View Full Version : Great news about dying
The Avon Lady
09-30-07, 04:31 AM
It may be just temporary (http://wcco.com/health/health_story_271115428.html).
Kapitan_Phillips
09-30-07, 04:39 AM
DAMNIT NO. I knew it! First the crater! Now this!
ZOMBIES
Spoon 11th
09-30-07, 05:09 AM
"Bill now has an internal defibrillator and is taking medications."
What a freak.
The Avon Lady
09-30-07, 05:31 AM
"Bill now has an internal defibrillator and is taking medications."
What a freak.
Why?
XabbaRus
09-30-07, 05:33 AM
Nothing new. In siberia a doctor has been using ice to drop the body temperature to such a low level that major operations are carried out.
Skybird
09-30-07, 06:07 AM
I wonder if everything that can be done - must be carried out indeed.
Well in fact you are not dead just because your heart stops, so I would say that the title was not exact. Death is usually considered as an irreversible situation caused because the damage to brain cells -due to lack of oxygen- is too high to be reverted and the living functions cease. Wether that is casued by a heart attack, a bleeding or trauma, those are just variations of the cause, the effect being the same.
No brain death, no real death, and that one is impossible to revert :hmm:
Jimbuna
09-30-07, 07:30 AM
I think Dr. Frankenstein would disagree with you :lol:
Kapitan
09-30-07, 03:27 PM
If i die i accept that im down as DNR so once im gone im gone.
Jimbuna
09-30-07, 03:49 PM
Has this thread not died yet ? :hmm:
;)
XabbaRus
09-30-07, 04:09 PM
Does any thread die? Here they seem to come back to life at very odd times.
Jimbuna
09-30-07, 05:13 PM
Does any thread die? Here they seem to come back to life at very odd times.
Busy witnessing that over on SH3 threads right this minute ;)
Steel_Tomb
09-30-07, 05:27 PM
Lol..."its alive! its alive!":rotfl:
Excellent! This should go someway to helping the worldwide shortage of people.
Yeah Sunday night pissed off with the world syndrome.
Onkel Neal
09-30-07, 10:02 PM
Wait, what?
kiwi_2005
09-30-07, 11:54 PM
This was put into practice by the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele (angel of death) during ww2 on mainly Polish & Jew prisoners. During his crusade of creating the master race & perfect twins he experimented on thousands with the ice technique, of course not like now, he had no regards for human life.
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 12:11 AM
This was put into practice by the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele (angel of death) during ww2 on mainly Polish & Jew prisoners. During his crusade of creating the master race & perfect twins he experimented on thousands with the ice technique, of course not like now, he had no regards for human life.
I know you didn't mean it that way but please don't compare Mengele and this.
These doctors are bringing back people to their families, who are ever so appreciative.
Wait, what?
Did you just wake up from a saline slushy?
Heh, Death be not Proud.
Though I don't think this is exactly what he envisioned.
This was put into practice by the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele (angel of death) during ww2 on mainly Polish & Jew prisoners. During his crusade of creating the master race & perfect twins he experimented on thousands with the ice technique, of course not like now, he had no regards for human life.
Josef Mengele and other forced human experimenters pose a interesting philosophical
problem.
There are some (J.Mengele not included) whose barbarous acts are likely to have
saved more lives then where used in the experiments. Clearly there is no moral
justification from this fact and that can lead us to the conclusion that:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it."
Is a poor moral standpoint.
However, this throws in to question countless contemporary and historical cases
where horrible brutalities have been inflicted upon people with the justification that
the good coming from the act will be greater than the evil.
-see: Hiroshima
This was put into practice by the Nazi doctor Josef Mengele (angel of death) during ww2 on mainly Polish & Jew prisoners. During his crusade of creating the master race & perfect twins he experimented on thousands with the ice technique, of course not like now, he had no regards for human life.
Josef Mengele and other forced human experimenters pose a interesting philosophical
problem.
There are some (J.Mengele not included) whose barbarous acts are likely to have
saved more lives then where used in the experiments. Clearly there is no moral
justification from this fact and that can lead us to the conclusion that:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it."
Is a poor moral standpoint.
However, this throws in to question countless contemporary and historical cases
where horrible brutalities have been inflicted upon people with the justification that
the good coming from the act will be greater than the evil.
-see: Hiroshima
Yes I was somewhat exercised by this. As I understand it the results of Nazi research were destroyed. I know it's a difficult and sensitive issue but I feel that made all the victims suffering in vain.
