www.StopVisionFromFeeling.com - Volunteers Needed

[tsig]

Highly disingenuous of you to present that website as simply an expression of "I don't believe you". The content and tone is not of that nature, but rather one designed to give the impression that this named individual is either a liar/fraud or is mentally ill.

Tsig, are you a fraud or just crazy?

The usual connotation of "I don't believe you" is that you are not telling the truth.

Don't you find it a bit disingenuous to complain about UY calling VfF a fraud and then to do the same thing to me in the next sentence?

 

[eirik]

Anita hasn't done anything wrong. What do you want to happen, eirik? Do you want her to go away? To admit she has no powers? To go and debate on an unmoderated website with people who are not polite to her? What sort of victory are you seeking, exactly? Criminals are fined or imprisoned. You're determined she has the potential to harm, what do you want the punishment to be? What did the barbecue guy get?

The barbecue guy got fined with kr 5000, about 700 USD. I am actually glad that VfF is here, but I am also glad we have people here and elsewhere to argue against her position. I am not after a "victory". I am for discussion and arguments.

I am puzzled that you're telling me that there's something wrong with my ethical and skeptical position. If someone is telling me that they once did/ will do in the future something that by law is illegal, I don't feel that pointing that out is being "judge, jury and executioner". I have not even stateed it is illegal, I am just saying that it might well be illegal. There's nothing special about prohibiting or taking an ethical stand on dangerous behaviour.

I don't report people telling me things in confidence to the police. That is a strange argument. There is a limit to this rule, but we are far from that now.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

I want to trust you, and I'll bet in many ways I already do. I don't think you're tempted to do anything naughty at the moment, but as you point out above, there's a big fortune to be made for the unscrupulous. I'd like to help you to not be perceived as anything other than honest and well-intenioned in the future, and in that way, I'm only a potential Meanie™.

I am a most compassionate and caring individual and I would never charge a person $1100 for an unverified attempt of medical practice which first of all contradicts with my sense of responsibility and scientific professionalism, not to mention to charge $1100 for something I could do for free, considering that there are no material costs involved. The reason an actual MRI costs thousands of dollars is because of the costly research that lead to its creation, the expensive education that its practitioners go through, and all the other costs involved in maintaining such an expensive piece of equipment. Heck, if I was proven to be a true psychic MRI, I'd do it for free! The argument that "well my psychic MRI is only $1100 whereas a real MRI is far more, so I am really giving you a break", which is what I would expect if I were to speak with the woo in question, in fact reveals not compassion toward the budget of their clients but greedy motives.

Since you could do it for free. Or for $0.50.

As long as you play nice, I share your disgust

Let's all share in the disgust.

 

[plumjam]

The usual connotation of "I don't believe you" is that you are not telling the truth.

There are ways of presenting this disbelief. You can do it in a reasoned, civilised manner, or you can choose to indulge in personal attack. UY's way is closer to the latter.

Don't you find it a bit disingenuous to complain about UY calling VfF a fraud and then to do the same thing to me in the next sentence?

That was in order to bring it home to you just exactly what UY is doing to Anita; a not very difficult subtlety which you seem to have missed.
Either way you didn't like it, did you.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

My intent, whether it comes across or not, is to provide a documentary into how a science student critically analyzes and investigates her paranormal experience.

Yup. I see it that way too. The whole thing is an unfolding story, and I have no idea how it will turn out, but I sincerely hope the new site provides an objective means for your documentary to develop.

You know how I feel about your claims, but those feelings haven't kept me from a respect and admiration for you. If nothing else, your determination is awesome!


Cheers

 

[tsig]

Ah, I see you didn't read my post. I didn't accuse him of any such thing. I said there is potential for harm, to Anita, to JREF forum's reputation by association. I also said I have no evidence for such an assertion, but my response to it has not been to start a website attacking UY. UY believes that Anita poses potential for harm (to who or what we don't know), he has no evidence for that, but has started a website attacking her anyway.

You say " potential for harm" then you say " I also said I have no evidence for such an assertion".

Might it be smart to wait for evidence before the accusation?

 

[plumjam]

You are wrong, not only is it a a right, but a legal right. I showed that this is not even correct in the criminal legal system. Potential harm is regulated practiucally EVERYWHERE. You wanted to bicker on this because you have a problem listening to othere peoples arguments. And freedom of speech besides, is this where you whip out a philosophical/ethical discussion? It is not REALLY a right, it's the SYSTEM!! Remember your goal posts.

