The Politics Thread v2

[phaedrusxy]

You do in fact live for a while after the head is chopped off.  There's the famous account of the 18th century philosopher who was sentenced to the guillotine during the French Revolution, because you know, rich.  He wanted to test it, and told them to count the number of times he blinked after he was killed, and he got 13 out before he stopped.  And you know, this makes sense.  Just because your heart isn't connected to your brain anymore doesn't mean your brain isn't doing anything.  Otherwise, you'd die every time your heart beats, because blood doesn't always move through your body.  It moves in pulses every second or so.  So your brain isn't getting new oxygen for a large chunk of time.  And just because it's all removed from your body doesn't really mean anything, your brain is still fine.  The reason you die is actually asphyxiation.  On a cellular level, because your brain is no longer getting oxygen.  So you can live for quite a long time relatively with no body.  There's been a scientist who's removed a dog's head and attached it to another body, and the head survived for a bit (until the whole system failed, essentially).

Thank you for the lengthy and accurate explanation which I didn't have the time to write.

There is plenty of reason to assume that the head/brain would live on for quite some time (maybe half a minute, etc) after being severed, and practically no reason to assume that it would die immediately, given what is known.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

 

Whoa dudes, maybe that philsopher was a reincarnated Chicken.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Trump got the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr.
  ... now we know the answer to :  2 Corinthians walk into a bar.

He also had Huck and Santorum at his counter-debate thingy.
Some of the Hard-Rights are jumping the Cruz ship.

(see southern pronunciation of "rights")

 
_{dang it , explainin' the joke never works ...}

[MrWolfe]

You do in fact live for a while after the head is chopped off.  There's the famous account of the 18th century philosopher who was sentenced to the guillotine during the French Revolution, because you know, rich.  He wanted to test it, and told them to count the number of times he blinked after he was killed, and he got 13 out before he stopped.  And you know, this makes sense.  Just because your heart isn't connected to your brain anymore doesn't mean your brain isn't doing anything.  Otherwise, you'd die every time your heart beats, because blood doesn't always move through your body.  It moves in pulses every second or so.  So your brain isn't getting new oxygen for a large chunk of time.  And just because it's all removed from your body doesn't really mean anything, your brain is still fine.  The reason you die is actually asphyxiation.  On a cellular level, because your brain is no longer getting oxygen.  So you can live for quite a long time relatively with no body.  There's been a scientist who's removed a dog's head and attached it to another body, and the head survived for a bit (until the whole system failed, essentially).

Thank you for the lengthy and accurate explanation which I didn't have the time to write.

There is plenty of reason to assume that the head/brain would live on for quite some time (maybe half a minute, etc) after being severed, and practically no reason to assume that it would die immediately, given what is known.

That level of physical trauma and blood loss is likely to result in shock and unconsciousness pretty damn fast. You might technically be alive for a few minutes, but it's doubtful you'd be awake or aware during that time. Hell, just the impact of your head hitting the basket could be enough to knock you out.

As for reports of guillotine victims moving their eyes/mouths/etc, not only are secondhand anecdotes from a hysterical mob (often with an obvious political bias thrown in by the writer) really terrible evidence as far as reliability is concerned, but even if they were accurate it could simply be muscle spasms due to your oxygen-starved neurons misfiring.

Fact is we don't really know how likely a person is to remain conscious after being decapitated, since they aren't really in a position to communicate and it's not the kind of thing that lends itself to legitimate scientific study.

[Raineh Daze]

Seems like it'd be better than being immobilised and killed via a cocktail where the anaesthesia might wear off early.

Isn't hanging, properly done, probably the least painful?

[dman11235]

No, we know for a fact that your head will live after it's chopped off for a bit.  And the thing I was mentioning about the eyes winking was a specific incident where a scientist was executed (well, philosopher), and asked his friends to see how long he was alive for.  Not a mob doing it.  There's the mob-hand accounts of it too, but I wasn't referring to those.  As for the shock, yes, that's a possibility, but not a guarantee.  And the fall will absolutely NOT knock you out.  It's no where near far enough to cause severe trauma unless you're in some new guillotine execution style where they aren't letting it fall into a basket with cloth.  You're probably awake for at least some portion of it, and then unconscious for a good portion of it, and then dead.  It might even take up to 10 minutes to die in some cases.  But you're more likely to die in around 4, and be awake for at least 10 seconds.  Which is PLENTY for me to never want to go like that.  Hell, even the trauma that would put you into shock, you don't want to experience THAT.  Just because you're out doesn't mean you didn't feel what put you out!

As for hanging, no, absolutely not.  Hanging, properly done, is worse than decapitation, simply because you'll be alive for longer.  Not a lot, but some.  And hanging, improperly done, is many times worse, because you might not even die. from the hanging, you'll suffocate, and that's just the worst way.  Not to mention that there's a risk of this happening, whereas with a guillotine, you're pretty damn sure it's going to work.

