Null
Snug
I think you're the one that's confused, what I'm doing is having fun by pretending to be a member of the Illuminati, not making a political statement about anything.
Is evildragon who we think he is ;)
- Thread starter Bosbeetle
- Start date
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
Thanks for confirming your confusion. We just play in different ways. 
Null
Snug
No, thank you for confirming your confusion.
rygD
Nihilistic Mystic
I don't think I am ever not confused.
Null
Snug
It does help pass the time.
Oh man, so true.
Null
Snug
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
Ehum I think enlightenment is a pretty nice thing to strive for, the late 1700s were a pretty inventive time period where people were trying to question the morals of the roman catholic church. Being a scientist I think my life would have looked a lot different if it weren't for these or other people kicking against beleifs, and replacing them with testable descriptions of nature.
They are so to say some of the early giants on whose shoulders I'm standing. But before painting a to rosy picture, a lot of crimes to humanity have been done in the name of enlightenment as well, take the whole french revolution they could have just locked the royals up no need to use guilliotines
They are so to say some of the early giants on whose shoulders I'm standing. But before painting a to rosy picture, a lot of crimes to humanity have been done in the name of enlightenment as well, take the whole french revolution they could have just locked the royals up no need to use guilliotines
Last edited by a moderator:
The guillotine was actually invented as a more humane form of execution.
The alternatives back then were hanging (which takes minutes and is quite painful), beheading with a sword or axe (which often took two or more blows), burning at the stake, or the breaking wheel (death by breaking lots of bones, bludgeoning to death, where the condemned could sometimes continue to live for a few days after being "broken").
"Just locking up" would have been better of course, but back in those days, capital punishment was a lot more common than it is today. And I wonder if those royals would really have preferred a life in prison over a quick death -- after all, they had quite a nice living standard, so prison would be pretty much hell for them, even if it would be a really nice prison. They would probably have committed suicide anyway, probably using a method that would be more painful than just the guillotine.
The alternatives back then were hanging (which takes minutes and is quite painful), beheading with a sword or axe (which often took two or more blows), burning at the stake, or the breaking wheel (death by breaking lots of bones, bludgeoning to death, where the condemned could sometimes continue to live for a few days after being "broken").
"Just locking up" would have been better of course, but back in those days, capital punishment was a lot more common than it is today. And I wonder if those royals would really have preferred a life in prison over a quick death -- after all, they had quite a nice living standard, so prison would be pretty much hell for them, even if it would be a really nice prison. They would probably have committed suicide anyway, probably using a method that would be more painful than just the guillotine.
sebt3
homebrew player (P. & C.)
IMHO, it's still the most human way of doing it. Electric chair have failures were the sentenced might need to burn for minuts befor dying. Letal injection also have its resistant that suffer up to hours after the injection. On the other hands, once the blade is done, it's done...
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
I think not doing it is even more humane
But agreed the guillotine is an improvement.
Well yes, obviously "humane execution" is a contradictio in terminis, much like "animal-friendly meat".
A few minutes more or less of pain, no matter how excruciating, is ethically relatively insignificant compared to the overall picture of ending a life.
A few minutes more or less of pain, no matter how excruciating, is ethically relatively insignificant compared to the overall picture of ending a life.
Granitehead
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,011
Not so sure about that. Dying without pain isn't that bad. You just stop. It's worse for your friends and relatives than it is for you. /Pain/ is bad.
Well... animal-friendly meat is possible... by only eating meat of animals who died of a natural death...
Not sure that old meat would be that tasty though
Ziz
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,583
Why don't we eat dead people instead of burning them?Well... animal-friendly meat is possible... by only eating meat of animals who died of a natural death...
Not sure that old meat would be that tasty though
Null
Snug
Saber
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
Because toe tags probably aren't so tasty.Why don't we eat dead people instead of burning them?Well... animal-friendly meat is possible... by only eating meat of animals who died of a natural death...
Not sure that old meat would be that tasty though
Ziz
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 3,583
Let's make sausages! Nobody ever asks, what is in sausages...Because toe tags probably aren't so tasty.Why don't we eat dead people instead of burning them?Well... animal-friendly meat is possible... by only eating meat of animals who died of a natural death...
Not sure that old meat would be that tasty though
Oops, you're right, I forgot about that possibility.Well... animal-friendly meat is possible... by only eating meat of animals who died of a natural death...
Not sure that old meat would be that tasty though
Is it even legal though to sell meat from animals that died a natural death? Natural death is typically old age (probably inedible) or disease (probably a health issue), I guess.
Making other people "stop", i.e. killing them, with or without pain, without their consent, is pretty much the worst thing you can do to them. It's not "not that bad".
Of course making people suffer is also pretty bad. Making someone suffer and killing them is of course worse than killing them without suffering. Like it's worse to shout insults at a girl while raping her than to rape her in a polite manner.
I'm in favor of euthanasia and abortion (obviously depending on the circumstances) because both can prevent unnecessary suffering, but I'm against capital punishment.