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 ...
-
@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
-
@Veet said in First Thing Tasted?:
@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 facts aren't important, because her supporters aren't going around saying "she ended her 16 year fast/hunger strike-which-she-actually-had-a-feeding-tube-so-its-not-really-that-amazing" they're leaving that last part out making it seem much more wondrous. Again, hurting, not helping.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
@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 ?