Maybe we read different dictionaries, but to me there's a great deal of difference between the authorities enforcing the law, based on evidence.. and people taking it upon themselves to target an individual based on, as yet, nothing

See above. I know you were busy with your strawman of UJ not being able to prove that Anita was doing «harm», but your functioning definition of «danger» was that 'one can not attack others on the basis of their «potential harm»'.

Hmmm, it is your position that one can not "attack others" on the basis of danger. Now, THAT is interesting. But, keep digging..



No, I don't care about this at all. You raised the issue, remember?





No, I need not do anything but watching goalposts flying everywhere.



Hmm, ad hominem, and derailing. I'm not a court of law. Did I give you that impression? You seemed so capable.



No, it is not "unjust". I am not talking about «suspicion» much less baseless. You know why? All the evidence is from VfFs own account. Sure, she could be lying, but I don't care. I take her word for it in this informal forum, and i criticize it when i feel like it.

This is not a court room, and I am not reporting her to the police. I simply agree with UncaJimmys efforts, and I find it educating and enlightening in the process. And so does appearently VfF.

Eirik, you seem mightily confused.
First you want to base your argument on legality, and then when challenged on this you change direction and say it's not about the law.
Make your mind up.

And once you've made your mind up come to the realisation that whichever approach you take will fall down, because both necessarily hinge on you providing evidence. Which you don't have.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let's all share in the disgust.

We might have it to ourselves since everyone else seems to be busy. Let me tell you about this new website . . .

 

[eirik]

Heh, then when you ask yourself what is the probability of me causing others harm with perceiving and investigating my medical perceptions, what is the answer that you get? You also have no evidence to suspect me of being headed toward causing others harm

I think that you are honest in your attempts, and I think that you are a caring and honest person. That's my opinion. I don't think that you willfully want to hurt or cause harm to anybody. My position is based on the threads where simple testing was protocolled, and you did not carry them out. The powers changed every time a protocol was being designed. There is nothing in these threads that indicates that you could have special powers.

I therefore stay with the null hypothesis, you do not have superpowers.

Any attempt you do to diagnose a person will therefore be inprecise, miss things, and find illnesses that are not there. This could be bad for the patient involved. That is my concern. And since health is sort of important to many people, I have concluded that if you continue on your path, you could hurt someone, in worst case, substantially, even though that is not your purpose.

But i do appreciate your presence, and I think it does us all good

 

[tsig]

There are ways of presenting this disbelief. You can do it in a reasoned, civilised manner, or you can choose to indulge in personal attack. UY's way is closer to the latter.



That was in order to bring it home to you just exactly what UY is doing to Anita; a not very difficult subtlety which you seem to have missed.
Either way you didn't like it, did you.

So now I'm supposed to call you names to prove a point and we all descend into the schoolyard?

You might want to be careful with "proving a point" like that. Some might misunderstand and hit the "report" button out of a misunderstanding. Lucky for you I'm not that way, no?

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Edited by Darat: 

As per my previous Mod box: content addressing claims made for or against you have been removed. This thread is for discussing the website just started, keep to that topic or don't post in this thread.

ETA: Claims for or against me are what www.stopvisionfromfeeling.com is all about. Sorry.

 

[krelnik]

I don't really want to get in the middle of what is obviously a heated argument, but there is one thing that I would like to point out about the construction of the site.

The site currently links to VisionFromFeeling's own web site using a normal hyperlink. That means that you are giving a Google boost to her material. Your site is new so the current effect is minimal. But if you get traction you are going to be inadvertantly helping her spread her message through Google.

There's a special tag that you can use to avoid this problem. I explain the issues involved in a blog post here: Not just for SPAM anymore: NOFOLLOW for skepticism.

The other major change I would advise is to cut down on the sarcastic tone. It plays well with skeptics but it totally alienates everyone else. But I've written about that elsewhere and again I don't really want to leap into this argument.

Carry on.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

You are wrong, not only is it a a right, but a legal right. I showed that this is not even correct in the criminal legal system. Potential harm is regulated practiucally EVERYWHERE.

eirik, ... ? Don't make me tell you what you could potentially do to others? And: no more pseudolaw, please.

You know why? All the evidence is from VfFs own account.

Please provide. Like a true representative of the law would.

and I find it educating and enlightening in the process. And so does appearently VfF.

Yes, I find my investigation educating and enlightening. In more ways than I had ever expected.

I am both confused , surprised , and boggled , utterly shocked , I can't believe it , it makes me feel all weak all of a sudden , I am of course utterly relieved , although shocked , and I can't believe what I am seeing , makes me happy of course , it's a very nice change for a while , not that I can believe it , maybe it's a good thing , although it's wonderful ...
there is all this argument going on about me, back and forth, I reply to most of it, yet none of it is ever addressed to me!

