Choose Your Death
Would you rather be:
A) Mauled by a bear
B) Sawed in two
C) Burned by napalm
D) Eaten by piranhas
All of the above should be assumed to cause death. Please give sufficient reason for your selection.
posted by Chris Hill @ 6/06/2006 12:08:00 AM
30 comments
30 Comments:
I would definitely not want to be burned by napalm because of fiery deaths seen in We Were Soldiers. I wouldn't want to be eaten by those killer fish because they have small mouths and it would probably take a while for them to finish the job. It's difficult to decide between the last two without more detail. Would the sawing be the long way or the short way? If the long way, would it start at the groin or the head? If the head I might select that option. Otherwise I would definitely go with bear mauling. Bears are among my favorite animals. By "maul" do you mean they would just chew me enough to make me have a slow, painful trip to the ER, where I would die after much agony, or do you mean they would finish the job themselves and eat me? If they would eat me then the bear death wouldn't be so bad, because I would know I'd be feeding animals I like. Thanks for giving me something good to think about this morning.
Jordan, I like how you think.
Chris: Would the sawing be a back and forth, two-man lumberjack kind of sawing? Or, would it be a quicker, clean/through method? If its clean through, I'd choose that.
With the bear, I guess it would depend on if the bear would rip various parts off and eat them while leaving the greater mass still intact, and probably alive to watch. That would suck. But, if the bear would simply bash in the skull, then that would be ok. Of course, perhaps shock would set in if you're watching yourself get eaten.
I've decided. I'd much rather get sawed in two, because only with that method is there a chance of ending up in a peat bog and being mummified and studied by many generations of people for millenia to come. Sweet!
I would definitely choose napalm, if done correctly. By that I mean that I would have to have my head encased in pure napalm, instantaneously frying my brain.
Otherwise, I'd go with the bear mauling, because that'd be... cool... yeah...
You are only given the information I posted, nothing more. So the answer to your questions is that you don't know. Based on that given info, you have to decide one of the options.
On a completely different note, it's funny that I had a post about doing the right thing despite of what others think or say and got 3 comments over a period of a week or so, whereas I wrote a post about gruesome deaths and got 3 comments within 12 hours.
i started typing a response and then got grossed out by my own thoughts. so... my choice is (A), but i must refrain from giving sufficient reason for the sake of my stomach.
also, this post is probably getting more comments because it specifically asked for feedback, whereas the previous post did not.
i started typing a response and then got grossed out by my own thoughts. so... my choice is (A), but i must refrain from giving sufficient reason for the sake of my stomach.
also, this post is probably getting more comments because it specifically asked for feedback, whereas the previous post did not.
ah, crap. that wasn't supposed to happen. sorry!
Nicole,
Yes, that is a good point about asking for feedback. However, I would speculate that more people read this post and its discussion too. I have no evidence for this, but I think people dwell on unimportant issues of life much more than they do on important issues, because it is easier to do so. I say this out of personal experience.
Anyway, glad to know you think bear death the most enjoyable of the four.
Chris,
That's a good point, and I was actually thinking along those lines too (no, seriously, I was). Reminds me of an interview question I was asked a couple weeks ago... Why do you think there has been more publicity regarding Barbaro, the injured racehorse, than the conflict in Darfur?
In our celebrities-and-sports-obsessed culture, people would rather think about a fallen sports hero than genocide.
We often prefer escapism and voyeurism to reality.
Just a thought.
Personally, I dont want to die by ANY of those means. They all sound horrible and, like Nicole, I am grossed out by my own thoughts. It makes me feel somewhat depressed too. Sorry Christopher, I just dont think I can participate on this one...
But I love you! :)
Two quotes from Pascal:
"We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop us seeing it."
"If our condition were truly happy we should not need to divert ourselves from thinking about it."
Uhh obviously those quotes are only applicable given the fallen nature of our kind. Just clarifying that I'm not advocating eternal despair....
They were actually taken from a chapter in Pascal's Pensees called "Wretchedness" with the purpose of describing the fallen human condition. It's a good book.
So Nicole, what was your answer (besides what you said)?
I don't remember exactly what I said, but it was something to the effect of...
