"You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health

[myrkul]

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.

You are coerced, and defend your coercer's actions. Textbook stockholm:

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

[1714030077]

1714030077

[1714030077]

1714030077

[1714030077]

1714030077

[jgraham]

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.

You are coerced, and defend your coercer's actions. Textbook stockholm:

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

[myrkul]

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I'm simply saying I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

You're out money, yes? Just because the mugger doesn't shoot you, does that mean it wasn't a crime?

[jgraham]

These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

I actually didn't deny having Stockholm.   I'm just saying it doesn't explain the evidence at hand.  I'm simply saying I am not in pain.  You appear to be saying that I should be.

Point still stands.

You're out money, yes? Just because the mugger doesn't shoot you, does that mean it wasn't a crime?

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

[myrkul]

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

Not all pain or suffering is physical.

[jgraham]

A things classification as a crime (unless you're equivocating) is orthogonal to it being painful.   Some crimes in some instances result in no pain.  Some pain is the result of no crime.  Since your point appeared to be that if there is threat of violence there is pain.  I'm simply asking why that doesn't apply in one particular case of mine.

Not all pain or suffering is physical.

Never said it was.   I never stipulated the "modality" of the pain e.g. physical or emotional.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

[NghtRppr]

You don't mind paying taxes, so pay them. What does that say about the rest of us that do mind? What exactly is your point? I haven't been following the back and forth.

[myrkul]

Never said it was.   I never stipulated that I felt no "physical" pain.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that. But the coercion is still there, and you're not going to prove to me that it isn't no matter how many times you say "the point still stands"

[NghtRppr]

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that.

Even if he wasn't alright with it, I highly doubt he would admit it. I'm still confused as to what his personal opinion has to do with the rest of the world though.

[jgraham]

Never said it was.   I never stipulated that I felt no "physical" pain.  I simply feel no pain due to the threat of violence about my taxes.

If the point stands any longer it's going to need a chair.

Well, If you're OK with being coerced, there's not much I can do about that. But the coercion is still there, and you're not going to prove to me that it isn't no matter how many times you say "the point still stands"

Nobody said anything about there being no coercion (as defined by NAP).  I swear you guys get so caught up in your rhetoric that you really seem to see words that aren't even there eg. "There is no coercion" , "Quantification"

Anywhoooo

Before you said: "Coercion == pain and suffering" and when asked you seemed to say it applies any and all cases.

Now we can say "Coercion != pain and suffering in any and all cases"

or another way you might put it...

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

Right?

[NghtRppr]

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

co·erce

verb /kōˈərs/

    Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats

If I physically coerce you to do something then you don't want to do it. How are you not suffering?

suf·fer

verb /ˈsəfər/ 

    Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant)

Are you saying that being physically forced to do something that you don't want to do isn't unpleasant? If it's not unpleasant then it's hard to see how you don't want to do it or are being physically forced at all.

[jgraham]

Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

If I physically coerce you to do something then you don't want to do it. How are you not suffering?

<<insert obvious joke implying lack of ability here>>

Anyway I am using the supplied definition:

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus:
i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".
ii) I am under the constant threat of initiation of force against my property for not doing my taxes.
iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.
iv) Coercion does not necessitate pain and suffering.

[NghtRppr]

i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".

No, you also have to be unwilling. See the definition above.

iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.

Then how can you say you're unwilling? You can't. You clearly see the flaw in your argument which is why you wish to avoid the dictionary definition I provided.

This is yet another pointless debate where you cherry pick definitions. Just like with your "I was using an informal definition" cop out. Fine. Whatever. We're just ships passing in the night if we're not using the same definitions.

[Reikoku]

The argument of "I don't mind doing it, therefore it is OK" does not justify it.

What if I didn't mind walking on crushed glass? Could I then declare that you should do it, because I don't find it unpleasant?

[BBanzai]

Not to muddy the waters, but pain and suffering endured while correcting a greater wrong or producing more value are trivial in comparison to the value you hope to bring.  Self-sacrifice for ones family, the labor that produces goods and services, the effort to follow the Golden Rule despite your immediate wish to do otherwise... there is a plus side to personal pain and suffering within certain contexts.  I must admit that I am a Sophist, in the oldest sense of the term.  Not the current one.
As a simple example, I play guitar from time to time.  Learning to play guitar made my fingertips calloused.  But first it made them sore.  Then it made them bleed.  Well worthwhile pain and suffering.  Its the coercion part that JGraham is talking about, not the pain per se.

