🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Rick Marken (990506.0830)]

Tim Carey (990507.2150)-

> I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a
> person who may have intent to coerce. I just don't see that
> it makes any sense to categorise an _interaction_ as coercive
> when both participants in the interaction wanted the same thing.

If you don't have a problem with talking about _one_ person as
the coercer then you should have no problem seeing that that
person is coercing _regardless of the intentions of the coercee_.
And then we're definitely on track!

This stuff about categorizing an _interaction_ as coercive or
not has always been a red herring. The _interaction_ was brought
up in order to claim that _one_ person can't be said to be
coercing (controlling the behavior of) another person if the
coercee wants to do what the coercer wants him to do anyway.
If you now see that one person can be coercing another
_regardless_ of the intentions of that other person, then you
can see that this "non-coercive interaction" stuff is misleading.

As I said, if you want to categorize _interactions_ so as
to distinguish interactions where the coercee wants what
the coercer wants from those where the coercee _doesn't_ want
what the coercer wants, then it makes more sense to call
them "accidental facilitation" vs "accidental interference"
interactions, respectively, rather than "non-coercive" vs
"coercive" interactions, since the coercer is coercing in
these interactions all the time, regardless of the intentions
of the coercee.

Best

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken                 Phone or Fax:  310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates         e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken