First Thing Tasted?
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
she was put under-arrest, but was in a hospital, with a Ryles tube which went directly into her stomach, through which she was fed a form of rice slurry ... all this against her will, cause as per Indian law, going on a hunger strike is akin to suicide, which is a crime ...
Same in the US, which is why it is seen as an act of selfishness and self-aggrandizement and an act against the thing that they claim to support. It's seen as someone attempting to capitalize on the suffering of others. Just an attention seeking problem. It doesn't make people feel sorry or change their minds, it makes them upset about how selfish that person is being. It doesn't draw attention to the law that needs to be changed, it draws attention to the individual.
Thanks to Irom, the issue did get some attention ... She inspired other around the country to take-up this cause .. If not in her state, the govt. did withdraw AFSPA from several other regions ..
What saddens me is how some of you guys , were so quick to to call her a fake, without getting the fact straight... No one even cared about the sacrifice this person has made.
Nobody asked her to make any sacrifice, she did that for her own self-aggrandizement. The human ego is a bizarre thing. Anyone who actually makes a sacrifice to make the world a better place goes unseen, because they don't need to be seen "doing the right thing"... They simply do it, without alerting the press or raising a big hullabaloo.
So remember kids, those people that tell you they are making the world a better place by their own self sacrifice have an agenda, and they are charlatans.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
She inspired other around the country to take-up this cause .. If not in her state, the govt. did withdraw AFSPA from several other regions ..
Is that the whole story or is this like a Gandhi thing where someone gets far more credit and we ignore a bunch of other things going on?
-
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet You can't defend her fast as absolute (and even still in progress, oddly enough), then when called on it back off to talk about forced feeding tubes. If you cared about facts, why didn't you mention that from the beginning?
pardon me, if I was under the impression that I was part of a forum of intelligent peers
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
What saddens me is how some of you guys , were so quick to to call her a fake, without getting the fact straight... No one even cared about the sacrifice this person has made.
That's the problem with hunger strikes, they are seen as self serving and not supporting the cause. Because we believe that AFSPA is bad, we see her hunger strike as bad. Does that make sense? It's because AFSPA should be repealed that we feel that someone drawing attention to themselves using it as an excuse, is bad.
Sure she "helped" get it partially repealed, but how much sooner might it have been repealed if she had not done this? Maybe much sooner. Sixteen years is a long time.
And at the end... she got a job in politics. I'm not saying that that is why she gave up the fast, but it's very fishy and certainly would look like someone offered her a job to end the fast. NOt saying that the US isn't corrupt, it's horribly corrupt and we are used to seeing this kind of thing .
Look at this from our view.... no one in any way said that the law is good, we all hate it there as we do here. It's hunger strikes that are seen as a problem undermining the importance of the matter.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet You can't defend her fast as absolute (and even still in progress, oddly enough), then when called on it back off to talk about forced feeding tubes. If you cared about facts, why didn't you mention that from the beginning?
pardon me, if I was under the impression that I was part of a forum of intelligent peers
If you're suggesting you're intelligent, then please, write an intelligent response, this is the second time you've responded with absolutely no point what so ever other than to mock me, I haven't done that to you, I explained myself. If you can't respond, then don't, but nobody here is fooled by nonsense responses rather than actual ones with a point.
So either answer my question or ignore it, but don't make fun of it, because nobody buys it, it just looks desperate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
Sure she "helped" get it partially repealed, but how much sooner might it have been repealed if she had not done this? Maybe much sooner. Sixteen years is a long time.
That's a point I was trying to make as well, if she would've used that time in politics, she could've done a lot more. Maybe her hunger strike did call attention to it, fine, but India needs more politicians who care about things, she's not helping at all by literally doing nothing and saying "I'm on a hunger strike, now you go and do something about this law."
As I said, and I was serious, I hope she can do a lot better as a politician and I imagine she will. The problem is though later on any future political successes with her will be linked with this hunger strike. So future people wanting to make change won't start with the best route which actually did it, but instead just another hunger strike.
