offer to the people. It is my belief that each could be taxed more (along with every pseudoscience mentioned in my last argument), but it's never an economically wise decision to close such a profitable set of markets. If fortune tellers bring in millions of dollars, let them. Just tax the income so that if people want to go to fortune tellers they can, but some of the proceeds come back to fund better industries. On a similar note, my opponent stated: "A business based on non-evidence, lies, spiritual documents. .. is simply a scam. At least regulate that sort of business". There are a few consequences to this, however: either my opponent needs to do some quick footwork to remove any possibility of religion from this statement, or he/she is advocating that religion is a scam. In the case of the latter, I would like to see a tenable argument made for why religion should be banned from the world (for I think that there is not one). The other consequence is that every business in discussion IS regulated. A fortune teller at the town fair has a small business permit or a busking permit depending on the municipality, and they are paying money straight to the city and the government. They are regulated already, making the above statement by my opponent a moot point. Finally, some ending notes that I feel it is important to include though my arguments have covered the points made therein (quoted from source [4]): Why is astrology not banned? - "Astrology - like most divination practices - resides at the intersection of archetypal, universal symbolism and the realm of personal experience. A reading can be profoundly meaningful to one person, and meaningless to another (just like a song, a seemingly mundane event, or a breakthrough realization at a therapy-session). Aside from that, calling for an outright ban of something you "so clearly" know very little about is a slippery slope, my friend. .. " - "In the US at least, the answer is because we value the right to choose your own beliefs, even if that right enables some people to choose worthless beliefs. " - "The same reason, religion isn't! It caters to the needs of the society, even if its not completely scientific. " Sources: [1] - . http://www.slate.com... [2] - . http://www.csicop.org... [3] - . https://explorable.com... [4] - . http://www.quora.com... The ball is in your court, Pro! I believe you hold the burden of proof to make a sound argument for why astrology should be banned but religion not be, OR why religion should be banned (though I don't believe this to be a tenable position). Thanks!