Swiss woman dies of starvation after trying to survive on light alone

Dravokivich

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong again: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

So, the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.

Hmmm, first I've seen of that and think its a bit of a back step really. Surely the idea of taking yourself out of the genepool would mean you hadn't reproduced already. Well, that's how I had taken it to be.

howamidifferent

Wow! What an illuminating article.
I feel lightheaded after reading that.

Still though, you'd think she'd have seen through it...

Pherekydes

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong again: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

Their explanation comes up with a specific example, which is fair enough, but which doesn't apply generally or in this specific case.

Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.

Next you'll be claiming Alec Guinness has nothing to do with the Guinness World Records book.

stovelid

Joe10000 wrote: »

Eejit, Muller light is what they meant.

Post of the year.

darlett

Dravokivich wrote: »

Hmmm, first I've seen of that and think its a bit of a back step really. Surely the idea of taking yourself out of the genepool would mean you hadn't reproduced already. Well, that's how I had taken it to be.

Darwinism being the survival of the fittest its seems quite the cop-out to loosen the definition so they can include people who have successfully reproduced, thus continuing their lineage and avoiding their extinction. Surely the only possible exemptions would be if they did something like blow up their kids with their dying act.

28064212

Pherekydes wrote: »

Their explanation comes up with a specific example, which is fair enough, but which doesn't apply generally or in this specific case.

Wrong again:

A concrete example will help illuminate the discussion

The conclusion?

So the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.

They specifically say it applies in the general case

Pherekydes wrote: »

Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.

Lol, no shit, well done. Now point out where anyone made any reference to "real Darwinian selection".

You are completely and utterly wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. You criticised someone who said she would be eligible for a Darwin Award by claiming Darwin Awards aren't awarded to people who have already reproduced. The awarding body specifically says this isn't the case. Instead of just accepting you were wrong, you're actually trying to argue that the site doesn't say exactly what it says, and then trying to change the argument after the fact

Pherekydes

28064212 wrote: »

You are completely and utterly wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. You criticised someone who said she would be eligible for a Darwin Award by claiming Darwin Awards aren't awarded to people who have already reproduced. The awarding body specifically says this isn't the case. Instead of just accepting you were wrong, you're actually trying to argue that the site doesn't say exactly what it says, and then trying to change the argument after the fact

The site is wrong. End of.

28064212

Pherekydes wrote: »

The site is wrong. End of.

The awarder of Darwin Awards is wrong about who receives Darwin Awards. Riiiighhhhtttttttt. Keep digging

Stiffler2

Oh look it, some one died because of a film.

I think we should ban all films now ?

What do you non-smokers think ? :rolleyes:

FatherLen

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Oh look it, some one died because of a film.

I think we should ban all films now ?

What do you non-smokers think ? :rolleyes:

what do non smokers have to do with this?

Stiffler2

FatherLen wrote: »

what do non smokers have to do with this?

They wanna ban everything that is bad to health or civilians health.
Here a woman has died copying something she saw in a film.

Therefor by non-smokers logic I think we need to ban all films from the world in case someone dies again because of it :rolleyes:

28064212

Stiffler2 wrote: »

They wanna ban everything that is bad to health or civilians health.
Here a woman has died copying something she saw in a film.

Therefor by non-smokers logic I think we need to ban all films from the world in case someone dies again because of it :rolleyes:

How did you come to that conclusion? Most non-smokers couldn't care less what smokers put in their body. It's what's left outside their body that's the problem

FatherLen

Stiffler2 wrote: »

They wanna ban everything that is bad to health or civilians health.
Here a woman has died copying something she saw in a film.

Therefor by non-smokers logic I think we need to ban all films from the world in case someone dies again because of it :rolleyes:

yeah keep that argument in the right thread. and when you do, think of better arguments than this one before posting.

Stiffler2

28064212 wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion? Most non-smokers couldn't care less what smokers put in their body. It's what's left outside their body that's the problem

Ahh - there was a thread knocking around yesterday about banning smoking in public places & the brigade were on saying how second hand smoke outside is bad for your health and should be banned because it's bad for civilians health blah blah blah rabble rabble rabble etc etc..

So now I want to ban everything that is bad for you.

28064212

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Ahh - there was a thread knocking around yesterday about banning smoking in public places & the brigade were on saying how second hand smoke outside is bad for your health and should be banned because it's bad for civilians health blah blah blah rabble rabble rabble etc etc..

So now I want to ban everything that is bad for you.

Right, so when this woman goes around forcing other people not to eat because of a film, you can talk about banning films that suggest eating nothing is good for you. Until that happens, take your arguments to.... well, they're so infantile I don't know where you could take them, but not here

Stiffler2

28064212 wrote: »

Right, so when this woman goes around forcing other people not to eat because of a film, you can talk about banning films that suggest eating nothing is good for you. Until that happens, take your arguments to.... well, they're so infantile I don't know where you could take them, but not here

Hey - I didn't force non-smokers to come up beside me after I have lit a cigarette outside so my notion stands, we should ban films, um-k

Dublin_Gunner

So in a roundabout way, did light kill her?

If this happened in the 'States, her family would be suing light for gross negligence.

28064212

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Hey - I didn't force non-smokers to come up beside me after I have lit a cigarette outside so my notion stands, we should ban films, um-k

Hey - You didn't not force herp to derp up beside you after herpy derpson, so clearly your notion is nonsense

A2LUE42

Go towards the light......oh not that one...Doh!

Wossack

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Hey - I didn't force non-smokers to come up beside me after I have lit a cigarette outside so my notion stands, we should ban films, um-k

your terribad arguement makes me want to kill myself - so by that logic, you should be banned

darlett

Stiffler2 wrote: »

Oh look it, some one died because of a film.

I think we should ban all films now ?

What do you non-smokers think ? :rolleyes:

As a non-smoker I think there is no need for a space between the question mark, it might even be incorrect ? But I don't mind, just giving a strong opinion which I hope adds to this debate.

token101

How did she plan to cope if Mr. Burns blocked out the sun again? She could have died.....oh wait.....

El Weirdo

mod

Can we keep the smoking argument to the smoking thread, please?

Cheers

/mod

dr strangelove

Can't live on sunshine alone? well that's food for thought

micropig

dr strangelove wrote: »

Can't live on sunshine alone? well that's food for thought

Seen a one on wife swap or some of them programmes, a one from California was living off the sun. The army guy she had swapped to live with wasn't too impressed...:pac:

So it doesn't work then?

bc dub

dr strangelove wrote: »

Can't live on sunshine alone? well that's food for thought

Apparently some can. Its called solar gazing and 15 minutes at sunrise and sunset can do you the world of good. Apparently.

This isn't very well produced imo but gets some points across...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JXGbI4QsMg

themadchef

Jayzus...

Me job :eek:

ejmaztec

themadchef wrote: »

Jayzus...

Me job :eek:

If you started a franchise for Madchef Light Snacks, you'd get more customers in the restaurant because you wouldn't need any space for a kitchen.

micropig

ejmaztec wrote: »

If you started a franchise for Madchef Light Snacks, you'd get more customers in the restaurant because you wouldn't need any space for a kitchen.

Jars of sunlight:pac::pac:

It would have sold during the Celtic Tiger:D

AckwelFoley

Confab wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

Her name was Anna Gut.


I'm surprised AH has missed the opportunity

Standards are slipping

Yeah but that's in German. Gut doesn't mean the same thing.

This is Ireland. We don't speak German.....


.....yet

Give it about 10 years and it will be compulsory as part of another government sell out to the EU.

Dravokivich

It's not even her real name...

themadchef

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not even her real name...

If youre going to allow yourself to die from malnutrition because the suns rays didint feed you. Im kinda happy for her family its not her real name.

The holy mortifying shame of it.

"Ah your Ma died, so sorry for yer loss, was it cancer?"

" No, she didint eat for ages, thought the Sun was the shizzle and didint need food. Never was much of a science buff our Ma.

