🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Kenny Kitzke (990503.1300EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990502.1530)>


<So, you want to maintain that when a parent unilaterally decides
that their kid _will_ smoke and take drugs it is _not_ coercion
because, unbeknownst to the parent, who doesn't know and doesn't
want to know, the kid loves to smoke and takes drugs regularly?>

Yes.  By what I believe to be a helpful definition of coercion (an
interactive behavioral phenomena), if a parent forces a child to shoot
heroin, and the kid wants to shoot heroin when the parent decides to force
him, it would not be helpful to understand this interaction as coercion.

Your question implies that I view all coercion as "bad" or wrong.  I don't.
If we carefully (and I think wisely) define coercion as a type of interaction
(not the behavior of one person), I am of the view that some people will be
disturbed by the coercion they perceive and others will find their references
are being met by the coercion.

Under this definition, the parties interacting will have to find common
ground for getting what they want.  This is what may be of value from an
understanding of PCT.

Bill Clinton, a coercer of the Serbs by your definition, thinks he is doing
good by his coercion.  Jesse Jackson, a non-coercer, thinks there is a better
way to get people to do what you want them to.  Based on the observed result,
I think Jesse should be our President instead of Mr. Bill.  8-)

Kenny