Yes I was somewhat exercised by this. As I understand it the results of Nazi research were destroyed. I know it's a difficult and sensitive issue but I feel that made all the victims suffering in vain.
Most of the recherche papers for most Nazi experiments where destroyed or lost, but
not all. However most of the practical lessons learned where put into use in the
German armed forces immediately; most notably techniques for reviving hypothermia,
which proved to be effective for quite some time after the war until theoretical biology
caught up and improved upon them.
That said, most was totally useless because of the fascination with race and the false
belief that the victim's bodies would behave very differently from bodies of "pure race".
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 09:17 AM
-see: Hiroshima
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
-see: Hiroshima Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
You must see the relation in terms of:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it.".
That is usualy the main justification for Hiroshima. No?
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 01:06 PM
-see: Hiroshima Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
You must see the relation in terms of:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it.".
That is usualy the main justification for Hiroshima. No?
No. According to you, one is forced to assume that use of the bombs then was evil in some way.
-see: Hiroshima Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
You must see the relation in terms of:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it.".
That is usualy the main justification for Hiroshima. No?
No. According to you, one is forced to assume that use of the bombs then was evil in some way.
I'm not saying that bombs are evil, I'm just questioning the status-quo that a bomb, or
any other brutality can be justified by the greater good it will achieve.
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 01:30 PM
-see: Hiroshima Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
You must see the relation in terms of:
"No price is too great to pay and no brutality too horrible to inflict if it can be justified
that the good will be so much more than the evil needed to impose it.".
That is usualy the main justification for Hiroshima. No?
No. According to you, one is forced to assume that use of the bombs then was evil in some way.
I'm not saying that bombs are evil, I'm just questioning the status-quo that a bomb, or
any other brutality can be justified by the greater good it will achieve.
I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
[Lots of quotes] I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
Are you skirting the issue by rubbishing it or do you think that the ends is always a justification for the means?
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 01:42 PM
[Lots of quotes] I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
Are you skirting the issue by rubbishing it or do you think that the ends is always a justification for the means?
On the contrary! Ends don't justify means should be almost an ironclad rule. There was nothing wrong or evil in the means used by the US in dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's exactly the point!
[Lots of quotes] I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
Are you skirting the issue by rubbishing it or do you think that the ends is always a justification for the means? On the contrary! Ends don't justify means should be almost an ironclad rule. There was nothing wrong or evil in the means used by the US in dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's exactly the point!
:hmm: So it was a justification in it's self?
I don't understand?
Isn't the only reason for a action to achive something other than the action it's self?
Pass me the popcorn and that can of beer, we got a hot thread here people. :ping:
Jimbuna
10-01-07, 02:46 PM
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2944/killswordduelingtl1.gif (http://imageshack.us)
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3988/lurkereatingpopcornbh2.gif (http://imageshack.us)
Pass me the popcorn and that can of beer, we got a hot thread here people. :ping:
hey pass me a beer Steed...oh wait...im not allowed to drink yet:rotfl:
then give me some of that popcorn of yours:rotfl:
[Lots of quotes] I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
Are you skirting the issue by rubbishing it or do you think that the ends is always a justification for the means? On the contrary! Ends don't justify means should be almost an ironclad rule. There was nothing wrong or evil in the means used by the US in dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's exactly the point!
:hmm: So it was a justification in it's self?
I don't understand?
Isn't the only reason for a action to achive something other than the action it's self?
With the A bomb I'd look at it like this the nuke kills X number of people, the prolongation of the war kills Y number of people, if Y>X then drop bomb.
I'd probably introduce a scaling factor for X to represent them being baddies and starting the war, or am I being simplistic again?
[Lots of quotes] I understood you clearly. To which I repeat:
Unbelievable moral equivalency rubbish. :down:
Are you skirting the issue by rubbishing it or do you think that the ends is always a justification for the means? On the contrary! Ends don't justify means should be almost an ironclad rule. There was nothing wrong or evil in the means used by the US in dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's exactly the point!
:hmm: So it was a justification in it's self?
I don't understand?
Isn't the only reason for a action to achive something other than the action it's self?
With the A bomb I'd look at it like this the nuke kills X number of people, the prolongation of the war kills Y number of people, if Y>X then drop bomb.
I'd probably introduce a scaling factor for X to represent them being baddies and starting the war, or am I being simplistic again?
Hehe....you haven't read the rest of the thread have you? ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.