www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[dbalsdon]

I just really dislike that image. I've just woken up, so maybe my sense of humour isn't functioning properly yet.

 

[Sideroxylon]

She and her patently absurd claims have been given way too much attention already. Half the time I wonder why people play along with the idea of testing such fantasies/lies.

 

[tkingdoll]

I think the site is overkill, given she doesn't have a media presence and isn't making millions or indeed, from what I can tell, anything. In my opinion you're giving too much attention to something that doesn't warrant it, where the same effort for something that is affecting thousands of people would have a more productive outcome (google results and such).

That said, objectively, it's a well-put together site, but I do hope you'll reconsider this sentence:

Far too many people like Anita Ikonen (VisionFromFeeling) are allowed to spew their half-baked ideas.

If skepticism was about suppressing the expression of ideas, half-baked or not, I wouldn't want any part of it. The idea is to educate people who may be swayed by pseudoscience, not to censor those who express themselves and espouse ideas we don't agree with. Selling products is one thing, expressing ideas is quite another. Society should absolutely allow free expression of ideas, and society should also be free to debunk those ideas (or mock them, but that doesn't educate those who are attracted to the claims).

You've also dismissed her claims as 'half-baked' despite asserting that she hasn't had any testing. I suggest that by doing so, you're only 'preaching to the converted' with your site (i.e. skeptics), which is not particularly useful. An unbiased approach will always get better results.

Perhaps you would consider changing it to something like "Far too many people like Anita espouse their ideas without allowing critical appraisal or scientific evaluation".

 

[desertgal]

Although apparently we are supposed to wait until she diagnoses someone wrongly (previous thread shows - high chance of that) and they get harmed from it. Obviously until then we should just let her run about and diagnose people and wait for someone dumb enough to take her seriously.

/sarcasm

What constitutes harm?

Let's say, oh, hypothetically, that Anita gives me her spiel about psychic medical diagnosis, and having never been wrong, and, since I believe in such things, I allow her to diagnose me. She tells me that I have a potentially fatal heart condition because the tissues around my heart are saturated with peanut oil-but I can completely reverse the condition by changing cooking oil. I trust her-she's never been wrong, after all-and I worry about it until I can get to my doctor, who, of course, looks at me as if I am completely insane.

Does worry count as harm? Does humiliation? Or does it not matter because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway? After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

Or, let's say, hypothetically, that I am not feeling well. Anita does the spiel, and I believe her. She tells me that I am not feeling well because the high blood pressure medication I am taking is all wrong, and I need to go to my doctor and get it changed. So, I do, and my doctor tells me that he doesn't see any signs that the medication is causing my discomfort. I insist that Anita is a health care professional, possibly has the special ability to see into my body at an atomic level, has never been incorrect, and I insist that she is right. Doctor shrugs. Changing my medication, at my insistence, isn't going to hurt me, so he does. But, here's the catch: the new medication costs more, and my insurance won't cover it. So, I have to do what I can to cover the additional cost, which causes stress and worry, etc.

Does stress count as harm? Or does it not matter because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway? After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

What if she misses something? Let's say Anita tells me that my reproductive system is "red or inflamed", and we both assume that it is because I am menstruating. In reality, though, I have a raging silent infection caused by pelvic inflammatory disease and it ultimately renders me sterile. I guess that's okay, though, because I am still alive, and I shouldn't have believed in her anyway. After all, despite her claim of an ability that defies science, that it has never been disproved that she has ESP, and that she has never had an incorrect perception, she "isn't convinced that she has any powers or special ability", and she made me sign a waiver.

(Darat, these hypotheticals aren't intended as insults towards Anita. Simply trying to point out the potential for harm.)

 

[tsig]

I wouldn't have as many problems if it was a link in a sig line or something, but to start a thread about a website disparaging another member is going too far IMO.

Since when is the truth disparaging. It may be unpleasant and offend some delicate sensibilities but that's life.

 

[tsig]

All you know about VVF is what she posts here and on her website. She's not Sylvia Brown. This website is bullying and the forum should have nothing to do with promoting it.

