First Thing Tasted?
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
What's also fishy is that they wait for seventy years to point out that they have this miracle going on? That's weird. Why wasn't this making headlines continuously since the second month? That someone goes one month without food, that doesn't make news. But two months, even for a serious yogi, that's gonna break some records. People would be talking about this, everyone would be monitoring and doing so for decades. It would always be in the news and well known. It wouldn't suddenly pop up after seventy years.
well, this is India ... there're places in India, where people still don't have access to water or electricity .... So, years ago, this guy could've been holed-up in some village, and while he may have been popular in his village, he may have been unknown to the rest of country ...
I can' understand that but only to a very limited degree. That it took time, sure. But seventy years for the biggest miracle in human history is a big of an extreme to not have get out, no matter how isolated he was. I mean news would get around. That it took a year or two to reach the outside world, sure, you could sell me on that. News travelled slowly when he started. But that it's taken seventy years means that, let's say, for sixty eight years either no one took him at all seriously and/or until recently the claim wasn't even made. I'm guessing the later. But who knows. But in no case, even with the poorest, most backwards place, most insulated in all of India, it would only take a few days for that news to make it to a city if even a small percentage of people thought it at all likely.
-
@tonyshowoff She was imprisoned and force fed through a straw/tube thing
-
@momurda said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff She was imprisoned and force fed through a straw/tube thing
You are behind the times
We got that part cleared up. -
@RojoLoco
Are you going to say that Gandhi was a selfish asshole screaming 'look at me'? If so you will get many people who disagree with you, and they would probably be right.
In my experiences, that is a typically American way of thinking. 95% of people in the world arent americans, and havent had their thinking perverted in the American Way. yes they would have their own perverted way of thinking but it is something else than what you and i are used to, and as such their motivations are probably unknowable from our point of view. -
@scottalanmiller ... okay, now my point (at the cost of sounding flaky) ...
I feel, the entire "Yogi not eaten for 70 year" is rather implausible .. but, it did gain a lot of attention (In india atleast) , just as Irom's "No Tasting food" strike of 16 years did ... Difference being, that Irom's strike (whether fake or not, whether right or not) made a lot of people stand-up and take notice of an issue that was rather unknown, or faced indifference .. It made people think ... it made them question ..
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller ... okay, now my point (at the cost of sounding flaky) ...
I feel, the entire "Yogi not eaten for 70 year" is rather implausible .. but, it did gain a lot of attention (In india atleast) , just as Irom's "No Tasting food" strike of 16 years did ... Difference being, that Irom's strike (whether fake or not, whether right or not) made a lot of people stand-up and take notice of an issue that was rather unknown, or faced indifference .. It made people think ... it made them question ..
I totally get that that idea is valuable. What I'm wondering is.... did it do more to get attention for the law or for the person? Would something else have gotten more attention for the law than doing this? Something that might have changed it? And also, why are people paying attention to people doing this rather than paying attention to the laws in the first place?
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller ... okay, now my point (at the cost of sounding flaky) ...
I feel, the entire "Yogi not eaten for 70 year" is rather implausible .. but, it did gain a lot of attention (In india atleast) , just as Irom's "No Tasting food" strike of 16 years did ... Difference being, that Irom's strike (whether fake or not, whether right or not) made a lot of people stand-up and take notice of an issue that was rather unknown, or faced indifference .. It made people think ... it made them question ..
I totally get that that idea is valuable. What I'm wondering is.... did it do more to get attention for the law or for the person? Would something else have gotten more attention for the law than doing this? Something that might have changed it? And also, why are people paying attention to people doing this rather than paying attention to the laws in the first place?
here's another way of looking @ it ... Yes, her actions DID get HER a lot of attention, and through her the issue, the cause, and the draconian law did too ..
Historically, every cause, every revolution, has had a champion, a poster-boy/girl ...
I don't see people say ..."Oh what Martin Luther King did was mostly to draw attention to himself ... what he did, did very little for African-American civil rights" ...
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
I don't see people say ..."Oh what Martin Luther King did was mostly to draw attention to himself ... what he did, did very little for African-American civil rights" ...
Well, I feel that a lot of people do feel that he was very much looking for attention, while still supporting a cause. But also, his work, which was far more about getting the word out, getting people involved, reaching out to real people to take real action immediately, did a lot of change very quickly. Civil rights laws in America change extremely rapidly after and during his work and he was partially fighting against an impression of the laws, not just the laws themselves, which he certainly did change dramatically.
But I at least have always had the impression that he was seen as also doing a lot of his work for attention as well. He was famous in his lifetime, rather than famous only after death like John Brown.
-
Oh sorry, I think I read what you wrote incorrectly. You weren't saying that he wasn't effective, you were saying that he was effective but were quoting people you don't think say things. Sorry. Yes, no one questions that MLK was effective, he was. But he also acted quite differently, he did what we were saying that would have been a better use of time... talking to people, getting people to take action, he entered the political system and made things change, rather than simply working to raise awareness of the issue and hoping that someone else would take the political action.
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
I don't see people say ..."Oh what Martin Luther King did was mostly to draw attention to himself ... what he did, did very little for African-American civil rights" ...
But I at least have always had the impression that he was seen as also doing a lot of his work for attention as well. He was famous in his lifetime, rather than famous only after death like John Brown.
He certainly loved the attention he got from women all over his travels... as MLK was a well known philanderer.
-
@momurda said in First Thing Tasted?:
@RojoLoco
Are you going to say that Gandhi was a selfish asshole screaming 'look at me'? If so you will get many people who disagree with you, and they would probably be right.Gandhi was assassinated 30 years before I was born, so I have no idea, nor do I really care. But I'm sure people who were adults when he was alive and active could have seen his motives, whether noble or otherwise. Or maybe they couldn't. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another.