As for the chemical cocktail, it's probably the best.  Especially if you're knocked out first with a gas.  There's still the chance of it not working, which is awful, but it's probably the best.  You can have a chemical that literally just eliminates all pain.  Boom, done.  NO pain.  Just put enough in.  The issue is that everyone reacts differently to different things, but all in all, chemical is probably the way.

Now, the only way to guarantee no pain however, is to instantaneously destroy the brain.  But good luck with that!  Try finding a meteor on a collision course with your head or something.

[KellKheraptis]

Pretty sure with all the funds going to it they could set up a small-scale collider and literally nuke the person's head.  Not advocating it or anything, but by the numbers, the potential is there.

[MrWolfe]

@dman11235: Yes, I'm aware of the anecdote you're referring to, but even assuming it's not a myth (like Napoleon being short or the whole John Smith and Pocohontas thing) the results of a single, poorly concieved 'experiment' devised by someone who was arguably insane are a pretty far cry from rigorusly tested scientific evidence.

Honestly, it's pointless to try to come up with a 'humane' form of execution because no matter the method you've still got the long, agonizing wait for them to get around to it--which in and of itself is horrifically traumatizing psychological torture.

[ketaro]

Yanno, I find the word humane weird. Because compassionate or benevolent are certainly not humankind's most prominent characteristics 

[bhu]

Yanno, I find the word humane weird. Because compassionate or benevolent are certainly not humankind's most prominent characteristics 

 

[bhu]

@dman11235: Yes, I'm aware of the anecdote you're referring to, but even assuming it's not a myth (like Napoleon being short or the whole John Smith and Pocohontas thing) the results of a single, poorly concieved 'experiment' devised by someone who was arguably insane are a pretty far cry from rigorusly tested scientific evidence.

Honestly, it's pointless to try to come up with a 'humane' form of execution because no matter the method you've still got the long, agonizing wait for them to get around to it--which in and of itself is horrifically traumatizing psychological torture.

There have been more recent experiments that have results showing that the human brain shows the same electrical activity as a living one for a minimum of 10 seconds after death.  Theoretically that means you could be aware, but since bodiless heads have no form of communication theres no way to be sure.

[dman11235]

Yeah.  And I wasn't exactly using the anecdote as evidence, it was an anecdote.  The evidence I supplied was the dog head thing which requires the head to survive for a time before being reconnected, and the mental exercise of "there's no reason to assume that you do die instantly".

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... Isn't hanging, properly done, probably the least painful?

possibility 1) ... Quick asphyxiate = ok'ish , but choked to death to do it = very painful , but quick.

possibility 2) ... broken neck = as above but faster and more initial pain

possibility 3) ... severed spine say near C4 = can't feel the asphixyiate or choking at all , fall asleep fast knowing something is massively wrong , may be knocked out by the severing trauma and not know at all

possibility 4) ... hollywood ending , wrongly accused hero gets away at last second

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Something that might happen after Iowa results come in ...

Trump was handing out Obama-style How-To-Caucus cards
and from the moment he started campaigning.  Still, so many
of his supporters have little voting experience other than Prez.

They probably will under perform because of the caucus thing.
If it's enough to make a fake big deal about it,
you can guarantee Trump would do it.  OH The Establishment !!

(technically said underperform puts Trump back into m.o.e. with Cruz so a vote for either becomes more useful)
 ... and not that I'm encouraging a vote for either at all 

[MrWolfe]

Honestly, I'm more than a little worried. If it comes down to Trump vs Sanders, Trump will likely win, because there are a lot more people willing to support racist ass-hattery in this country than there are willing to support anarchism--even the bastardized faux kind Sanders sppouts.

[Kajhera]

I'm pretty sure Sanders isn't an anarchist? Believing that the government is currently misusing force in some ways doesn't mean you think it is criminal at all times and circumstances to do so ...  Running for commander-in-chief if you did might be a bit odd.

[dman11235]

Considering that he's a socialist, Sanders is extremely not anarchist.

[Kajhera]

There's some overlap. I wavered somewhere on the anarchosocialist edge as a teenager before deciding that moderating my opposition to the use of force just might be helpful in actually solving problems or living in society.

[MrWolfe]

Last I heard, Sanders was presenting himself as a 'libertarian'--which used to be a synonym for anarchist and now means something closer to 'we pretend to be against government coercion but really we just want to be the ones in charge.' What political label best matches his actions is another matter entirely.

Point being, there's easily more support in this country for racist nationalism than for someone daring to suggest that capitolism might not be the absolute best thing ever.

[dman11235]

Snders hasn't described himself as a libertarian?  Rand Paul is the closest to a libertarian running in the big parties (even though Sanders is closer in terms of actions on the philosophies, which says something about the state of Libertarianism in politics).  Paul calls himself a Libertarian, but in reality he's a Randian.  As in, the religion.  Which, much like a number of other religions (well the followers), involves sacrificing the principles of the religion for personal gain.