English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

napalm, flamethrowers these are just two weapons cast aside because the world saw them as inhuman ways of killing people.......anyone see an oxymoron here? guns are okay but god forbid if fire is used???? can anyone explain this to me? im sure they both hurt alot, and will more than likely kill you so why care if it is human or not?

2007-03-19 01:08:12 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

okay, I was refering to the use of napalm and flamethrowers. humane my bad. but what makes it humane? like one of the answers said a firearm still hurts, so what justifies a firearm and not napalm?

2007-03-19 02:57:49 · update #1

for people who wont read the details

HUMANE, i got it.

2007-03-19 03:35:19 · update #2

6 answers

I get your point. I think killing humanely is for guilt relief, understandably because killing has dramatic affects an the conscience even if it is necessary. The one answerer said that getting shot has very little pain. Your are crazy. Try taking a bullet in the gut, you will suffer in agony for hours before your die.

2007-03-19 02:23:18 · answer #1 · answered by Ron H 2 · 0 0

First of all, it's humane, not human. People all over the world care a great deal over death and the right, obligation, or whatever for the government to take it away. However, the basic question as the the method of death can be answered simply. When a person is shot with a fetal wound, death occurs quickly, and the mind really doesn't have time to gather all the information, process it and feel pain (so I'm told, but as I'm writing this, I personally haven't experienced it) Burning on the other hand isn't an instant death. Enough of the body has to burn to cause death. The old picture of the little girl running from a napalm attack, with burns over a large portion of her body, comes to mind. So, there is enduring pain and suffering involved. The basic difference then, is that one person is caused to suffer first (burn) while the other feels no pain. As I've watched certain shows on discovery or other stations, the body only gives or sends out pain signals, when there might be confusion on the bodies part to understand. Testamonies of people who have had there arm ripped off and say that there wasn't any pain, is due to the mind already knowing, since the picture is obvious, however, a splinter in the finger may or may not be noticed, and hence that portion of the body sends a signal to the brain that there is something wrong...hence, the feeling of pain, as an alarm for the brain to take some sort of action to relieve the problem.

2007-03-19 08:52:04 · answer #2 · answered by auditor4u2007 5 · 0 0

I believe the word you are looking for is Humane, not human.
I, as a young man in the Air Force, asked my commanding officer a question that led to that answer. It's not humane.
I was raised on a farm in the Arkansas river valley, I had seen the over abundance of grain being produced in the country at that time. I watched as the government piled up grain in long windrows, poured kerosene on it and set it afire to keep the price of grain up. An abdominal wrong.
I ask this officer, Why could not this grain be shipped to the needy countries in the world, I had read an article that if you feed a people for five years they become dependent on you and quit raising their own food. Thus they would be at your mercy. I figured if that was so, you could send them grain for five years and then if you wanted something from them, you could just threaten to cut off the grain. Naive at the time, thinking the US was for the good of all men, we would not actually do it. Cut off the grain, that is. Anyway, I asked this officer, Why can't we use this over abundance of grain as a weapon instead of spending so much money on weapons of war. This officers answer to my question. That would be inhumane. You cannot use food as a weapon of war. Didn't make sense to me at that time and doesn't today.
You can maim and kill in war, but don't threaten to cut off their food.
We fed the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Did you know that. That is humane, let them build up an arsenal to destroy us but don't let them starve.
This was many moons ago. appx. 55 years have since passed.
Hisemiester

2007-03-19 10:01:28 · answer #3 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 0 0

Others have said enough on the question of humane and humanity. I'm just surprised that it took you what...15 hours to acknowledge your mistake? Hey...everyone makes mistakes.

2007-03-20 01:47:05 · answer #4 · answered by iraq51 7 · 0 0

well, there is an oxymoron in your question. people do care if someone is killed, humanly or inhumanly. that's what prison is for

2007-03-19 08:22:58 · answer #5 · answered by LoVE LiFE 3 · 0 0

I dunno. Let's kill you humanely and see if anyone cares. Now, would you prefer to be shot or set on fire?

2007-03-19 09:31:27 · answer #6 · answered by theoryparker 3 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers