john9blue wrote:TA1LGUNN3R wrote:john, you keep using 'coercion' for things that aren't coercion, e.g. your McD's advertising.
the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
Just because an act has varying degrees of intensity, it doesn't qualify as not involuntary. The final four OP scenarios are involuntary exchanges, unless you consented to be ruled by a king or liberal democracy and waived your rights.
mcdonald's advertising is the result of mcdonald's using its power to gain my acceptance of its products and my compliance in purchasing them.
i use "coercion" in a similar manner to "influence" or "persuasion". it's true that the word implies a rather strong type of persuasion, but if they are so distinct to you, then what do you think is the key difference between the meaning of the two words, other than degree of influence?
Funkyterrance wrote:Coming back to all this, something has been irking me: If you had to sign a contract for any agreement between you and the government/establishment, couldn't you just go around breaking laws left and right without repercussion?
Lootifer wrote:God dammit. Bob saget massaged me and told me I have to read the exchange (pun motherfucking intended) between bigcockgoblinstalin and johnny knob polisher. f*ck you bob. f*ck you.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Lootifer wrote:God dammit. Bob saget massaged me and told me I have to read the exchange (pun motherfucking intended) between bigcockgoblinstalin and johnny knob polisher. f*ck you bob. f*ck you.
Since Bob saget massaged you, does this count as coercion? Sexual harassment can be serious, Lootifer.