Such as how taking care of mental patients can be seen as coercive in itself, but, there being a clear difference in mental capacity, it is considered acceptable.

If everyone acted civil and resorted to logic and debate rather than having a conniption whenever a disagreement or them being proven wrong took place we would have no need for force in the first place.

Why is my immediate thought that it sounds like your point of view makes the Crusades seem like a good thing?

Quote from: The Waifu Master on December 01, 2014, 02:17:04 PM

If everyone acted civil and resorted to logic and debate rather than having a conniption whenever a disagreement or them being proven wrong took place we would have no need for force in the first place.

That's as unrealistic as it is boring.

Intimidation can be a necessary process for furthering one's own aims.

Coercion is only necessary when another person resorts to it first.

Quote from: The Waifu Master on December 01, 2014, 02:58:27 PM

Simply put, if you resort to coercion before your competition, you're the one in the wrong.

Except coercion used only in self-defence is ineffective as a proactive approach; it's purely reactive. Coercion and intimidation are good for the motivation of the passively stubborn.

Quote from: The Waifu Master on December 01, 2014, 03:06:44 PM

Stubbornness is a form of coercion.

coercion
kΙ™ΚŠΛˆΙ™ΛΚƒ(Ι™)n/Submit
noun
the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

No, it isn't.

Sitting and doing nothing, or continuing to do something, after being proven wrong, is basically saying,"Yeah, you can't do anything anyway, so you don't matter.".

\
 Stubbornness doesn't contain any measure of intimidation or threat.

The U.S. government, by not passing carbon taxes, isn't coercing economists or climate change scientists.

Great, neither of those are instances of coercion though. There's no implication in coercion, like I said: it's explicit.

If you stand up, and tower over the other people and say: "You're worthless, I don't care what you say and I will continue as is because I, in every way, am superior to you and your pathetic life. If you cross me, I will fucking end you, so stay out of my way". There is some compulsion to do something in that instance, along with intimidation and threat.

Coercion takes place between intelligent people within government all the time, it just tends to be subtler.
The point is, coercion is usually a sign of superiority in certain contexts.

Under your criteria, virtually any instance of ignoring somebody is a form of coercion.

. . . Okay. So what?

Powering on without consideration for other viewpoints, through stubbornness, might surely be subtle but that doesn't make it coercion. Although, you're giving too much credit to the stubborn when you describe them as subtle.

Stubbornness among the intelligent is, as you say yourself, arrogance.

Quote from: The Waifu Master on December 01, 2014, 03:40:24 PM

It does make it coercion because what is implied through the subtleness is that the opposition doesn't care because they are stronger, larger, more popular, ect.
That is coercion.

But it isn't. . . Thinking you're better than a person, for whatever reason, isn't coercion. Me thinking I'm more intelligent than my best friend isn't me coercing him, at all. You just don't seem to understand to concept.

You're just twisting my use of the word subtlety to fit your obviously wrong definition. Subtle forms of coercion are thinks like passive-aggression, intentional body-language and manipulation. Stubbornness isn't sufficient for coercion.

Except coercion isn't predicated on facts. You can still coerce somebody (and be stubborn for that matter) when they are in fact wrong.

I'm not saying stubbornness isn't an aspect of coercion, it just isn't sufficient from coercion. Your idea that stubbornness somehow implies superiority is utterly without basis. Maybe the person being stubborn actually is in the right, and is thus intellectually superior?

Do you consider those who are correct to be stubborn or coercive?

Maybe they're being stubborn and hoping luck will pull them through; winging it, without any real feeling of superiority?

A feeling of superiority, or conversely a judgement of inferiority, isn't enough for coercion unless it's accompanied by a specific compulsion and some form of intimidation. Otherwise, it's just confidence, arrogance or the Dunning-Kruger Effect.