If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Im not sure what your aim was but hanging is not meant to be a slow death Commonly mis percieved as a choking death, hanging involves a quick descent downward followed by a snap/breaking of the neck, resulting in death. While thats not to say several havent choked to death while hanging ( I cant tell you how many botched suicdes Ive responded to where the idiot er um patient choked themselves on the rope) but the intent is to break the neck - a quick death.
Personally, I think the soviets had it right - theyd take you to a room that had a drain make you face the wall and plant a 9mm flower in the back of your head. Quick, merciful and efficient.
<IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
At least thats how it went back int he days of Tyburn.
maybe it is an american thing - I just know around here the idea (at least in suicides) is to get it over quickly. I actually went to a house where the guy hung himself from a ceiling beam - he had diagrams and anatomical charts for correct rope placement - they estimated it was over in seconds - broken neck.
I am also aware of the whole contradiction with my situation, what I am saying is that the state should not have the right to take life. The only person who should have the right to take your life is you. But of course we won't mention suicide because to you that is a sign of weakness. Why have you taken it upon yourself to start insulting me again anyway? It doesn't win you any favours and makes you look like a child.
...and it makes it more difficult for you to bs your way through a discussion as you pervert reality. AGAIN: If you are going to pontificate, do it on an issue you are knowledgeable. Rather than misquote a scripture, educate yourself... If a simple statement of what is/is not is perceived as an "insult", then you should examine the hypocracy of your life, public and/or private. If you feel compelled to parade it in front of everyone in a public forum, then THINK before you put it out for others to examine.
Not my responsibility, nor my agenda to make allowances for where you come up short. You are the one so painfully politically correct, not me. I am responsible for ME, not you...
The "insult" is your hypocracy, not my observance of the same.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. If ever you want to really know something, get it in the original. Translation is almost certain to distort the meaning. I am not talking about issues like "You can only really appreciate Chekhov in the original Russian," although I don't doubt that that is true; I am referring to wholesale mistranslation. Two biblical examples spring to mind:
(1) "Kill" subsituted for "murder" in the Ten Commandments. Source of mistranslation unknown.
(2) "Virgin" instead of "young woman" with regard to Jesus' mother. What a mess that one has caused! <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> That foul-up was in the translation from Hebrew to Greek.
Let me give you another example: I have a good friend at Uni who is doing an essay on Kurt Goedel (C20 mathematician, proved a fairly famous Incompleteness Theorem). He is reading Goedel in the original German. Likewise, if I were studying history again I would make an effort to read foreign sources in their language -- to do otherwise is to invite possibly catastrophic inaccuracy, as I think I have illustrated above.
Yes, Hebrew, Latin and Greek are rare languages these days -- but there is simply no substitute for reading the original, no matter how arcane or archaic it may be.
Thanks for your response -- it wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but interesting nonetheless. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
How I "judge" people is not so superficial as to rate them upon their wealth, possessions, how they clothe themselves, etc. Step beyond the superficial and examine WHO they are, and what they stand for.
Hell, yes. I was having a similar conversation with a good friend the other day. We both agreed that we'd each rather be 'good people' than 'rich people.' In fact, that is a thought that I have had in my head for some time as a response to the question "What do you want to be?": "A good man -- all else is negotiable."
As you may know, I'm a student, and student finances couldn't be described as overflowing with money. <IMG SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> However, I don't worry myself about it and certainly wouldn't think twice about spending money for a friend or member of family. It matters to me, so the cost is largely irrelevant.
Do you keep your word? Is honor a commitment, or a thing of convenience? How do you define "friend" (see honor)? Do you live your life straight up, or are you always looking for the angle? Where do you stand concerning personal individual responsibility and accountability?
I certainly try my best to keep my word, yes. There are various levels of promise, I think: "I'll try to be there... I shall probably be there... I'll certainly be there... I promise I'll be there." I would break a promise if not doing so would violate a higher duty. Perhaps missing a friend's birthday party to visit my mother's sickbed, for example. However, I would not do it lightly and would tender my apologies (perhaps 'regrets' would be a better word) to the person affected.
I consider duty to be something I owe to myself: what I have to do to be a good man, to be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning. I would describe my personal ethics as self-centered (they are my personal ethics, after all) but not selfish. In point of fact, some friends have described me as being precisely the opposite of selfish. My honour is definitely a personal committment, though.
As for "looking for the angle," I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm certainly looking for ways to achieve objectives, solve problems. However, I'm guessing you mean something more devious than that. If so, then I certainly don't go "looking for the angle" -- taking advantage of a friend's confidence and trust, for example. I have trouble imagining how ashamed I would feel were I to deliberately betray a friend -- and so I'm pretty sure I couldn't.
Responsibility? Yes, I take responsibility for my actions. I'm not sure humans have free will so I'm not sure if blame can apply, but I certainly think responsibility does. And whether or not blame exists I know I would feel guilty if I were to fail my principles, my duty.
Legality and morality are not coincidental; frequently, they are divergent.
