www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[lionking]

Well it was after your brilliant riposte:

No. It's called an argument.

 

[plumjam]

Why is potential harm not good enough? If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

Your binary useage of the term "dangerous", dangerous or non-dangerous is just not the common use. In fact, it makes the term useless, as I suspect is your objective. Yes, all behaviour is to some degree potential dangerous. This is semantics, and not very productive either. And basing a decision of danger on peoples prior behaviour can be productive, but does not cover it, it narrows it down to the point of uselessness. Maybe if you read my my prior post on legal use of the term. I think it's close to commonsensical usage.

It can be quantified by the following factors, as is in scandinavian law, EU-law and in insurance prognosis and so on. My bet is it is an international term: The severity of the potential harm and the probability the harm will actually occur.

The severity of the harm in this case is a faulty diagnose and the implications this will have on a persons health. I would say the severity of the potential harm is substantial. The probability is VERY high, since she has stated she will continue doing it, and she has repeatedly said that nothing can change her mind that she has superpowers, and that she intends too use them on people. Friends and family are also "people" you know. But I have no reason to think she will stop there. The fact is that she has not demonstrated a single succesful test. To the contrary, she has avoided tests at ALL, and claims the superpowers has to be "falsified". I doubt she has even heard of a null hypothesis.

Ergo, she is quantifyably and objectively dangerous, based on her own account, which will do plenty as evidense in this context. Not a little dangerous, and arguably not extremely, just plain good old dangerous.

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them.
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose.
You're from Scandinavia. I'm going to attack you for that, with the justification that you may one day potentially forcefeed me the local rotten fish; resulting in great damage to both my digestive system and my social life.

Overreacting to fearmongering about the prospect of potential harm can be equally or more harmful than the vaunted danger itself.. e.g. Iraqi WMD.

 

[eirik]

Well it was after your brilliant riposte:

Ok, i retract. I should have said: Oh, the irony.

The usual debate form (that i know of) is more like
1. Argument
2. well, that's not a very good argument, Because(this is the vital point): Contra argument
2. Rebuttal
..
Ad infinitum

That's why I, in this particular context am not solely after your unsubstantiated opinion. I would, on the other hand greatly appreciate an argument as to why you feel dangerous behaviour is not something to criticize. I read your response, 'beacause we are all to some degree dangerous'. I showed you that this argument is based on a misconseption of the term dangerous.

 

[lionking]

That's why I, in this particular context am not solely after your unsubstantiated opinion.

Unsubstantiated? Now that's really ironic. You and others are making the claim that VFF is causing harm. Where's the proof? The website in question remains a disgrace.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

VisionFromFeeling, thanks for responding to my questions: however, I was posing them to UncaYimmy, and I wanted him to be answer those questions given he's the one who made the accusations.

No, I resent that! And then I saw UncaYimmy answer those questions incorrectly! Are you all going to talk over my head, spreading misunderstandings and circulating untruthts about my investigation, rather than ask at the source and hear my version of it, since, after all, I was there?

You are all saying that I've read and expressed to those persons what I perceived about their health and checked for accuracy with 100 people, when all I said was that I've experienced medical perceptions from about 100 people. I don't want lies about me spread, why can't you all *make the effort* to sometimes ask for my version of what I did?

all I have to say to you, and I mean this with the best will in the world, is that professional mental health advice is often the best medicine.

Since you are a new poster to threads about my investigation, and other Forum Skeptics have dodged answering this question, would you care to tell me why? Be specific, "because you're delusional" doesn't answer this question.

One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters.

eirik, there are plenty of items in your own home that can be very dangerous to other people if you do not know how to use them with great care and responsibility. Not to mention your own body, you could kill someone with your bare hands if you were out of control. If my medical perceptions are a potential harm, so is everything else. It is not about what we have but who we are and how responsibly we handle what we have. I am very conscious to not cause others harm with my medical perceptions. And that is why I do not let a person know when I sense something serious in them, why I do not offer public readings although I could be making at least $6,336,000 a year from doing that and obviously get away with it and why I go through great lengths to ensure that everyone who participates in my investigation comes to no harm. So I don't see why we are all accusing me? It is perfectly valid and in fact quite necessary to discuss the possible harm, but not to conclude me being of the character that would actually be responsible of it already or as having shown signs of being headed in that direction, when clearly there is no indication of it at this point.

