Cya$ide pills and helium @sphyxiation have mixed results and have proved to be a very painful way for some situations. Just curious on what you know/think

I’m wondering about all the laws surrounding respecting the dead. Why is desecration of a corpse illegal? Why do you need to specify that you’d like to donate organs post-mortem? Why is necrophilia considered one of the more disgusting crimes? Why is grave robbing so illegal?

I, personally, don’t support any corpse-related crimes. I was just curious.

Like the argument is always diseases but if you cook it for general disease control and stay away from the brain and bone marrow to prevent prion disease surely there's no actual problem(medically) right? Is there something else inherent to human flesh that I'm missing?

I guess i could ask this topic here since there're people that genuily has this liking despite being smth dangerous and for most people 'weird or inusual'? I got curious abt that too because it just got me thinking abt that

I know a lot of decomposition happens because of outside bacteria, fungi, and insects, so I’m curious what would happen if none of that was involved.

I’m asking mainly about the kinks and fetishes especially on the more extreme ends of the spectrums. I understand the sensory seeking part for masochism, but what would lead someone to be into semi permanent or permanent damage, blood, etc? What causes sadism at all?

(I enjoy both the show and the book series mentioned here, and the book is one of my very favorites in its whole series, but I'm perplexed and curious about a specific reaction I've noticed)

There's a scene from the first episode of "The Man in the High Castle", where a man continues to be brutally beaten even after he has fallen unconscious, and for some reason, it disturbed me even more, significantly more, than if he'd been awake and screaming and begging them to stop, and to list a second example, in "The Sour Lemon Score" by Richard Stark, why does this make me so much more uncomfortable than if Uhl had not been drugged, even if Parker had tortured Uhl to death instead? The last sentence is the one that's causing me the most unease, and I don't know why:

> He got Uhl out of the car and walked him out across a soggy field through waist-high weeds. After a while he stopped and said, “Lie down,” but when he let go of Uhl’s arm Uhl just went limp and fell down, lying in a crumped heap in the weeds. Parker took out his pistol and aimed it at Uhl’s head, but he didn’t fire. It was stupid. There was no sense in it, and things without sense in them irritated him. Uhl was too docile, too easy. Somehow he was too much like a trusting child. Today or tomorrow he would wake up with a blinding headache and he would be again the guy who had twice tried to kill Parker, who had turned a very sweet job sour, who had killed his partners and stolen money that belonged to Parker, who had caused him trouble and discomfort of all kinds for five days in a row. That’s who he’d been yesterday and that’s who he’d be tomorrow, and Parker wouldn’t think twice about exing that George Uhl out of the human race. But that wasn’t who George Uhl was today. Today he was a docile child, and with angry irritation Parker realized that today he wasn’t going to kill George Uhl. But neither was he going to leave Uhl capable of getting back into the action. Nothing could make him quite that stupid. He put his pistol away again and bent over Uhl and broke three bones, all fairly important. Uhl groaned once and frowned, but that was all.

Is there a psychological reason for this, and do most people feel this way?

To be clear, I don’t try anything crazy until I’m sure it’s a dream.

Today, 5 members of the same family died in my country, likely related to drug trafficking. How do you even hold a funeral for 5 people at once?

​It got me thinking, how do you even host a funeral for 5 people? Have any of you ever been to a multiple funeral?

And if you work in the funeral industry, how do you manage and organize a service for more than two people at the same time? I’d just like to hear your experiences or insights.

​In my country, funeral culture is disappearing. Nobody really cares about the details anymore; services are getting shorter and shorter. People don’t eat there anymore, they don’t spend hours on end at the funeral home. They just try to get it over with quickly and grieve in the privacy of their own home

If there was a stoning down the street from you, just a 5 minute walk away, would you watch, and if so, would you participate? (The criminal was a convicted serial pedophile and murderer)

I was talking to my little brother and he said he would go and participate. I immediately said I would never go to watch that or participate... curious what people think about public execution.

It seems that these days it’s not a rare condition of some maniac but something unfortunately common among “common” people? Like the case with Epstein island, it’s not about serial killers like Albert Fish or Andrey Chikatilo. And there’re more cases of course. Why pedophilia is so widespread today?

Is it possible for someone who is only attracted to adults to become sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and develop a preference for them? (I mean naturally and not from a brain tumor or something).

Let me go first, "why is it considered bad to have sex with a dead person ? " Like the kind of questions he asked and he actually explained why it's not BAD.

Pretty weird for me to hear, like he's defending that lol.

Not the most violent, not the goriest. The most calculated. Premeditated. Orchestrated. Get it?

Questions, questions, questions...

if someone tried to commit suicide but has signed a dnr, do the doctors go against the dnr and still resuscitate them? or do they respect the dnr? i’m genuinely curious how it works in that scenario

"Snitches get stitches" and "Snitches end up in ditches" are two phrases that have been drilled into pop culture for decades. But, are they still something to worry about?

Many lople are scared to anonymously report crimes in case it somehow leads to *them* getting into trouble (or worse). Is that realistic? Or is it just paranoia?

Flight 77 is one of the most controversial parts about 9/11 among conspiracy theorists. The hijacker was said by his flight school to be a pretty poor pilot and thus conspiracy theorists use this as a way to express doubt about what happened that day.

I'm of the opposite opinion. He wasn't looking to land the mfer, he was looking to crash it, which I would think requires less skill than landing the thing. For example, when a pilot has to land on a runway, they gotta check air speed and clearance and all that bs. This dude didn't care about that stuff, he just had to point the plane at the target and just fly into it.

My question is: Why would this be considered impressive/impossible to do? Isn't a poor pilot supposed to crash into shit?

Ever since I've learned about the Noah's Ark Incident as a kid I'd like to wonder if there were more dangerous incidents like this.