A) Being burned alive
B) Being stretched until you tear in half
Explain why for the 10 points!!
2006-06-27 10:16:01 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Thats a tough one. I think that being stretched until you tear in half would be worse. If you think about it being burned alive would only take a few minutes and with all the pain you wouldn't feel it after a while. You would die within a few minutes. But being stretched that would be extremely painful because you would be alive the whole time through the process. especially if you were stretched little by little very slowly that would be terrible way to torture someone.
2006-06-27 10:25:23 · answer #1 · answered by lucid_dreams3 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which is worse being burned alive or, being stretched until you tear in half. I would say that being streched is worse then being burned alive,? simple when you are being stretched you are suffering with a lot of pain, and if you are the strong type you will suffer worse pain in contrast with the wimps, who faint real fast when they experienced some pain. In being burned alive you do suffer but, the body can take so much that you die faster being burned.
2006-07-09 13:55:59 · answer #2 · answered by a.vasquez7413@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
seriously,how do u come up with this stuff.non is worse.they are both horible.being burned alive is a very slow and painful death. u actually roast as a chicken.u get cooked.being stretched is just as worse.try pulling the skin on your arm.that hurts.being strentch still u tear in half is just as horrible as burning
2006-07-09 06:18:24 · answer #3 · answered by eva j 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
B> The reason being tha this can be drawn out to last a lot longer, once someone is put to the stake it is a short time 5-10 minutes before they actually either burn to death or sufficate. Whereas with streghting you can actually releive some tensionon the person and then reapply it. Once you start to pull ligaments apart and breaking a few bones with a slow steady methodical pulling motion you can either continue to pull or stop and let me pain run through the presons body. Also if they pass out you can revieve them and continue to punsh them.
2006-07-09 09:09:32 · answer #4 · answered by CrzyCowboy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being stretched would be the worst because it would be much more painful right up until you die, where as if you were burned alive you would succumb quickly to carbon monoxide from the smoke.
2006-07-09 14:21:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think being burned alive would be worse,at least with being stretched out,there would be that all to brief moment when my back would stop hurting.
2006-07-08 16:33:39 · answer #6 · answered by Rich B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being stretched until you tear in half because that would be longer and more drawn out
2006-06-27 17:19:27 · answer #7 · answered by ericalsmith2004 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the end result for both is painful death.
And the means for both is the same "slow and torturous".
They dont seem to be much different.
The only difference I can think of is the end result of being torn in two would be very gruesome but less gruesome than a charred and burned body.
2006-07-09 06:08:16 · answer #8 · answered by muscle_horse 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A. if you being stretched that can be done quick. But i just think a because of the heat and pain
2006-06-28 13:08:39 · answer #9 · answered by fuel91 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say being burned alive because my number 1 fear in the world is being burned alive in a tiny enclosed space.
It's why I plan on being mummified when I die.
2006-06-27 17:37:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