Just what I've been saying for ages! <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> That's why I dislike the term 'criminal' -- one can be a good man and have violated the law -- countless examples.)
As for "charity", I will give a helping hand to those who would help themselves, but not to those just looking for the hand-out.
A "teach the man to fish" policy, yes? It infuriates my housemates when they ask for help with maths, but I don't give them the answer right away: I prefer to help them through the question, trying to get them to understand the material so that they really know why the answer is what it is. I hope that's ultimately best for them, so that their minds have grown a bit -- and so they can do it in the exam! <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Yours,
Mac
P.S. Might be best if we continued this by email. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> Mine's on my profile.
Indeed it does, and it is good to see you know the difference... ...but I'm curious: what do you think of capital punishment because, correct me if I'm wrong, you have not stated.
You seem to be taking authority from the Bible, yet everything you seem to stand for is violent and judgemental - a very unBiblical attitude.
In the laws of the many states of the United States, there are degrees of murder, and degrees of manslaughter. Personally, I hold that if the person has been convicted of 1st degree murder, as in, pre-meditated and calulated, there are NO extenuating circumstances, there are NO "justifications", the most heinous of the taking of another's life, then the convicted criminal SHOULD be executed, removed from society forever...
More accurate would be an "Old Testament" perspective, rather than a "New Testament" attitude. <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
The most of my life has been lived within moments which demanded decisive and committed action, without the luxury of emotion. Other men's lives have been dependent upon my personal discipline. Carry that responsibility for years and/or decades, and you might find that touchie/feelie emotions are a luxury that you would not partake of, either.
To you, I appear cold, hard, inflexible. To another soldier/sailor/Marine, I simply fulfill the job requirements.
I am "violent" only when others choose that course, and the responsibility for what comes is their's. I do not make threats, but I do fulfill my promises.
"Judgemental"? Anyone who has led others, and been responsible for them is required to make judgements, and stand by them, whatever comes.
btw... One of the most gentle and laid back men I know is my friend "Diesel", however... he is not the one who you would want to confront with violence. You would be courting your edification. Men who have survived what so many others did not tend to be that way... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Indeed.
So do you take authority from God, or some higher being, or do you simply use the Old Testament as the basis for your personal morals and values? </STRONG>
Of course - we are all judgemental to some extent. But I was referring to your judgements of Whowhere (and his "honor"). You are not 'responsible' for him, yet you judge him time and time again, and let your original judgements cloud your opinion of him still.
God has not given to me (general) authority over others within a New Testament nor Old Testament perspective. Not certain of what you are asking...
Whowhere posts judge him. His hypocracy judges him. He is what he is.
Personally... there is no action I have taken at any time in my life, under any duress, not drunk, drugged, fatigued, or in a state of "anger" that I would excuse myself. Whatever I did in an "emotional" state is exactly what I would have done given a greater time of reflection upon the issue, with the knowledge at hand. I excuse myself from NOTHING. I am personally responsible and accountable for EVERYTHING I have ever done. That is a facet of discipline. It is a facet of honor.
Whowhere admits the hypocracy of his life concerning his opposing the taking of life by "the state", but excuses his murdering his unborn offspring because it is not convenient for him to own up to the responsiblity for his actions and judgements. Whowhere's individual hypocracy judges him, not I.
Whowhere has called it "stupidity" to rush to a fallen comrade while under fire during combat. THAT is the fabric that holds combat troops together, the faith in the individual honor and discipline of each other.
Whowhere would excuse and explain away his actions.
Honor is the measure of the moral integrity of a person. Cowardice is a rationalized response.
As a "free" "man", he stands or falls by the content of his words, and his words convict him, not I.
Whowhere epitomizes the antithesis of the ethics that I have aspired to for the duration of my life, during MUCH more difficult circumstances than he has likely faced (and before you attack me as a self styled "hero", I do not acknowledge the concept of "heroes" - they are individuals who simply do the hard thing because it is the right thing. They stand ground when others shirk responsibility and shrink away. Heroes are created within the mind of those mired within their own individual mediocrity to explain away their shortcomings. "Heroes" simply demonstrate what we ALL should be...).
Whowhere judges whowhere...
[ 27-02-2002: Message edited by: Squinty ]
If anyones arguments fall apart all the time they are yours. Anytime it looks like you're losing you start ranting off on one about honour. If you had any honour then you would at least try to back them up or keep quiet.
I tried to stop all this by backing down, it is my personal belief that capital punishment is an act of justice best left to savages. it has no place in a modern society, it has no useful function and only serves to cost the state money, and to cause unncessary grief to the executed person's family, who in case you didn't realise are not guilty through association. They are as innocent as the victims' families.
[ 27-02-2002: Message edited by: Whowhere ]
How many times have I resorted to using insults of a personal nature in these arguments? Apart from ones based on Americans in general which I have now stopped I have never made reference or speculated at your private lives. I have never used it to try and win an argument. Pity some people here cannot do the same?