[myrkul]

Not to muddy the waters, but pain and suffering endured while correcting a greater wrong or producing more value are trivial in comparison to the value you hope to bring.  Self-sacrifice for ones family, the labor that produces goods and services, the effort to follow the Golden Rule despite your immediate wish to do otherwise... there is a plus side to personal pain and suffering within certain contexts.  I must admit that I am a Sophist, in the oldest sense of the term.  Not the current one.
As a simple example, I play guitar from time to time.  Learning to play guitar made my fingertips calloused.  But first it made them sore.  Then it made them bleed.  Well worthwhile pain and suffering.  Its the coercion part that JGraham is talking about, not the pain per se.

The key there is willingness. You weren't made to play the guitar until you grew callouses.

[BBanzai]

My point exactly.  Charity is something I have pursued within my measures, for individuals and causes that I admired.  Sometimes I was wrong in my placing faith in the individuals I invested in.  But I have no regrets, I was not wasting my resources on strangers, I was learning about the value inherent in sharing my wealth with someone less well off than me with no expectations of return on investment.  That is in my nature already.  You make a governing body take my money and hand it over to those less skillful, lucky, whatever, you have not taught me something new.  You have stolen from me at gunpoint.  And eaten yourself most of what you stole.  And handed out a pittance to some poor person that I would have given more to if I knew them myself.

[myrkul]

My point exactly.  Charity is something I have pursued within my measures, for individuals and causes that I admired.  Sometimes I was wrong in my placing faith in the individuals I invested in.  But I have no regrets, I was not wasting my resources on strangers, I was learning about the value inherent in sharing my wealth with someone less well off than me with no expectations of return on investment.  That is in my nature already.  You make a governing body take my money and hand it over to those less skillful, lucky, whatever, you have not taught me something new.  You have stolen from me at gunpoint.  And eaten yourself most of what you stole.  And handed out a pittance to some poor person that I would have given more to if I knew them myself.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jgraham]

i) The threat of the initiation of force against my property is considered sufficient to qualify as "coercion".

No, you also have to be unwilling. See the definition above.

iii) I feel no pain or suffering over this.

Then how can you say you're unwilling? You can't. You clearly see the flaw in your argument which is why you wish to avoid the dictionary definition I provided.

Well the number logical flaws in that sentence are at least three.  One of which is the usage of the term "avoid". I simply didn't get to that post before I decided to call it a night.  So, as seems to be your penchant you jump the gun here.

This is yet another pointless debate where you cherry pick definitions.

Uh except here the definition was given to me by someone else.  I was merely working with it.

Just like with your "I was using an informal definition" cop out.

Well I'm glad you aren't all in a twist about it. ;-)  To me anyway, understanding that language is fluid isn't a cop-out.  As I've said, people use the term "quantify" to refer to a process involving ordinals appears pretty common and it's clear from the get-go I recognized both senses.  How is that a cop-out? 

Fine. Whatever. We're just ships passing in the night if we're not using the same definitions.

That wasn't my definition.  It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul.  You want to expand upon it?  Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion.  Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?

Right?

The argument of "I don't mind doing it, therefore it is OK" does not justify it.

What if I didn't mind walking on crushed glass? Could I then declare that you should do it, because I don't find it unpleasant?

Great.  Since nobody's making that argument can we continue?  Good.

[LastBattle]

That wasn't my definition.  It was the one supplied (and implicitly agreed to) by myrkul.  You want to expand upon it?  Go ahead.
So you are saying that the mere threat of initiation of force upon my property is NOT coercion.  Coercion exists when the threat of initiation of force upon my property is dependent on my performing an act I am unwilling to do?

Right?

If you are willing to pay your taxes, then by definition it can't be coercion since you are willing, making it voluntary. Inversely, if you aren't willing to pay those taxes, then coercion IS necessary to make you pay them. Are you incapable of reading a dictionary and drawing basic conclusions?

Its like if a mugger walked up and, without pulling out his gun, said "Give me your money". If you give him the money without him ever threatening or using force, then it isn't coercion, whereas if you give him the money because he said he would paint the pavement with your guts if you didn't pay him it is coercion.