wow are you guys still going at this?

Well let me know the definition when you agree to it

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Time to put this issue to rest, George.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Coercion DOES NOT mean to force someone to act a DIFFERENT way, coercion means to force someone to act a CERTAIN way

Fine, you in your own definition have used the word "force." Let's take a look.

quote:

Force: 1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion. 2. (a) Power made operative against resistance; exertion: use force in driving a nail. (b) The use of physical power or violence to compel or restrain: a confession obtained by force. 3. (a) Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in writing or speech. (b) Moral strength. (c) A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy: the force of logical argumentation. (d) One that possesses such capacity: the forces of evil.

You'll note that every single one of these definitions carries either the word "change" or some synonym ("affect"), or the implication of resistance.

I assume you've got the sagacity to realize that the sub-headings under definitions 1, 2, and 3 all have to be read as groups, so please don't try to take any of them out of context. Definition 1 explicitly states physical change. Definition 2 implies power against resistance. Definition 3, which is extremely vague compared to 1 and 2, still uses the words affect and efficacy.

The application of force has to act against a resistance or cause a change, otherwise it isn't force.

Here's another little tidbit from Webster:

quote:

Coerce had at first only the negative sense of checking or restraining by force; as, to coerce a bad man by punishments or a prisoner with fetters. It has now gained a positive sense., viz., that of driving a person into the performance of some act which is required of him by another; as, to coerce a man to sign a contract; to coerce obedience. In this sense (which is now the prevailing one), coerce differs but little from compel, and yet there is a distinction between them. Coercion is usually acomplished by indirect means, as threats and intimidation, physical force being more rarely employed in coercing.

There you have it. Coercion is identical to compelling except carries an implication of indirect means. However, it still must be restraining (acting against an entity's tendency to do something) or driving (acting against an entity's tendency NOT to do something). Both of these imply an adversity and a change.

quote:

Please can you acknowledge this and amend your definition to account for your mistake?

As you can clearly see, there is no mistake, and there is nothing to amend.

I can only assume that you either have very poor linguistic skills or very poor deductive skills, or both. Give it up - you're fighting a lost cause here. Coercion has a very specific meaning and you're not going to change it with pathetic specious logic like that.

A thesaurus is not a definition. A synonym is not the same word, it is a similar one. "Shot" is a synonym for "try" when used in the context of "I'll give it my best shot", but they are clearly not the same word.

Just let it go. Case dismissed. End of discussion. You have no argument and never did.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus wow are you guys still going at this? Well let me know the definition when you agree to it

Definition is the bulleted list about 5 posts above, whether Georgey likes it or not. Enjoy.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Fine, you in your own definition have used the word "force." Let's take a look.

So I ask you to give me a definition of the word "coerce" that specifically says that it is for change, and you instead give me a definition of the word "force" to prove your point

Even your definition of "force" does not back up your points as number two says "Power made operative against resistance" which means it is actually against change (the resistance is the factor pushing for change)

quote:

Coercion has a very specific meaning and you're not going to change it with pathetic specious logic like that.

So show me the definition that specifically says coercion means to change...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley So I ask you to give me a definition of the word "coerce" that specifically says that it is for change, and you instead give me a definition of the word "force" to prove your point

Because coercion is the use or threat of force which even you admitted with YOUR own definition of coercion above.

quote:

Even your definition of "force" does not back up your points as number two says "Power made operative against resistance" which means it is actually against change (the resistance is the factor pushing for change)

What is this garbage? It is power AGAINST resistance. This implies that there must BE a resistance. Again, you seem to be physically incapable of understanding the difference between an intent and an action (which seems to be an ongoing problem with you in every debate, but also happens to be one of the founding principles of every single democratic country's criminal justice system).

In order for coercion to occur, there must be force or the threat thereof. In order for force to exist, there must be an opposing force (a resistance). That means that the target's intent must somehow be different from what you want them to do.

IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you are trying to prevent an action ("opposing change" as you call it) or compel them to take an action, it is still modifying their actual behaviour from their intended behaviour. If you are trying to prevent them from doing something they weren't going to do, it is not coercion. If you are trying to compel them to do something they were already going to do, it is not coercion. Take your pick - neither one makes any sense!

quote:

So show me the definition that specifically says coercion means to change...

IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLICIT in the definition in order to be logically consistent with it. I have already explained to you numerous times how it is a fallacy to think this way.

Please, for once actually READ and COMPREHEND what I am saying to you instead of just picking up on the vague notion that someone disagrees and reposting the same incoherent rambling nonsense that I've already ripped apart.

You always do this. You refuse to acknowledge anything that anyone else says in an argument and just post the exact same thing you posted before, recycled and paraphrased. LISTEN to the people you are having the discussion with, and you might actually learn something (in this case, an elementary-school-level education in deductive reasoning).

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

DigiNut, you are so funny!

All you do is twist people's words and make things up!

You give definitions out of dictionaries, then when it is pointed out what these definitions actually mean, you tell people they are stupid!

quote:

If you are trying to prevent them from doing something they weren't going to do, it is not coercion. If you are trying to compel them to do something they were already going to do, it is not coercion

Classic example...

What about if you prevent someone from doing something they want to do? They are not currently doing it, so there is no change, but you are using force to prevent them doing it, that is coercion...

Likewise, if you force somebody to do something they are already doing, and they dont want to do that, then that is coercion too, yet, again, there is no change of behaviour...

So there you have it, coercion does not have to involve a change of behaviour LIKE EVERY DEFINITION TELLS YOU!!!

You cant make your own definitions up just to suit your argument!

Find me a definition that says coercion MUST INVOLVE CHANGING BEHAVIOUR or admit you are wrong


DigiNut, I notice you love to take the piss out of people's intelligence as you think you are so smart. But you are not, when you have been proved wrong (like I am doing to you now) you will not admit it or back down, you will just either ignore it or make something up like you will do in your next post and I am going to absolutely piss my self! Cos I can guarantee it will include a big list of fancy words (that you think makes your argument more believable LOL!), a few lines dedicated to telling me how clever you are and how stupid I am, followed by some totally made up definition!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What about if you prevent someone from doing something they want to do? They are not currently doing it, so there is no change, but you are using force to prevent them doing it, that is coercion...

Yes, that IS coercion, and that is specifically a case in which coercion creates a deviation between their intended behaviour and their real behaviour.

They want to do it -> they intend to do it -> you threaten/intimidate them so they don't do it -> they don't do it -> their actions deviate from their intentions.

Same with:

quote:

Likewise, if you force somebody to do something they are already doing, and they dont want to do that, then that is coercion too, yet, again, there is no change of behaviour...

They don't want to do it -> they intend not to do it -> you threaten/intimidate them so they do it -> they do it -> their actions deviate from their intentions.

Get it? Got it? Good. Modification from intended behaviour to actual behaviour. End of story.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Thankyou, wasn't so hard to understand was it?

So are you going to amend this then?

quote:

Intended to coerce that entity; to bring about change specifically by intimidation and/or the threat of more violence;

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Thankyou, wasn't so hard to understand was it? So are you going to amend this then?

Uh... did you actually read what I wrote? When someone is coerced, there is a deviation between their intended behaviour and their actual behaviour. That is what we in the real world call a change.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

But there is no change in their actual behaviour is there? They are forced to carry on as normal, with no change...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But there is no change in their actual behaviour is there? They are forced to carry on as normal, with no change...

Yes, they are forced to carry on as normal, but with the a priori knowledge that they would not be carrying on as normal had such coercion not taken place. If no such a priori knowledge or expectation exists, then it cannot legitimately be said that any kind of coercion exists. There would simply be no way to prove it, ever.

The definition does not say "change from past behaviour to present/future behaviour", it just says "change." This can also be a change in intent or a change in thought. But it is still a change of some kind.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Well no not really as there is no change in their intended behaviour (as they still do not want to do the thing they are doing) and there is no change in their actual behaviour (as they are still doing what they do not want to do). All you are saying is that there is a difference between intended behaviour and actual behaviour, but that does not equal change. It can only be considered change if there is a difference between actual behaviour at one time, and actual behaviour at a later time (or a difference between intended behaviour at one time and intended behaviour at a later time) otherwise nothing has actually changed

Looking at it another way, in the two examples I gave you, which you agreed were coercion, the intended use of that coercion was specifically to not bring about change right?