The process of take begins to occur near instantly, it just that long for the body to die or reach a medical state of death, so it isn't as you said.
Having someone who is going to shoot you sit down and wait, tis more akin to them shooting you in the throat, severing a artery and you taking about a minute to bleed to death rather then say them shooting you in the head,piercing the brain and killing you instantly.
The point
Your head
You're trying to argue around simple logic. Stop doing that.
You're trying to argue around simple logic. Stop doing that.
I guess my medical background makes me disagree with you here. Also, common sense.No I'm arguing against a self imposed 'definition' of what near instantly is. To me that's things that take under five minutes, and things that render incurable harm in under two, brain death or body death need not occur in that space for me to classify it that way because medically the person is dying in the space of minutes.
So no, not arguing against the 'simple' logic, just the notion that it's definition is applied.
Besides short of lethal trauma I can think of scarce fewer quicker means of death.
If a person died in agony within minutes of impact (lets use the under five minutes of your definition) after severe acute hemorrhage or respiratory arrest, I would most certainly NOT characterize that as a "nearly instant" death.
I would, or close enough to it, its to the point where you could have only saved them with dedicated medical faculties and personal.
That said you are right on one point, it is arbitrary to me. There is no set definition for what the word "near" or "instantaneous" means in this scenario.
I but if you were exposed to hard vacuum you would probably have a decent amount of time to think "I really wish this death was more instantaneous".
Eh? Probably not, I'd probably have the realization I had a suit breach, have about enough time to try to actually realize I was going to die, and then we have the thirty second mark when consciousness is fading, after additional ten to fifteen seconds, I'm out, after another minute I can't breath anymore, Within another minute? I'm dead so what does it matter.
It's actually a relatively brief period of realization when you think about it that way, you only have thirty seconds to panic, it takes longer to make toast.
Eh? Probably not, I'd probably the realization I had a suit breach, have about enough time to try to actually realize I was going to die, and then we have the thirty second mark when consciousness is fading, after additional ten to fifteen seconds, I'm out, after another minute I can't breath anymore, Within another minute? I'm dead so what does it matter..
Right...which was my entire point, the sarcasm of which you seem to have missed. Surely you recognize the fact that you actually having the ability to formulate ANY coherent thoughts before dying does not support your argument that such a death should be considered "nearly instantaneous" and you're just trolling, right? Because that's absurd.
No? Because hypothetically, lets say... I can slit your throat from ear and ear, and you can bleed to death in literally under forty seconds but that doesn't change the fact you can actually realize that you are dying, what has happened to you yet it is occurring, you are going to die in under a minute.
I'd classify that as a damn short window of death, same for being shot in trauma areas located in the center mass where you can die within under a minute periods as well, such as the lung, heart, etc. You have a period of realization there, of coherence, before the light goes out. And yet you'd classify that as what? Prolonged instantaneous death or some gibberish like that? Its taking under a minute and yet it isn't within the period of a 'moment'?
hydrostatic shock turns all your organs to mush but you don't die instantly 
This is way too many posts for someone's exaggerated use of a word that really doesn't change anything about the topic.
Retour en haut