One doesn't need a particular vivid imagination to see that her actions and intentions, to diagnose people with her fantasy, are in fact a danger to the health of people she encounters.

Lots of men walk by a woman and have fantasies about what they would like to do with her. But that doesn't make a man a rapist.

For the public health, the result is the same. She poses a threat to the health of people who trust her when she diagnoses people with fantasies.

I do not share with people what I sense about them. Persons who volunteer for the study will fill in an anonymous health questionnaire and do not find out what I perceived about them.

If I or any other person on the forum pose a danger to anyone, I would like to hear it.

Everyone poses a danger to others. It's a question of what kind of person you are.

An example: A friend of mine got fined for forgetting to put out a barbecue on his own porch. It didn't cause harm, but it posed a danger. In Norway(and other countries I would guess), we have a law that prohibits dangerous behaviour with fire. This means that you can be prosecuted even if your playing with fire, out of sheer luck didn't burn your or any other's house down.

Good point, but it remains that I do not express the medical perceptions to people. They remain in my head, whereas the fire was in the outside world. Applying your analogy to me would be like fining the man for even thinking about making a fire.

Why is potential harm not good enough?

Because I resent being seen as a threat to others when I am not. I am keeping my medical perceptions within the investigation, and no one comes to harm in my investigation.

If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

The legal system would not find me guilty of a crime for how I conduct my investigation.

The severity of the potential harm and the probability the harm will actually occur.

The severity of the potential harm is quite serious, but so is the severity of the potential harm if you decide to turn your kitchen knife into a murder weapon or yourself into a rapist.

The probability is VERY high, since she has stated she will continue doing it, and she has repeatedly said that nothing can change her mind that she has superpowers, and that she intends too use them on people.

The way you guys interpret what I say to fit your preconceived ideas about a paranormal claimant. I have stated that regardless of what my investigation concludes about what the medical perceptions are, the perceptions will continue, since they are not a voluntary act that I choose to do but are part of what I perceive. I don't "do it", I "experience it". I have not said that I have superpowers, I've said I experience medical perceptions, and nothing can change them from occurring, nor would I want to. I don't use them on people.

But I have no reason to think she will stop there. The fact is that she has not demonstrated a single succesful test.

I am working towards having a test. I will have a test.

To the contrary, she has avoided tests at ALL

I am not. I have accepted every single offer of a test about my medical perceptions. So far, three such offers have been made by Forum members, all of which I accepted, the posters of all of which mysteriously vanished. In fact, see this page where I ask for anyone to set up a study opportunity for me, which will lead to a test. My paranormal claim is medical perceptions, and I would take such a test right away if it were offered. Before I have my official test with the IIG I need to find out whether the perceptions work with a screen between me and the persons, what distance is allowed between me and the persons, what specific ailments are the best ones to choose for test purposes, and more, and that is why I am working on the study at the moment. Which will lead to the test.

 

[Ashles]

As an undergraduate I am studying a B.S. Chemistry, a B.S. Physics Optical Science, as much Electrical Engineering as I can fit in. Then I hope to do graduate studies in Optical Physics and Engineering and also Histology (the study of human tissue structure) until finally a Ph.D. in Medical Physics. So it is all those things combined, Ashles.

That's all study.
I asked what actual job you were planning on after that.

Unless it is to research in a brand new field which you will have invented, in which case you needn't bother replying.

 

[eirik]

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them.
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose

No. My whole approach is fine, and in tune with all legal systems I have studied. As I explained, there are many laws prohibiting dangerous behaviour. The evaluation of evidence is the same, only the question of WHAT to prove is different. I really don't understand your concern. I have a feeling it has to do with your useless definition of danger. I assure you, it's not in use, beacause it's...useless.

FYI, there are 4 main groups of crime regulations, if you sort after substance(this is from a standard in Norwegian and Scandinavian crime law literature, Andenæs "Introduction to general crime law"(translated), p 52:

1. rules that punishes after cause(if you cause a certain result, so and so)
2. rules that punishes after danger(if you behave dangerous is a certain way, so and so)
3. rules that punishes what you actually do (if you hit someone, so and so)
4 rules that punishes what you don't do(if you don't try to rescue someone in danger that you are in a position to save, so and so)

All of these are frequently used and (super) non controversial. See especially no. 2.

I have never heard anyone seriously arguing that these regulations are uncivilised or a threat to human rights, or a rule of law. Crime law is very internationalized by now, with the UN charter, the EC of human rights, and the assorted different international courts. It's very much basically the same from nation to nation, and NOT ONE lawyer shares your concern that these rules opens up to a subjective and discriminatory legal system, police state or whatever terror-regimeish scenario comes to mind. If so, show me.

I didn't understand your referance to Iraq, but i have a feeling it is WAY of point.

Come on, meet me half way. This is devastating to your case, which I in some sense and to some degree can sympathize. Or at least respectfully disagree with. This is in regard to the point you might have if the site in question is abusive or nasty to VfF. What I have seen is not, but hey.

Eirik

 

[Cuddles]

Why is potential harm not good enough? If it's good enough for the legal system, why is it not good enough for you?

Potentially, I could murder hundreds of people in a drug-fuelled rampage. Fortunately, the legal system does not appear to have the standards you think it does.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

That's all study.
I asked what actual job you were planning on after that.

Unless it is to research in a brand new field which you will have invented, in which case you needn't bother replying.

I hate to involve anything from my personal or professional life into the discussions about my paranormal investigation, but I'll answer that. My goal as I see it now is to become a research Ph.D. in Medical Physics, to study the interaction of light/radiation with human tissue, to design electronic instruments that generate light structures for the purpose of destruction of specific structures in the body or for the rearrangement of body material. My research ideas are based on how I perceive the world in terms of vibration, which gives me a very easy way of relating to concepts of electromagnetism, conventional physics and structures in the human body as well as inspires some very interesting research hypotheses for me. My work is based on conventional science, but my research ideas are based on my perceptions and will go through the same process of evaluation as any other inspiration a scientist has, regardless of the source of inspiration or thought processes that occurred in the scientist that lead to those ideas.

 

[Ashles]

Exactly as I suspected.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I have good automatic visualizing skills that are very helpful for me in science. Perceiving math, equations and science concepts in terms of pictures of shapes and colors and vibrations that change and interact together all on their own is very helpful. It is reminiscent to me of what goes on in the mind of Daniel Tammet, (begin watching 5 minutes 20 seconds into the video)

 

[eirik]

Unsubstantiated? Now that's really ironic. You and others are making the claim that VFF is causing harm. Where's the proof? The website in question remains a disgrace.

I. Am. Not. Claiming. VfF. Is. Causing. Harm.

For the third time - Can you drop the straw already? I took it apart hours ago, as have others. I and others are claiming she is a danger. Should i waste even more good internet on explaining the term? The evidence is her own accounts.

I made a good argument she is dangerous, to which I get the strange "judge jury and executioner" comment, and the even more immature reply 'your argument is not good'.

Oh NO! It's not GOOD? How can I go on after this?

Pityful.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

ETA: I approve of the editing, was expecting it, and was considering removing the remark myself. Thank you. And sorry, Eirik. I hope my point was clear though.

 

[eirik]

Potentially, I could murder hundreds of people in a drug-fuelled rampage. Fortunately, the legal system does not appear to have the standards you think it does.

No, it does not appear to have the standards you think it does. There's no shame in that, as most non-lawyers often has a skewed picture of the legal systems and it's mechanisms. I am fully aware of many or most of the imperfections and weaknesses of the legal system. This is simply not one of them.

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations. And this is a very incontroversial fact and just an accepted selfevident neccessary side of our legal system and ethics.

I have never heard anyone argue this is a threat to citizens. And that is a revealing fact, because lawyers and law scholars just love controversy, especially at the expence of law-givers, and the litterature is FULL of every controversy you both can and cannot imagine.