UncaYimmy has spent more time than anyone else here working with VfF.

Protocols, PMs and other venues. I think his knowledge goes beyond just what you see here.

 

[plumjam]

What another spectacular failure of a post from you. You get shown the facts and are in complete denial.

Would you please present your evidence that diagnosing people of medical problems without medical instruments and without a license is not harmful? Especially because doing that its called practicing medicine without a license and every medical board agrees its harmful. I suppose you know so much more than all those medical boards though. They just make up these silly rules for nothing - I mean who needs a MD to tell you that you have cancer when someone can read you through their special powers?



Is fear mongering your word of the day? Its hilarious to watch you type it over and over without the faintest idea of knowing what it actually means. More baseless accusations and insults from you and 0 evidence yet again. Failure, failure, failure.

I want SPECIFIC evidence that jumping into a bath full of acid is harmful. Specific. If you fail to provide it, you are fear mongering by suggesting people shouldn't jump into acid vats. Isn't using your own completely wrong logic against you great?



Oh look, more completely baseless accusations by you without evidence. I sense a pattern!



Right, because we need to have someone jump in a bathtub of acid first before we tell people they shouldn't do that.



I see you've failed again - is this a reading comprehension issue? Otherwise all 3 check boxes would be filled. My my, even making things simple for you isn't helping.

Its too bad the police weren't notified before so many people died of woo like this, which you keep ignoring because you are completely wrong and you know it:
http://www.whatstheharm.net.

How many people would like to have murdered by those practicing "alternative medicine" like this?


But I guess you are OK with the murder of 276 people because, you know, we should let the woos try out their "powers" on people and wait for someone dumb enough to take them seriously before stopping it. You would much prefer we wait for someone to jump into a bathtub of acid before determining if its harmful.

Now I have a life so you post back with your next failure and keep flailing about (as usual you will ignore all the evidence that proves you wrong). I'll debunk you later. Its almost too easy.

Light, I wonder how old you are, because your style of argumentation is that of a child.
You have no evidence that Anita has ever done any actual harm to anyone, and this post of yours amounts to you trying to convince yourself that you've somehow managed to work around that.

Trying to associate Anita with people being thrown into baths of acid, and 276 "murders", is patently ridiculous; thereby pushing you into the category of "critical thinker" I'm happy not to waste my time and energy on.

 

[desertgal]

You have no evidence that Anita has ever done any actual harm to anyone.

You have no evidence that she hasn't. Unsubstantiated, unverified, one sided anecdotes, remember?

Since we know of no evidence that she has caused harm, the potential for harm ceases to exist. That's just logical.

 

[Ashles]

I would post over on the other site but I question what it is that we are stopping Anita from doing.
Running proper tests on herself? Never going to happen.
Objectively examining her own claims? Never going to happen.
Look at any areas of her own claims that lend themselves to clear, objective testing? Never going to happen.

All Anita wants to do is talk about herself. That's all. That is the central purpose to this claim.
We have tried ignoring her claim - she was forced to bump her own threads with posts that contained no new information. That was a bit of a low point for Anita.

In the absence of any real tests I suggest we try ignoring her harder.

Any claim she makes that describes what she is intending to do, any half-formulated test, any preliminary results... I intend to ignore.
This claim is dead in the water.
I will only respond to any actual proper test in which skeptics have been involved and which have been reported in a way that is robust and not- open to personal interpretation.

Anything else is just attention seeking behaviour by Anita.

I'm not aware she is currently dispensing medical advice. I don't think she is stupid enough to try to do so now.
However, if she is currently dispensing anything that even might be interpreted as medical advice to anyone then I will certainly actively seek to stop that behaviour. As it would be illegal and, as we all know, she is so dedicated to not breaking the law.

This whole claim is boring now. There will be the odd half-hearted test which will allow Anita to interpret results as she wishes, just to keep generating something to talk about, but this is all pretty much over now.

If a real test ever happens let me know.

ETA: I will post on the other site even if only to say hello and that, while I think more discussion of (and another website about)this silly claim is exactly what Anita wants, I feel an alternative place to post about this claim without the moderation of the JREF is useful for anyone who wishes to use it and should be supported to that extent. It may well be overkill but it's UncaYimmy's time and his right to offer such an outlet for discussion. Those who don't supprt it should not bother with it.

 

[Cuddles]

I think the site is overkill, given she doesn't have a media presence and isn't making millions or indeed, from what I can tell, anything. In my opinion you're giving too much attention to something that doesn't warrant it, where the same effort for something that is affecting thousands of people would have a more productive outcome (google results and such).

This. As already noted, the fact that Anita is a member of the forum is irrelevant, this site is no different in principle from other sites such as RSLancaster's "StopX" sites and many others around the internet. However, those sites target people that are actually known by others. Anita is known by a few people who read a couple of skeptical forums. That's it. What exactly are you going to achieve with this new website? There aren't masses flocking to throw their money at her. She hasn't even asked anyone for any money. She says she's done readings for a few family members and friends, but she doesn't force random readings on people, advertise, or doing anything likely to bring herself to the attention of anyone not specifically looking for her.

Is there the potential for her to cause harm? Certainly. In time she might become the next Sylvia Browne, or even just another two-bit street fortune teller. But she isn't at the moment, and I honestly don't see any signs of her becoming such. All this Stop site does is bring more attention to her, and as far as I can tell that's pretty much all she wants at the moment. While there is an argument for getting in early before she turns into Sylvia, I think if you get in too early you only help her get there faster.

As Teek says, there are so many things that this kind of effort could make a real difference to, so it seems a shame to see it go to waste on someone who really isn't worth it.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I think the site is overkill, given she doesn't have a media presence and isn't making millions or indeed, from what I can tell, anything. In my opinion you're giving too much attention to something that doesn't warrant it, where the same effort for something that is affecting thousands of people would have a more productive outcome (google results and such).

As for your comments about the content of the site, thanks. If you want to discuss them, you can register on the site and post there.

Maybe I'm a little cranky, but I don't care to be lectured on how my time could be spent being "more productive." When I'm in a better mood, I'll track you down over in the "Cheese Appreciation" thread you started here at JREF, and we can discuss how we best use our time.

But you do make a good point. I really should wait until she's well established in the media and has a large clientele and bankroll. In fact I should wait until after she has used her detection skills in some missing child cases. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go close the barn door and track down my horses.

 

[plumjam]

You have no evidence that she hasn't. Unsubstantiated, unverified, one sided anecdotes, remember?

That's not how it's supposed to work in a civilised society. Ever hear of 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
Until good evidence to the contrary is provided, the default assumption is that people have committed no wrongdoing.
Unless, of course, you happen to be Josef Stalin.

Since we know of no evidence that she has caused harm, the potential for harm ceases to exist. That's just logical.

Another disconnect of yours.
We all have the potential to do harm. Therefore I guess we should, as a society, wallow in mutual distrust, paranoia, and obsessive accusation.

 

[desertgal]

That's not how it's supposed to work in a civilised society. Ever hear of 'Innocent until proven guilty'?
Until good evidence to the contrary is provided, the default assumption is that people have committed no wrongdoing.

The presumption of innocence refers to legal, as opposed to factual, guilt. It is a legal instrument. It positions that any person legally charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not dictate public or personal judgment, and everyone is allowed an individual interpretation of "proof", and an individual determination of innocence or guilt.

It is also not unreasonable to consider that there are two sides to every story - especially when you are only hearing one of them, and what you are hearing defies credulity, is unsubstantiated, and possibly unethical.

Another disconnect of yours.
We all have the potential to do harm. Therefore I guess we should, as a society, wallow in mutual distrust, paranoia, and obsessive accusation.

We all are not telling people that we have the ability to see inside their bodies to an atomic level, or that we can diagnose their health by doing so. You have to admit, performing a "psychic medical diagnosis" does increase the potential for doing harm.

 

[tkingdoll]

As for your comments about the content of the site, thanks. If you want to discuss them, you can register on the site and post there.

