First Thing Tasted?
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
I don't know of any of the gurus or anyone involved in the long hunger strikes or religious fasts that go on for decades that aren't just frauds. Plenty of them have been found to be cheating on hidden camera and so forth. There's just some things the human body is incapable of. I usually use Bobby Sands as a measuring tool, if it was longer than that I'm sceptical, but if it's longer than the morbidly obese guy who drink nothing but water and took vitamins for 1 year for the BBC or Channel 4 years ago, then I pretty much say: it's a lie, they're full of it.
16 years? Yeah right. Not only that, like @RojoLoco said, it was a waste, the goal wasn't even accomplished, so why is this failure even talked about?
My honest guess is, she just got tired of hiding her food eating and lying about it, maybe she wants to go out to eat at restaurants or something,.
This is the real deal, m8 ... btw ... just because she's ended her fast, does not mean that she has stopped fighting against AFSPA (Armed Force Special Powers Act) .. AFPSA was introduced by the Indian Govt. to give the Army, so called "Special Powers" in certain areas termed as "Disturbed"... AFSPA gives anyone from the the armed forces, right such as
"After giving due warning, an officer is allowed to open fire or use other kinds of force even if it causes death."
"To arrest anyone without warrant who has committed cognizable offences or is reasonably suspected of having done so. "
"Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under AFSPA."
"This draconian law is widely misused by the armed forces .. There have been numerous instances where innocent civilians have been killed, arrested & tortured, and woman raped... "
What Irom will now do is fight as being part of the system, rather than fro the outside ..
Just because I criticise her fast as pretty much impossible, does not mean I am defending this law at all, I never defended it or said it was a good thing, so don't move the goal posts, poison the well, etc. I want to know how someone could have essentially no calorie intake for 16 years and still look pretty healthy when even anorexics who basically do the same thing do not, even though many of them eat from time to time. Yeah, and magic isn't real so it's bull plop.
Her nonsense and lies have nothing to do with the law, on top of the fact she really didn't accomplish her goal, that's an indisputable fact, so it was a waste of time. The goal of her fast was to remove the law, it didn't, what else can be said?
just because she's ended her fast, does not mean that she has stopped fighting against AFSPA
Uh, yeah, I believe it does, when her stated goal for the fast was to remove the law, the law is not removed, so she stops the fast and then says she'll continue to fight it in politics; I'm not sure how else anyone could possibly interpret that.
If she's not fasting anymore, it does mean she's ended her fast, that's how fasting works.
Let's hope as a politician she can do some actual good though, and I'm being serious about that, I'm not being sarcastic at all.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff ... Narrow & unenlightened
Well, I'm sorry that you think being broad and enlightened requires believing a fraud. This is a thing both my culture and Indian culture share in common that I dislike: people believe absolute frauds all the time, never question them, and in fact to question them means to believe in whatever they're opposing.
If enlightenment means that I have to believe a little girl can see your insides with her eyes (here) or that someone can fast longer than most anorexics live with even less calorie intake and still look healthy (there) then count me out, I'll stay unenlightened and stick to science.
Fight the law, but do it right and where it matters. It is a barbaric set of laws and again her clearly, blatantly obvious fraud has nothing to do with the law, other than making it seem like only frauds care about it, and to clarify this because I know you'll intentionally misinterpret it: I'm saying it can create a perception of that, not that literally only frauds care, so don't bother.
-
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
Fight the law, but do it right and where it matters. It is a barbaric set of laws and again her clearly, blatantly obvious fraud has nothing to do with the law, other than making it seem like only frauds care about it.
I have to agree, her claim to a hunger strike for sixteen years just belittles the whole situation. It makes light of something serious. If you think the law is a serious problem, and I agree that it is, you should be upset with this woman for using it for her personal gain in making herself famous for pulling a con job. She's both supporting the law and taking advantage of people that think they dislike the law at the same time. We'd call her a huxter, well we would in the 1890s at least.
-
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff said in First Thing Tasted?:
I don't know of any of the gurus or anyone involved in the long hunger strikes or religious fasts that go on for decades that aren't just frauds. Plenty of them have been found to be cheating on hidden camera and so forth. There's just some things the human body is incapable of. I usually use Bobby Sands as a measuring tool, if it was longer than that I'm sceptical, but if it's longer than the morbidly obese guy who drink nothing but water and took vitamins for 1 year for the BBC or Channel 4 years ago, then I pretty much say: it's a lie, they're full of it.
16 years? Yeah right. Not only that, like @RojoLoco said, it was a waste, the goal wasn't even accomplished, so why is this failure even talked about?
My honest guess is, she just got tired of hiding her food eating and lying about it, maybe she wants to go out to eat at restaurants or something,.
This is the real deal, m8 ... btw ... just because she's ended her fast, does not mean that she has stopped fighting against AFSPA (Armed Force Special Powers Act) .. AFPSA was introduced by the Indian Govt. to give the Army, so called "Special Powers" in certain areas termed as "Disturbed"... AFSPA gives anyone from the the armed forces, right such as
"After giving due warning, an officer is allowed to open fire or use other kinds of force even if it causes death."