But hey, I leave it to you guys: find a lawyer who by principle argues that prohibiting dangerous behaviour is a threat to the justice of citizens. One name is all I need, perhaps even from a scholar? I think not.

eirik

 

[Ashles]

I have good automatic visualizing skills that are very helpful for me in science. Perceiving math, equations and science concepts in terms of pictures of shapes and colors and vibrations that change and interact together all on their own is very helpful. It is reminiscent to me of what goes on in the mind of Daniel Tammet, (begin watching 5 minutes 20 seconds into the video)

Anita please try to rein in your constant compulsion to self-aggrandise.
This is serious advice - it would help you come across as less insufferably pompous.
If you really were as amazing as you keep claiming you would probably have been famous at 15 and already have reams of published research behind you, and serious study performed on you. This is not the case

At the moment, you are a 26 year old science student with an imagination. Nothing more, nothing less.
Save the glowing self-recommendations for when there is something unusual to report. Backed up by actual facts preferably.

 

[plumjam]

No. My whole approach is fine, and in tune with all legal systems I have studied. As I explained, there are many laws prohibiting dangerous behaviour. The evaluation of evidence is the same, only the question of WHAT to prove is different. I really don't understand your concern. I have a feeling it has to do with your useless definition of danger. I assure you, it's not in use, beacause it's...useless.

As far as I'm aware I have made no attempt whatsoever to set out a definition of danger. So you going on about my definition of danger being useless is just a bit strange.

FYI, there are 4 main groups of crime regulations, if you sort after substance(this is from a standard in Norwegian and Scandinavian crime law literature, Andenæs "Introduction to general crime law"(translated), p 52:

1. rules that punishes after cause(if you cause a certain result, so and so)
2. rules that punishes after danger(if you behave dangerous is a certain way, so and so)
3. rules that punishes what you actually do (if you hit someone, so and so)
4 rules that punishes what you don't do(if you don't try to rescue someone in danger that you are in a position to save, so and so)

All of these are frequently used and (super) non controversial. See especially no. 2.

I have never heard anyone seriously arguing that these regulations are uncivilised or a threat to human rights, or a rule of law. Crime law is very internationalized by now, with the UN charter, the EC of human rights, and the assorted different international courts. It's very much basically the same from nation to nation, and NOT ONE lawyer shares your concern that these rules opens up to a subjective and discriminatory legal system, police state or whatever terror-regimeish scenario comes to mind. If so, show me.

I didn't understand your referance to Iraq, but i have a feeling it is WAY of point.

Come on, meet me half way. This is devastating to your case, which I in some sense and to some degree can sympathize. Or at least respectfully disagree with. This is in regard to the point you might have if the site in question is abusive or nasty to VfF. What I have seen is not, but hey.

You clearly want to drag the topic into the area of law, whether national or international, I suspect because you feel like you're on more comfortable ground there.
The problem is that it is of very little relevance to the discussion.
Presumably, where Anita lives, there are (anti-danger) laws against unlicenced people setting themselves up in the guise of medical professionals and diagnosing people.
So if she did that she could be reported and prosecuted.

What you need to do, Eirik, is investigate whether or not she has done this. If she has you can provide your evidence to the relevant authorities and she may well be prosecuted.

If you cannot do this you're left with what? Not a lot, really. Just baseless suspicion, innuendo and the like. Rather a weak platform from which to spend your free time attacking a particular individual.

So go ahead Mr Lawyer, which law has she broken?

 

[tsig]

The problem with your whole approach is that it's one eminently open to being employed to justify attacks against individuals simply because you don't like them.
In the absence of any evidence of actual harm, or even just intent to harm, you can whip out this argument and use it to persecute absolutely any individual or group you choose.
You're from Scandinavia. I'm going to attack you for that, with the justification that you may one day potentially forcefeed me the local rotten fish; resulting in great damage to both my digestive system and my social life.

Overreacting to fearmongering about the prospect of potential harm can be equally or more harmful than the vaunted danger itself.. e.g. Iraqi WMD.

"Overreacting, fearmongering ??? All he did was put up a website you make it sound like he's burning people at the stake.

 

[tsig]

VisionFromFeeling, thanks for responding to my questions: however, I was posing them to UncaYimmy, and I wanted him to be answer those questions given he's the one who made the accusations. Other than that, all I have to say to you, and I mean this with the best will in the world, is that professional mental health advice is often the best medicine.

To UncaYimmy (and others who support the site):

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely crystal clear why I am actively opposing it rather than simply ignoring it. When starting what you called a 'stopthiswoo' site, you have to be absolutely sure that the harm you are going to cause to the subject of the site, who is a real live person with real feelings, emotions (and access to lawyers), is completely outweighed by the harm that person is doing to society.