Still, we can go to McDonalds now."

Thrill

Are they sure she starved? Maybe she overdosed on vitamin D.

rgmmg

themadchef wrote: »

If youre going to allow yourself to die from malnutrition because the suns rays didint feed you. Im kinda happy for her family its not her real name.

The holy mortifying shame of it.

"Ah your Ma died, so sorry for yer loss, was it cancer?"

" No, she didint eat for ages, thought the Sun was the shizzle and didint need food. Never was much of a science buff our Ma.

Still, we can go to McDonalds now."

Off topic admittedly, but I would just have left that hypothetical coversation at the "Sorry for the loss" comment. A bit insensitive to delve deeper.

themadchef

rgmmg wrote: »

Off topic admittedly, but I would just have left that hypothetical coversation at the "Sorry for the loss" comment. A bit insensitive to delve deeper.

Oh grand, ill try to tweek my hypothethical conversations to be a little more sensitive in future.

I'm generally much better in person... but you'll have to take my word for that.

darlett

micropig wrote: »

Jars of sunlight:pac::pac:

It would have sold during the Celtic Tiger:D

They did! Think they were labelled as Bulgarian apartments or somthing

AckwelFoley

themadchef wrote: »

rgmmg wrote: »

Off topic admittedly, but I would just have left that hypothetical coversation at the "Sorry for the loss" comment. A bit insensitive to delve deeper.

Oh grand, ill try to tweek my hypothethical conversations to be a little more sensitive in future.

I'm generally much better in person... but you'll have to take my word for that.

Shame on you. You're so heartless.

I knew someone that died of cancer. It was on the Tele and everything.

Sleepy

Darwinism.

If only we'd allow for more of it can you imagine where the human race could be?

Sleepy

Darwinism.

If only we'd allow for more of it can you imagine where the human race could be?

Xivilai

Does she have a history of mental problems? Care to shine a light on this :eek:

Anna Gut followed the instructions for the first stage to the letter: she had no food or drink for a week, and even spat her saliva out. For weeks two and three, she resumed drinking again, but she visibly weakened and her children became concerned.

Well fair play to her kids for becoming concerned after she subjected herself to three weeks of starvation for no good reason.

Min

The moral of this story is you better eat food or there will be no light at the end of the tunnel.

frag420

Open that cutain Im famished!!

Turn of that lamp, im full!!

Min

I'm off to have a light snack before I do some work.

RichieC

Study after study proves you can't live on light alone, if you could the starving africans would be fat and healthy.

kowloon

Fizman wrote: »

I know a girl who lives entirely off her flesh light.

Dildo^-1

edit: it seems superscript code doesn't work or I have it wrong

cloptrop

We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels across the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
But the crowd called out for more.

What does it mean?
****ed if I know Terry

JuliusCaesar

There's one born every minute vs there are vulnerable people out there with money in their pockets

the Living on Light Workshop is guided in the moment. It includes an Initiation for Living on Light and a Healing/Clearing of issues related to food and eating including addictions, attachments, self-worth and emotional issues.

This workshop is designed to trigger a gentle process of gradual movement towards fully living on Light. The process involves embracing food and your own eating habits fully, accepting yourself exactly as you are and stepping fully into your Mastery, whether you decide to live entirely on light alone or continue to eat three meals a day. The initiation enables you to be nourished by light or prana – the particles within light which contain all the nutrients necessary for full physical health.

Living on Light requires fully accepting and living from an entirely new paradigm and this takes time to establish.

The healing helps you to let go of old ways of eating and being that no longer serve you.



Cost: £120

Followed by:

In this workshop we let go of poverty consciousness and begin our path to True Abundance and Financial Freedom ...



Cost: £120

The path started by the person charging for the workshop....

cloptrop

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

There's one born every minute vs there are vulnerable people out there with money in their pockets



Followed by:

Thats a good deal considering youd spend 120 a week on food . Course pays for itself within a week.

The King of Moo

This is why some people need to be ordered about and told what to do.

Some people are just too stupid to survive on their own.