-
And just as a reminder, this post was ONLY a report from SW and it was only there solely because mango lassis made news headlines, nothing more. If the BBC post was offensive in some way, that would be a question for the BBC. It's just rare that people see mango lassis in the news.
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
And just as a reminder, this post was ONLY a report from SW and it was only there solely because mango lassis made news headlines, nothing more. If the BBC post was offensive in some way, that would be a question for the BBC. It's just rare that people see mango lassis in the news.
I figured as such as well, outside of India, only certain circles cared about the situation, and the fact none of us (seemingly) had heard anything about her prior to the article says a lot about how well hunger strikes work when calling attention to something. Ironically it was her ending the strike which did even more good.
-
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
Sure she "helped" get it partially repealed, but how much sooner might it have been repealed if she had not done this? Maybe much sooner. Sixteen years is a long time.
That's a point I was trying to make as well, if she would've used that time in politics, she could've done a lot more. Maybe her hunger strike did call attention to it, fine, but India needs more politicians who care about things, she's not helping at all by literally doing nothing and saying "I'm on a hunger strike, now you go and do something about this law."
As I said, and I was serious, I hope she can do a lot better as a politician and I imagine she will. The problem is though later on any future political successes with her will be linked with this hunger strike. So future people wanting to make change won't start with the best route which actually did it, but instead just another hunger strike.
At the time, she went on a hunger strike, was a nobody ... In the 16 years that she was on a "fasting strike" (I hope this term is acceptable to you'll), she helped get the cause a lot of much deserved attention ...., After 16 years, she must have realized that she has now gained a lot of support ,in terms of people who'd follow her, which would translate into votes, which may put her in a position, where she may be able to influence some change ... just a theory ... does it sound plausible ?
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
And just as a reminder, this post was ONLY a report from SW and it was only there solely because mango lassis made news headlines, nothing more. If the BBC post was offensive in some way, that would be a question for the BBC. It's just rare that people see mango lassis in the news.
Who would have thought that posting an article, simply because it mentioned the name of this forum, would have turned into such a butt-hurt shit show? The easily offended should avoid the internet at all costs.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
Sure she "helped" get it partially repealed, but how much sooner might it have been repealed if she had not done this? Maybe much sooner. Sixteen years is a long time.
That's a point I was trying to make as well, if she would've used that time in politics, she could've done a lot more. Maybe her hunger strike did call attention to it, fine, but India needs more politicians who care about things, she's not helping at all by literally doing nothing and saying "I'm on a hunger strike, now you go and do something about this law."
As I said, and I was serious, I hope she can do a lot better as a politician and I imagine she will. The problem is though later on any future political successes with her will be linked with this hunger strike. So future people wanting to make change won't start with the best route which actually did it, but instead just another hunger strike.
At the time, she went on a hunger strike, was a nobody ... In the 16 years that she was on a "fasting strike" (I hope this term is acceptable to you'll), she helped get the cause a lot of much deserved ..,
People kept saying fasting, that's why I was saying it, but yes I know it was supposed to be a hunger strike.
After 16 years, she must have realized that she has now gained a lot of support ,in terms of people who'd follow her, which would translate into votes, which may put her in a position, where she may be able to influence some change ... just a theory ... does it sound plausible ?
Let's wait until after the elections before beating ourselves off.
-
also, have you guys in the WEST heard of Yoga ?
I've been reading-up on this guy, for a while now, and it seems unreal to me ... but, check this out ...
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
also, have you guys in the WEST heard of Yoga ?
Yes, house wives everywhere do it very poorly, but the pants look great.
And if you're going to suggest Yoga can make someone not starve to death, please don't.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
Don't you find it strange that basically outside India nobody ever makes claims like this? As in, when such a claim is made, we can already guess it's from India not some place else. Could it be that maybe in Indian culture people are just more apt to believe things like this rather than questioning them? Just a theory.... does it sound plausible?
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
Sure she "helped" get it partially repealed, but how much sooner might it have been repealed if she had not done this? Maybe much sooner. Sixteen years is a long time.