"To arrest anyone without warrant who has committed cognizable offences or is reasonably suspected of having done so. "
"Army officers have legal immunity for their actions. There can be no prosecution, suit or any other legal proceeding against anyone acting under AFSPA."
"This draconian law is widely misused by the armed forces .. There have been numerous instances where innocent civilians have been killed, arrested & tortured, and woman raped... "
What Irom will now do is fight as being part of the system, rather than fro the outside ..
Just because I criticise her fast as pretty much impossible, does not mean I am defending this law at all, I never defended it or said it was a good thing, so don't move the goal posts, poison the well, etc. I want to know how someone could have essentially no calorie intake for 16 years and still look pretty healthy when even anorexics who basically do the same thing do not, even though many of them eat from time to time. Yeah, and magic isn't real so it's bull plop.
Her nonsense and lies have nothing to do with the law, on top of the fact she really didn't accomplish her goal, that's an indisputable fact, so it was a waste of time. The goal of her fast was to remove the law, it didn't, what else can be said?
just because she's ended her fast, does not mean that she has stopped fighting against AFSPA
Uh, yeah, I believe it does, when her stated goal for the fast was to remove the law, the law is not removed, so she stops the fast and then says she'll continue to fight it in politics; I'm not sure how else anyone could possibly interpret that.
If she's not fasting anymore, it does mean she's ended her fast, that's how fasting works.
Let's hope as a politician she can do some actual good though, and I'm being serious about that, I'm not being sarcastic at all.
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
-
@Veet Ugh spare me if you aren't going to actually response to the points instead of just saying you don't like them, please don't reply to me.
I don't think you know what poser means.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
What do you mean? She was on an IV drip, correct? What are we missing about the case?
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
What do you mean? She was on an IV drip, correct? What are we missing about the case?
Yep, which was forced into her ...
-
Maybe the news article was incorrect, but the BBC article clearly said she was fed and not hungry. If the BBC is lying, well sure, but how did she last so long?
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
What do you mean? She was on an IV drip, correct? What are we missing about the case?
Yep, which was forced into her ...
Understood. But the issue would be that she was forced to end the hungry strike then, not that she was still on one. It's only a hunger strike as long as she isn't getting nourishment.
I'm sure it's part cultural, in the west hunger strikes are not seen as a serious thing and intentional suicide is considered both illegal and unethical making doing one.... not a means of supporting a cause but a means of trivializing it.
It's seen as attention seeking for the individual, not a means to support some greater cause.
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
What do you mean? She was on an IV drip, correct? What are we missing about the case?
Yep, which was forced into her ...
Did you observe someone forcing an IV drip into her with your own eyes? Or do you simply believe everything you read?
-
Here's a woman who has had anorexia for 10 years, that's roughly only 2/3rds the amount of time, and she's had food and IVs forced on her as well:
Explain to me how this woman lasted 16 years and is pretty damn healthy looking.
Plus IV drips won't make you plump and healthy, that's not how they work.
-
@RojoLoco said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
wow, not only are you arrogant, you ignorant too ... why don't you read-up on her, and how she fasted, before spewing your putrid puke all over this thread ... your profile name seems rather apt now - "tonyshowoff" ... POSER !!
What do you mean? She was on an IV drip, correct? What are we missing about the case?
Yep, which was forced into her ...
Did you observe someone forcing an IV drip into her with your own eyes? Or do you simply believe everything you read?
This is what I mean with the believing frauds blindly, I read this stuff in Russian and Hungarian all the time on other forums. If there's a problem with their story, they make something up, nevermind they almost never provide proof and even if it is true rarely does it actually answer the issues at hand. For example, how can an IV make someone so healthy when it's mostly just water? Yeah.
-
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 ...
-
@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 ...
OK that makes more sense than an IV drip.
-
@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.
-
@tonyshowoff 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 ...
OK that makes more sense than an IV drip.
Yes, definitely a terminology problem there. I had heard IV and I thought for sure that I had seen IV in the news. But a tube makes way more sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in First Thing Tasted?:
@tonyshowoff 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 ...
OK that makes more sense than an IV drip.
Yes, definitely a terminology problem there. I had heard IV and I thought for sure that I had seen IV in the news. But a tube makes way more sense.
I'm glad ... you guys should get your facts right, before judging ..
-
The bottom line is, because of human nature, anyone who purports to protest some great injustice in the world is actually just doing it for the attention. There is no such thing as true altruism, it is only used for self promotion. If she wanted to change some law, why not attempt to do that via political means (which might actually have some effect on the issue) instead of pulling a 16 year publicity stunt (oh, look at me! I'm so dedicated to this cause! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!)?
-
@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.
As I pointed out, it didn't help, the law still exists, and if anything she may hurt it long term or make it harder to get rid of. Obviously if forced to eat by feeding tube, at that point she should've realised she was wasting her time. Going in the politics makes a hell of a lot more sense. She has hurt her cause, either by bad association with her style of indirect action or by waiting so long to get into politics and maybe do something useful.
And let's say her being forced does not count against her hunger strike, fine, but she's still not fasting if she's quit, so I'm not sure where you get that claim.
-
I probably just imagined it or something. BBC has good info here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37007494
