• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Being eaten alive to death or being burned alive to death - Which is worse?

Which is worse?

  • Total voters
    29
Takes Two To Tango

Takes Two To Tango

The one who doesn't fall, doesn't stand up.
Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
36,138
Reaction score
49,048
This is pretty equal in terms of torture to your body.

The pain must be relentless.

I don't know which to pick.

I got to think about it.
 
This is from a 20 year study. Burning sucks.


 - - Five-thousand two-hundred-sixty patients were admitted after burn injury from July 1989 to June 2009, and of those, 145 patients died after burn injury. Of these patients, 144 patients had an autopsy. The leading causes of death over 20 years were sepsis (47%), respiratory failure (29%), anoxic brain injury (16%), and shock (8%). From 1989 to 1999, sepsis accounted for 35% of deaths but increased to 54% from 1999 to 2009, with a significant increase in the proportion due to antibiotic resistant organisms (P < 0.05).

Eaten alive is more case specific, but I'd think anything that can eat you alive can overpower you, tear you to shreds and you'd probably be unconscious quicker and not have to experience the entire brunt of it. Then again there have been people mauled and eaten by bears that were conscious through a lot of it.

All in all I'd take my chances with being eaten. Burning to death is somehow more of a horrific experience in my opinion and possibly the most painful shit you could ever feel.
 
CyberRubberDuck said:
Burning would be quicker surely. Insanely painful but unless you're being eaten by a pack of lions, would be over fairly fast.

You'd need to provide some specifics as both have the potential to be worse than the other
Click to expand...

Burning. It would be way quicker. I remember reading a story about a girl in russia who called her mom as she was being eaten alive by a mother bear and her cubs. She kept calling back through the ordeal in pain and agony, pleading for help. The last call apparently came an hour later as she said her final goodbyes, saying the pain was gone.

Fire should kill you within a couple minutes. A few minutes at most. You might even die of smoke inhalation first. So ya, seems quite clear. Plus the thought of something slowly taking chunks out of you while you are helpless is horrifying. The primary reason I always take weaponry with me even on short hikes. You never know.
 
I'd definitely take being burned alive. I've seen a lot of vids of people burning to death and while it's pretty terrible of course, it seems like it's over fairly quickly in terms of feels. Surviving after being severely burned would be a lot worse than dying

Being eaten alive would be way scarier for me since it could last a lot longer. I haven't seen as many videos but I saw things like that cartel pitbull video, as well as nature videos of animals eating their prey while they're still alive. Those bother me a lot more than the burning videos
 
Death is the welcome conclusion. Pain doesn't matter if you aren't alive to remember it. The better question is which is worse to survive, something like a bear mauling or 3rd degree burns to x% of body? And at what point would you rather be dead?
 
Depends on what you are burned by. With some potent burns, your nerves are destroyed before you can compute it. In the same way, it also depends on who and how you are eaten alive. If a Lion bites you in the neck and lets you bleed out like a Zebra, that'll be much less bad than if a Bear drags you to it's cave and eats you over a period of 8 or 9 hours.
 
Ezekiel 25:17 said:
Burning. It would be way quicker. I remember reading a story about a girl in russia who called her mom as she was being eaten alive by a mother bear and her cubs. She kept calling back through the ordeal in pain and agony, pleading for help. The last call apparently came an hour later as she said her final goodbyes, saying the pain was gone.
Click to expand...

I remember this story, even heard the emergency service's calls, absolutely terrifying.
 
In a building you would be suffocated to death from the smoke before the fire touched you. You would probably only burn to death in a car. Being eaten alive would be a more agonizing death.
 
Burning would be quicker surely. Insanely painful but unless you're being eaten by a pack of lions, would be over fairly fast.

You'd need to provide some specifics as both have the potential to be worse than the other
Ezekiel 25:17 said:
Burning. It would be way quicker. I remember reading a story about a girl in russia who called her mom as she was being eaten alive by a mother bear and her cubs. She kept calling back through the ordeal in pain and agony, pleading for help. The last call apparently came an hour later as she said her final goodbyes, saying the pain was gone.

Fire should kill you within a couple minutes. A few minutes at most. You might even die of smoke inhalation first. So ya, seems quite clear. Plus the thought of something slowly taking chunks out of you while you are helpless is horrifying. The primary reason I always take weaponry with me even on short hikes. You never know.
Click to expand...
What about being burned at the stake from the feet upwards, slowly as the fire takes hold around you?
 
Burning alive has got to be one of the worst possible way to go. There’s a reason cartels and other groups choose his as a way to inflict maximum pain.

If the animals eating you are bears or lions it would be over quick. Being eaten by red ants on the other hand…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,260,076
Messages
57,005,160
Members
175,494
Latest member
Deyvison de Souza Silva

Share this page

Back
Top