Maybe I'm a little cranky, but I don't care to be lectured on how my time could be spent being "more productive." When I'm in a better mood, I'll track you down over in the "Cheese Appreciation" thread you started here at JREF, and we can discuss how we best use our time.

But you do make a good point. I really should wait until she's well established in the media and has a large clientele and bankroll. In fact I should wait until after she has used her detection skills in some missing child cases. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go close the barn door and track down my horses.

If you can't take polite and constructive criticism, I suggest not posting a thread in a public internet forum. I'm very sorry that you do seem to want to not hear anything you don't agree with. That's not too healthy in my opinion.

As for the very strange reference to the cheese appreciation thread, you realise that was my first thread here? Like, years ago? And that it took about five minutes of my time? And is in the Community section? And is banter? I'm not sure what the benefit is of playing "my website, which you're not allowed to comment on except to praise, is better than your cheese appreciation thread", but I'm sorry that you can't see further than that and perhaps gauge the value of my opinions by the work I do for skepticism instead.

 

[Cleon]

If you can't take polite and constructive criticism, I suggest not posting a thread in a public internet forum. I'm very sorry that you do seem to want to not hear anything you don't agree with. That's not too healthy in my opinion.

As for the very strange reference to the cheese appreciation thread, you realise that was my first thread here? Like, years ago? And that it took about five minutes of my time? And is in the Community section? And is banter? I'm not sure what the benefit is of playing "my website, which you're not allowed to comment on except to praise, is better than your cheese appreciation thread", but I'm sorry that you can't see further than that and perhaps gauge the value of my opinions by the work I do for skepticism instead.

Maybe he's a little cranky, and doesn't care to be lectured on your opinion!

 

[Ashles]

I assume this thread is about to be moderated as well, as the VFF2 thread was just moderated (while I was posting) and a post I was posting that was very similar to tkingdoll, UncaYimmy's and Desertgal's posts here was deleted.

ETA: It concerned the irony of people posting on internet message boards to crticise others for wasting their time posting on internet message boards criticising others.

I think everyone should accept that everyone else's time is theirs to do with as they wish.
The "It's not a productive use of your time" argument is fairly redundant in this context.

 

[tkingdoll]

Maybe he's a little cranky, and doesn't care to be lectured on your opinion!

Again, in that case, don't start a thread in a public forum. Perhaps he's a little cranky because this thread didn't turn out to be unanimous in praise. Who knows. My experience, however, tells me that if several people are saying the same thing, there might be something in it. There might not be, of course, but it's always worth listening to feedback whether it's positive or negative.

 

[tkingdoll]

The "It's not a productive use of your time" argument is fairly redundant in this context.

I never said that though, I said that there would be a more productive outcome from different targets. There would be. What is the website going to achieve?

The world outside this forum hasn't heard of, and doesn't care about, Vision from Feeling, so the outcome can never be productive.

It's not a productive use of my time to play videogames, but I spend my spare time doing it anyway. However, if I posted about my playing of videogames as a way to achieve certain objectives, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to point out that I could either reach those objectives another way, or that the people I hope to benefit from my objectives would be better served with a different set of objectives. If that happened, I may say "thanks for your feedback, but I'm happy with this" or I may think "hmm is that right? I do want to do something about this specific issue, is my strategy the right one?".

It was meant to be constructive. I specifically stated that the site was well-constructed, and I offered a suggestion for alternative text where the existing sentence could alienate visitors. I should have realised that even constructive criticism might not be well met, though, the site does proclaim on the homepage that the author is "brilliant".

 

[Cleon]

Again, in that case, don't start a thread in a public forum. Perhaps he's a little cranky because this thread didn't turn out to be unanimous in praise. Who knows. My experience, however, tells me that if several people are saying the same thing, there might be something in it. There might not be, of course, but it's always worth listening to feedback whether it's positive or negative.

I think my comment was taken a wee bit more seriously than I intended it to be.

 

[grunion]

I think it would help if you stated her claim, in her own words, on the front of the site. I know it may be hard to get a simple statement but otherwise how can you take a survey about your opinion about the validity of the claim if you don't know exactly what the claim is?