signifigant violence

or friend condeming himself to hell

circumstances vary too much to make an absolute choice

SIGNIFIGANT VIOLENCE

OR FRIEND CONDEMING HIMSELF TO HELL

does significant violence mean tackling him, or blowing his legs off?

water, I thought you said pushing wanst signifigant violence

significant violence is broad, and varies on a situational basis.

ok, lets say

if you tackle someone you can do a hell of a lot more than a shove.

you have to shoot him in the leg with a mosin nagant

to save him

he wont die from the wound

if i’m certain he’ll live, sure i’d do that.

but if saving his life means threatening it further, no.

well, wouldnt him dying from the wound mean he would go to heaven

that’s not for me to decide.

at that point, what happens to him is between him and God.

Ok let me expand upon this further

You can either
1. shoot him in the leg, this forever cripples him but he will die naturally later on in life
2. you let him die and go to hell

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.

temporarily destroying his alcohol won’t solve his problem