I see no evidence for that here whatsoever.

Further, I had no previous engagement with this topic whatsoever or any preconceptions about any of the people involved, so when visiting your site I did so as a casual but interested observer, with a bias towards 'being on the side of skepticism' given I'm an active skeptic. What I saw was a site which presented no evidence that the subject of it is doing any harm to society whatsoever or indeed is anything but, at best, a harmless crank, and at worse, someone with the audacity to disagree with you on the internet.

When I posed some questions, it was made clear to me, by you, that in order to understand the issue (and therefore be qualified to debate it, I infer), I need to have read thousands of posts on the topic. No-one is going to do that from scratch. There's no benefit when the 'harm' being done by Anita appears to be zero.

Your website, whose sole existence is to attack another person, has to present a convincing argument. It doesn't. In fact, to me, it looks like a bullying tactic. You have supporters. I don't see Anita's. You are asking her to come and debate with you in an environment free from JREF forum rules and restrictions. I have in fact looked at some of the threads and I think your tone is quite aggressive and hers is unstable. The restrictions imposed on this forum are very good for keeping dialogue civil, legal, and fair. What such restrictions apply to your site?

Now, Anita hasn't asked me to defend her. I don't know her. I have no evidence that she's mentally ill. I have no evidence that the harm caused to her (or by association, JREF forum), by a site dedicated to 'naming and defaming' her when her 'crimes' are those of "spewing half-baked ideas" and "contacting a shopping mall" will even exist. I have formed my opinion of what I think is likely to happen based on my reading of your site and engaging with you in this thread. But I assure you, if I have come to that conclusion, I won't be the only one.

Equally, you have no evidence that any of her actions are causing, or will ever cause, harm. This is entirely different to the Sylvia and Kaz sites which inspired you. The tone of those sites is entirely different, the arguments and the conclusions one draws from them are entirely different. If that were not the case, I would not be arguing with you, but your site does have an air of mob mentality that alarms me, and Anita does have an air of "needs help not attacks" that saddens me.

You want to stop the woo before it does any harm. The problem with that is, you don't have a crystal ball. You have no evidence of any harm. Your comment on your website is "let the games begin". That speaks volumes to the site's motive and attitude. Stopsylvia is just about the most unbiased website on the internet. Yours has two positions. Either Anita is lying, or crazy. There is no "she may really have these powers" option, which is fine given it's extremely unlikely that she doesn't, but first, without testing, we don't know, and secondly, shouldn't it be up to the reader to decide from an unbiased summary?

If she's crazy, what are you doing?

If she's a fraud, to this degree, what is the motive of her fraud and how is this site going to stop her? In fact you've already stated that you can't stop her. Any casual visitors to the site (not that many people will ever google 'visionfromfeeling' unless they're already reading here) are, apparently, meant to read thousands of posts before being qualified to form an opinion. So, other than providing a 'gaming platform' for you to debate with Anita, publicly, with no rules, how does the benefit of the site outweigh the potential harm to Anita or your reputation as a skeptic?

I also have no crystal ball. The difference is, I'm not going to start a 'stopthebullying' website to try and curb your behaviour or censor your 'half-baked ideas'. I'm simply going to state my opinion in this thread, once again, that when starting what you called a 'stopthiswoo' site, you have to be absolutely sure that the harm you are going to cause to the subject of the site, who is a real live person with real feelings, emotions (and access to lawyers), is completely outweighed by the harm that person is doing to society.

You seem to be ignoring that Anita has posted to this thread and does not object to the site.

Are you going to keep whipping the "strawman of harm" when she says she has not been harmed?

 

[plumjam]

Hazardous behaviour is criminalized in hundreds of laws and regulations. And this is a very incontroversial fact and just an accepted selfevident neccessary side of our legal system and ethics.

Yeah, but what you've been talking about is suspicion of hazardous behaviour.
It is unjust to attack someone merely because you have a baseless suspicion that they may be partaking in hazardous behaviour.

 

[tsig]

To repeat, Sylvia's objective is to make money out of fools. There is no evidence VFF is doing this.

Potentially (a word you didn't use) she could be a danger to others, but so can anyone else on this forum. The website in question is a disgrace.

So you're willing to "wait and see" about VfF but UY gets the instant flame?