I, personally, followed Barbaro's story because I used to be an equestrian and I watch the Triple Crown every year... so tradition probably has something to do with it. But beyond that, in our sports-and-celebrities-obsessed society, we're very likely to focus on a fallen hero. We can relate to it even though it's not personal. But people don't like thinking about genocide.
Something to that effect. I would also add in (if I could answer it again) that it's easier for us to think about things when there's no call to action involved. [We can't do anything to fix Barbaro's leg... but can/should we help those in Darfur?]
Good points. I think the bottom line is that most people seek the easy way most of the time, irregardless of consequence.
aaaaaAAAAAAAAAaaahhhh! You used 'irregardless'! Ahhh! My eyes....
I chose A...I like bears and I would like my death to at least fill the bear's tummy
Now you don't know that the bear will eat you, only that he (or she - I don't want to offend anyone and imply that only male bears can kill, cause female bears can certainly kill too) will maul you. Perhaps the one sawing you in two is a canibal and they eat you afterwards. Or they may feed you to the bears. So you really don't know.
Jordan,
Sorry, I don't get it...
Chris,
You combined 'regardless' and 'irrespective' into 'irregardless' which is the demon-spawn, ear-splitting, non-word child of those two words. It makes me cry on the inside.
Love,
Jordan
But it is still in the dictionary (w/ your description):
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irregardless
At least I made a proper haiku...
And Woman,
I love you too! I just realized I never said that back. Sorry.
love,
Your Husband-to-be
Yes, it is in the dictionary, and it includes this disclaimer:
it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so. Please, for the love you bear me, don't use that word!
Also, I stick by my haiku. Do you really pronounce 'playing' as 'play-ying'? Everyone I know says 'plang'.
I know it says that, which is why I said it was posted "w/ your description," my point being that it has been accepted as a word, and is thus a word, irregardless of what you say.
On a different note, I absolutely hate MS Word and its autoformatting BS! I hate it so much!!!! I printed off all my thesis stuff, only to realize that it autoformatted some crap. It's not a big enough deal to go fix it in all my copies (I did it just for the main one). Anyway, I hate Microsoft.
And as to your "playing" question, I tend to pronounce your name "Jor'n." So I stand by my intense criticism of your haiku. I mean it to be personal and insulting too.
Your haiku sucked tons
Poop would be better than that
Your poems are so gay
Oh... and I love you.
You hate me,
and think my haiku was a crime.
But screw thee,
cuz a real poem should always rhyme.
And another...
Nicole,
I appreciate your double negative comments, especially being an engineer. In many languages, however, double negatives are still negative, unless explicitly emphasized. My dad taught me a Russian song when I was young that has the phrase "I don't know nothing," which means "I don't know anything." Thus, the word has to be taken as a whole, IRREGARDLESS of the prefix-suffic cancelation, even if this breaks logical rules.
Hey Chris,
I just tried to call you to apologize before reading your comments. Thanks for your apology too. I think the problem is that we both misinterpret intent in each other's words so that when one of us says one thing that can be taken wrong (but isn't intended to) the other responds in a way that is intended to just be clear, concise, and firm...which can in turn be interpreted in a negative, unintended way, and then it just cycles worse. I think you know me well enough to know that I'm not condescending at all, probably because it is the thing that annoys me most in others. Sorry for anything that could be taken wrong. Ok I'm exhausted from the wedding so it's either time to sleep or play video games. My other brother told me that it is easier to be the groom than the best man, so that's good news for you.
Sorry again...
Jordan
Hey, thanks for your words. I agree. Emotions... aaaAAAHHHHHhhhh! Anyway, iss ah coo'. Good work at the wedding. I'm sure Kyle was very impressed.
For those who actually read this:
I deleted a bunch of comments due to a misunderstanding between Jordan and me. We both feel very good and have bubbly joy towards each other so don't worry. Anyway, I tried to take out all the stuff that seemed harsh (although neither meant it), while keeping the pertinent info, because it would appear different to the reader than what was intended. Don't worry. You're not missing out on anything. I did call Jordan a "poopy-face" though. I apologize again, Jordan.
I'm glad to know that this was my longest discussion, with 47 comments at its peek. About 3/4 were from Jordan and me, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home