That's a point I was trying to make as well, if she would've used that time in politics, she could've done a lot more. Maybe her hunger strike did call attention to it, fine, but India needs more politicians who care about things, she's not helping at all by literally doing nothing and saying "I'm on a hunger strike, now you go and do something about this law."
As I said, and I was serious, I hope she can do a lot better as a politician and I imagine she will. The problem is though later on any future political successes with her will be linked with this hunger strike. So future people wanting to make change won't start with the best route which actually did it, but instead just another hunger strike.
At the time, she went on a hunger strike, was a nobody ... In the 16 years that she was on a "fasting strike" (I hope this term is acceptable to you'll), she helped get the cause a lot of much deserved attention ...., After 16 years, she must have realized that she has now gained a lot of support ,in terms of people who'd follow her, which would translate into votes, which may put her in a position, where she may be able to influence some change ... just a theory ... does it sound plausible ?
Yes, going on a fast and going on a hunger strike are very different things. Fasting can include denying any particular thing. Like some people fast only by not eating red meat or only at certain times of day. Hunger strike means you will die in under 40 days no matter what unless the strike ends (perhaps not by your choice.) That's why I called it a "taste strike". She stopped tasting food, and that's a big deal of course, but it's not a hunger strike. She may have intended a hunger strike, but unless she intended to die, she didn't. And since she announced it, I don't think it can be counted.
That she gained popularity is kind of my point. Of course she did. Don't you think that she was counting on that? And that very thing is the problem - knowing that going on a strike of some sort gets you personal attention.
-
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
Yes, house wives everywhere do it very poorly, but the pants look great.
well, I guess that's how deep the west thinks of yoga, and probably most other things .. sad..
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
also, have you guys in the WEST heard of Yoga ?
I've been reading-up on this guy, for a while now, and it seems unreal to me ... but, check this out ...
Yes, VERY aware of yoga AND very aware of that scam making the news. And that's exactly how we saw this person. Do you see how damaging things like this are? Specifically because of the obvious fraud like this happening, this girl not "eating voluntarily" for sixteen years comes across immediately as a hoax. We assume that the term hunger strike is applied in the same way to her that "not eating" is applied to the 70 year guy. Obviously he's gotten food and liquid somehow, obviously. This isn't even good news for the National Enquirer.
That these two come across as similar or that her hunger strike will make future hunger strikes meaningless because people know that they will be force fed instead of dying, simply makes a mockery of the whole thing. That's the problem.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
Yes, house wives everywhere do it very poorly, but the pants look great.
well, I guess that's how deep the west thinks of yoga, and probably most other things .. sad..
Actually that's part of the problem, the west feels the same way about India's views on it because crazy claims like people not needing to eat when doing yoga come out and it actually make it far enough for someone to talk about it. It may seem like the west takes it casually, but that's exactly what we hear from India here.
-
Remember that just recently someone was jailed in India for disclosing that people in a Catholic shrine were drinking toilet run-off water that was dripping over a statue. This is something that the government intentionally stopped from being disclosed because it is a crime in India to question religious beliefs. That means that unless the doctors saying that these claims are true are from another country, it is the same as there not even being a credible report of it yet because the local doctors are legally barred from disclosing that he's been eating or drinking.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
also, have you guys in the WEST heard of Yoga ?
I've been reading-up on this guy, for a while now, and it seems unreal to me ... but, check this out ...
Remember that when audited, they found that he had not been monitored around the clock and was only monitored for a very short duration. He had plenty of time, they admitted, to have drank plenty of water. And fifteen days is not a length of time to starve without food. I have gone 28 days with zero food (but obviously with water) before even experiencing what most people call hunger pains. Yes, I have an especially slow metabolism in that way, so that's not exactly normal. But it's a real world number. Twenty eight days of normal activity, not sitting still or meditating or doing anything to lower my consumption rate. In fact, I was very active. Had I wanted to go for a record, I could have done a lot of things to get a lot more time out of that.
So that he didn't eat for fifteen days tells us, literally, nothing at all. And that he was not actually monitored around the clock tells us that... no one has looked into his claim at all, in reality.
Also, you are aware that the Daily Mail is a tabloid paper, right? Not a newspaper.
