Message from @Water
Discord ID: 531263102461935626
i’d cripple him if i was certain that i wouldn’t kill him, of course.
I thought that fell under 'signifigant violence
i referred to entire removal of extremities, which almost always has a chance to end in death.
and such scenario wouldnt happen
unless its Saw
i didn’t say it was likely, i said i wouldn’t do it.
this all exists hypothetically.
So you seem to base your signifigant violence off of
"if it has a high risk of death"
chance of death basically yeah
if saving them means i’ll kill them, i’ve done nothing at all.
even though, the state wouldnt do that against you
unless youre being violent
sometimes it’s important to use a smaller violation of rights to prevent a much greater one.
unless you live in like, North Korea
so you believe in greater good
the example i like is from David D. Friedman
so why oppose me and alcohol man
his alcoholism will surely lead to his demise
because alcohol man’s life isn’t imminently threatened.
yet you seem to agree with getting rid of things before they become threats
not really, no.
you shouldn’t do something unless it’s imminent.
so you wait before they start affecting you
or someone else, yes.
the alcoholism is affecting him
hence defense of myself and **others**
the suicide will affect him
if it isn’t going to kill him, there are ways to go about it that don’t involve violence.
if it kills him tomorrow, you could argue that it’s justified.
so you wait until the alcoholism starts becoming serious...?
wait until it’s an immediate threat to his life.
thats retarded
if it’s *going* to kill him, you can intervene with force.
And I know you will start saying "but its your son you have custody"
And for how long will you intervene?
but if my son starts smoking weed, I will do everything I can to stop it
that’s up to punished
Intervene until he is in no immediate threat or until he is completely out of alcohol's grasp?
im not going to sit there and wait till his lungs resemble coal