🚀 go-pugleaf

[Martin Taylor 990506 00:06]
>[From Rick Marken (990505.1415)]
>
>Martin Taylor (990504 23:30) --

>> I think it not a good idea to use the term "coercion" to
>> apply to all interactions between people
>
>I agree! I think it should only be applied to the coercive
>ones.

I guess you had better clarify your position then. I wrote that because I
have understood you on several occasions to say that all interactions
between people are coercive according to your definition--and indeed,
if one analyses interactions using your definition, they are truly all
coercive.

Which makes the term vacuous.
-------------------------------
>> I cannot see as coercion the application of direct force to,
>> say, grab a child out of the street, and I don't understand
>> why you have been calling it coercion.

>We've been calling it that because that's what the dictionary
>calls it.

Not my dictionary. And if you are trying to use it as a technical term,
appeal to a dictionary is not a good argument anyway (e.g. "perception").

However, if you want to appeal to a dictionary, I'll refrain from using
Oxford, since you may say that British English isn't what you speak.

Random House Unabridged: coercion (1) the act of coercing; use of force or
intimidation to obtain compliance. (2) force or the power to use force in
gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

That's it. Nothing about the direct use of force to manipulate the
physical state of another person. Nor is there in the definitions of
"coerce." I do grant that in engineering terms, one can coerce a point
in a circuit to be at, say, a particular voltage, but that's a bit
too far from PCT for my taste. And it's not in this dictionary. (In the
Oxford, there are additional specialized legal senses, mainly dealing
with constraint or restraint, such as being put in jail, not relevant
here). So I say again:

>> I cannot see as coercion the application of direct force to,
>> say, grab a child out of the street, and I don't understand
>> why you have been calling it coercion.

Not only is it _not_ what this American dictionary calls coercion, also
the direct application of force is theoretically null within PCT, except
insofar as it affects the reorganization of coercer and coercee. The act
itself is no different whether the object moved is a child or a rock.

So to define "coercion" as a technical term applying to the direct
manipulation situation as well as to "gaining compliance," as defined
by the dictionary, seems to be a pointless waste of a usable word.

Martin