Neither reaction is "unnatural" since both are human behaviours and humans are part of nature. However, that was not really the point that you were trying to make, I guess...
I guess the instinct in most people is to run and take cover. However, some people "naturally" have a different response. Part of military training is actually to blend the two: take cover where possible (since if you get injured or killed pointlessly, there is no benefit to be found) but don't cower there. To win, you must attack, and that will probably mean advancing into enemy fire. The self-discipline required to do that is what parade-ground training is designed to instill -- that and a real spirit of cameraderie: you know that your mates -- your borthers -- are with you, that while you advance they will cover you, that if you do fall then they will try their damndest to make sure that you did not fall in vain.
Even so, some (very few) people are like that "naturally" and need no drill sergeant to tell them their duty. Others call them brave, heroic -- to themselves they are simply doing what they do. Shakespeare said it: To thine own self be true.
If you remember the incident recently when a BBC producer jumped on to the bonnet of a car to try and stop a couple who had stolen her handbag. Lots of people said this was brave but I think that it was just stupid. <IMG SRC="mad.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
So only God has authority over you, yet you have authority over others? And this is because you were in the military? Maybe I didn't make myself clear...
Really I was wondering how you can believe in God, and follow the principles of the Old Testament as the basis for your own personal moral code, yet ignore the New Testament.
I ask because you obviously have strong principles, but you seem to want to control your own destiny, in the sense that you want authority over others. Surely belief in God would involve submission to His almighty power?
As a free man, I have the authority over others only as they grant it to me. The only authority over me is that which I yield, other than God.
I do not seek authority over others. I accept the responsibility for them as they seek to have me responsible for them. Different issue.
Prior military service brings NO authority over ANYONE after ETS. Authority over others was within that service...
I think your God is different from the God of the Bible.
ANYONE who posts an obvious contradition/hypocracy invalidates their position of credibility. If whowhere didn't want to subject himself to the "judgement", then he should have maintained silence.
If someone where to boast of raping children, would you listen to their perspective concerning the issue of the effect of pornography upon their public/private life?
A fetus is more than a sperm cell or an egg. If you support abortion, then certainly you should equally support retro-active birth control, an adjunct... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> To support abortion and reject capital punishment IS hypocracy...
There is an inference there that because this person rapes children then he is partly motivated by pronography.
So let me ask you this, would you listen to him if he said that it was pornography which stimulated his actions?
<STRONG>
And an acorn is an Oak Tree?
<STRONG>
Crap. Capital Punishment isn't retro-active birth control, it is an act of revenge.
Oh, and just so that you know, I don't support abortion - I believe in taking responsibility for my own actions. However there are circumstances where personal responsibilty doesn't come into it(eg rape), and on those occasions abortion is the responsible action.
Capital punishment is blind revenge, a desire inflict your hate/anger/blood lust on another individual.
Maybe you agree with capital punishment because you live in a country where it is legal. Government polls over the years, and especially the one conducted in Germany in the 50's and 60's shows that amongst generations who have little or no experience of the death penalty in their country it is seen as a barbaric act of justice. More suited to the middle east than to a supposed civilised Western nation.
To put it bluntly, capital punishment is simply legalise mob justice. It is like throwing a piece of meat to a pack of wolves.
...perhaps for you: therefore, within your understanding.
As stated previously, capital punishment is not revenge, not retribution, but a RECKONING. It is the consequence of actions and decisions made by the perpetrator.
As stated previously, I have taken life with no more emotion than swatting a fly. There is no "blood-lust". It is simply "business"...
If you were to interview judges/prosecutors/jurors, you would likely find that they are not acting within the grasp of passionate "blood-lust" either... just taking care of business.
If a person totally rents the social contract, and with premeditation plots and schemes to take another's life (within the civilian social setting), then that person should pay the tariff for their actions, and forfeit their life. It was THEIR choice, and the consequence is upon them.
Do you live in a place where the accepted form is to blame everything upon someone else, and bear no responsibility for your choices? Do you really need to be protected from yourself?
Sounds a lot like revenge to me
No, I don't live in a place like that, and yes I do accept responsibility for my actions. If you knew everything that was going on you would know that. But of course you jumped to conclusions YET AGAIN.
Accepting responsiblity is one thing, dying is another.
We can argue until the ends of time, but it is obvious that capital punishment is simply not a deterrent. Despite the threat of death, people still murder, they still rape and they will still defy the law.
Please don't try and contradict me, because if it was the all magical solution you think it is then people wouldn't commit crime.
Then perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the definition of RECKONING...
Your main argument in this matter is that a foetus isn't guilty of any crime, fair enough but answer me this....
You have killed people who as far as you are aware are guilty of no crime, why is this different from killing a foetus that is guilty of no crime?
You might notice that I have as yet not stated my personal perspective concerning abortion, but had been pointing toward an hypocracy... <IMG SRC="wink.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Combat within military service, taking the life of someone whose purpose is to take yours, is slightly outside of society's judicial jurisdiction, but... if you cannot make the distinction between the taking of life and "murder", then the point is wasted.