at least when you get your head cut off it's fast and relitvely painless, compared to being burned alive.
2006-09-18 06:31:22 · 26 answers · asked by Mr.happy 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
being burned alive, definitely. this is only rivaled by drowning or sliding down a 30 ft. razor and landing in a pool of alcohol.
2006-09-18 06:35:12 · answer #1 · answered by Mike Honcho 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree (see link), but I am curious what brought up this question.
"Execution by burning has a long history as a method of punishment for crimes such as treason and for other unpopular acts such as heresy and the putative practice of witchcraft (burning, however, was actually less common than hanging, pressing, or drowning as a punishment for witchcraft). For a number of reasons, this method of execution fell into disfavor among governments in the late 18th century; today, it is considered cruel and unusual punishment. The particular form of execution by burning in which the condemned is bound to a large stake is more commonly called burning at the stake."
2006-09-18 06:47:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that I would opt for being burnt alive. Once the nerve endings become in the skin become burnt, you no longer feel pain. If it is a hot fire, then the pain wouldn't last very long, unlike having the head slowly cut off.
2006-09-18 06:48:42 · answer #3 · answered by jack jr 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
burning is defintately worse.
You do know the human head is still alive up to some 30 seconds after being removed from the body?
2006-09-18 06:35:50 · answer #4 · answered by auld mom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, getting burned at the stake is a extremely painful and slow death. Getting your head chopped off by a large 15 inch blade would be less painful..quick. So, I would say, as a preference, taking a trip to the guillotine...just done pee your yourself!
2006-09-18 06:40:27 · answer #5 · answered by Angel of Man 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is very little more painful than being burned alive at the stake.
Not even being eaten alive by sharks is that painful. In fact, about the only thing that is comparable to fire is drowning in quicksand.
2006-09-18 06:35:30 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do I really have to choose? Probably being burned alive. But really, given the choice, I would rather be burned alive so that the **** doing it would have to hear me scream while I curse them for all eternity.....
2006-09-18 06:38:18 · answer #7 · answered by Diana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Referring to buddist monks setting themselves on fire, or naphon? gas used in "Nam" or burning witches to the stake???? Actually neither option is agreeable to me. Cutting head off was a common practice in Europe 3-2 centuries ago. strikes me as awful messy
2006-09-18 06:43:26 · answer #8 · answered by longroad 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess it would matter if your head was cut off in one stroke, or if it took a couple of strokes(that would suck). I think being burned alive would probably be the worse of the two though.
2006-09-18 06:33:57 · answer #9 · answered by horrorfan 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Please refer to my question. They do not cut your head off quickly. The slowly cut it off with a serrated kitchen knife. They first cut through the skin and this starts the blood flowing. Then the knife reaches the windpipe. When the windpipe opens the sound of air can be heard being sucked through the hole in the neck. Have you ever heard a man gasp for air through a hole in his neck? Here you go.
2006-09-18 06:35:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