Let's just see what comes out of this.

 

[skeen]

Anita will still be posting here when she's 50, convinced as ever!

 

[eirik]

When you're singling out a person, potential harm is just not good enough.
Like I've already said we all have the potential to harm each other; but that doesn't give us the right to attack each other on the suspicion of future harm.
If a person has a history of harming others then one can rightly take reasonable precautions with them, such as probation, tagging, rehabilitation etc..
As far as any of us here know, it seems that Anita has no history of either harming people or encouraging people to harm themselves. I've asked for evidence and none has been provided.
Therefore to attack her in this way is completely unjustified.

Here you go jumping right in to the legal «analogy». Prior to this we were talking about mere criticism. Tip: To do an analogy, it is often an advantage to be familiar with the subject of comparison. Which you do not know as well as you think you do. This was what I responded to. And is doing for the last time.

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 they are dangerous in their behaviour.(edited eirik)
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.

Fixed that for you Again, I rebutted your «argument», which are only unsubstantiated and uneducated guesses, based on, I don't know, mild paranoia and simple misunderstandings. It only goes to show your complete lack of understanding of simple ethics. Dangerous behaviour: bad. Non-dangerous behaviour: good.

Plenty of regulations prohibits dangerous behaviour, without threatening anyones right to a fair trial. One can even say that it is ethical to criticize a person who is acting dangerously. I don't expect you to see the parallelle.

By the way....Oh NO, I just read up on what Iraqi WMD is... pheew, glad I didn't fall for that. When are you bringing up Adolf? He surely must fit here somewhere.

But in all fairness: I shall not fall for your derailing again.

 

[Akhenaten]

<snippy>

there is all this argument going on about me, back and forth, I reply to most of it, yet none of it is ever addressed to me!

Let's just see what comes out of this.

Well yeah, but try and not worry about it so much. Trying to answer too many things gets you running around in circles (me too), and sometimes your frustration shows.

Come over to <that other place> for a while and bring the popcorn.

I like your joke with the smileys, but some folks find them annoying, so take care not to provoke the Meanies™


ETA: The underlined bit in the quote above is kind of important. This thread is about UncaYimmy's website, so we need to remember that you only need to answer questions about that.

 

[Moochie]

<snipped for brevity>

My intent, whether it comes across or not, is to provide a documentary into how a science student critically analyzes and investigates her paranormal experience.

See, this is blatant nonsense. There is no "paranormal" anything in evidence. True?


M.

 

[VisionFromFeeling]

Plenty of regulations prohibits dangerous behaviour, without threatening anyones right to a fair trial. One can even say that it is ethical to criticize a person who is acting dangerously. I don't expect you to see the parallelle.

eirik how is any of what I am doing dangerous to anyone? Go on, pseudolaw can do it!

 

[Uncayimmy]

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 don't "have to" do any such thing. You're setting up all sorts of straw men here, which I am finding to be typical of you in this discussion. I am also finding that you are ignoring the questions asked of you and points refuted as you keep plodding on with ever-increasing vigor and drama.

As I have said several times before, the only major difference between what I am doing on my site and what I and others have been doing here for months is that it is happening on a different server with a different domain name.

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.

Did you happen to catch the subject of this thread? I'm looking for volunteers to help flesh out the site, which is only a couple of days old. In the meantime I provide links to literally hundreds of thousands of words about VFF. It's going to take some time to distill that down.

Beyond that, I've read your points. I disagree with many of your assumptions as well as your logic. I just don't feel it's worth it arguing with you.

 

[eirik]

eirik, ... ? Don't make me tell you what you could potentially do to others? And: no more pseudolaw, please.

But you already did tell me that I am a potential murderer and rapist, remember? I gave you an overly polite answer to that accusation and why it is more than inaccurate. And I am puzzsled on your comment on pseudo law. If I am wrong on any particular account, please point it out.

Please provide. Like a true representative of the law would.

You do realize that your ridicule only reflects on yourself? In here, I am a member of the JREF-forum, which happens to know a thing or two about law, as I would expect many here do. As for evidence, read your own posts, please. You have stated several times that you diagnose people with your superpowers, and that you have no intention of stopping. Are you retracting this? If so, I stand corrected.

This behaviour is dangerous. Calling it a personal study really does not help.

Yes, I find my investigation educating and enlightening. In more ways than I had ever expected.

Good. I hope so too.