Is this an institutional argument like Danto?
I'm not trying to crap on your admittedly semi-glib notions. I'm trying to understand how we could have a standard, rather than an amorphous, temporal agreement about what's good without naming it... So, the standard would just be the actual reactions, in aggregate, of listeners.

That said, I see all the problems with this when it comes to modern music and how it's sold.

Oh, well yeah, totally my bad.

So in a philosophy forum like this one it would be more suitable... to take a philosophical approach about political debates, take a step back and resist the temptation to... reason in terms of what is right or wrong...but in terms of what one wants and what on can get in a way that equally applies to ALL ideological conflicting views at hand — neomac

Setting side some extremely weak responses about how the conversations actually run, yeah, 100%. Probably my least-enjoyed aspect of this place is the clear ideological capture plenty of posters are under.

something is evil when the person is suffering — MoK

Do you want to maybe qualify this? I suffer every morning when I put my body under immense pressure to achieve a better body.

One problem I see, is that people vote for what's on the table. Not what they want. It's almost assured that any vote does not give us actual public opinion. Therefore, lawmakers have to be quite reticent, in lieu of a binding referendum, to give a piss about it.

Notice you've not invoked a standard. You've used the word 'good' but fail to define it. It actually seems as if you accept that you cannot?

hen how is it — Showmee

This is just word use. It's not an argument for cognitivism. It just shows us that its logically possible that an objective ethic could exist. Practically, though, there is no reason to think this, on my view. I have never seen an argument that even starts the car. They all stop at "sentences make sense, and we can have sentences that proclaim moral fact". That's simply not an argument for the state of affairs in the claim.

why does the conclusion still seem logically valid in the above argument? — Showmee

This isn't worth answering, in this context. It makes sense because words are designed to fit together, where they have coherence. It's also coherent to say

unicorns exist
Dan is a Unicorn
Therefore, Dan exists.

But that's totally confused as should be obvious. This is also true in your example, given that "is wrong" means nothing as a bare assertion, on my view.

it wouldn’t make for a valid argument to say something like: — Showmee

No. But it would make entire sense to say

Boo! Johnny is stealing (notice there must be a speaker here - this isn't a bare argument of logic anymore)
Johnny is stealing.
Therefore i think Johnny is doing something wrong.

This is actually, on my view, the 'correct' way to make moral claims, given our lack of any reason to think there's something objective about that final statement. We just don't have a logical framework to ascertain any moral facts. Given that "fact", it seems fruitless to pretend we still have them.

“I would approve of x” is a factual claim, which is either true or false, not a non-cognitive utterance. — Micheal Huemer

But notice that claim isn't moral anymore. The non-cognitivist has not made any claim they cannot empirically support, which has no moral weight ("I believe this Unicorn is not Johnny" would be the same). I enjoy Heumer, but this is probably his least interesting area.

latter sentence obviously entails the first — Micheal Huemer

No, it doesn't, unless he's reading the same meaning into both uses of 'right'. In which case, non-cognitivism goes through. This just as inane as any other argument of the kind, unfortunately.

Why not? — Banno

I could only surmise that this is a reaction the admitted absurdity of "infinitely better" or the absence of the concept 'optimal' in place of best, given it would need to be about outcomes and optimizing outcomes seems reasonably plausible.
Still, I don't see any real issue with an open-ended, primitive spectrum of value or best-fit. Sort like metaphysics :P

It seems there are plenty on this website who mope, and do not understand what this is. Justifications abound, but actions to address one's situation seem lacking.

I wonder why that is.....

This isn't even apt to be a 'lie'. Misunderstanding perhaps, but that's not happening either - evidenced by everyone but you being on the same page.

There's something in that, for sure. When Country music only relates to rural lives, it's too niche (though, obviously, sustainable given how many peopleare actually in that category). When it transcends the typical subject matter, it gets through. Think that's true of all genres really.

Music has always moved me pretty intensely. I have seen much of a change, just an expansion of what can do it.

You're still simply not addressing any of hte points put to you. Once again,

Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance). — AmadeusD

Apart from that, I did. Explicitly. You didn't provide what you're claiming. That is factual.

I will not continually repeat myself when it is clear to everyone but you. The situation is clear as day.

Nice, i hope you enjoy! I also think Patsy Cline is a bit of a Cash scenario. definitely country, but plenty of non-country in there just with twang. Big fan.

Europeans and the US should serve Russia's wet dreams, right? — neomac

You're playing the wrong game.

It is wrong for Russia to do what it's doing, on the view of the majority of the geopolitical sphere. No one will support that. It's potentially pragmatic in terms of appeasing a dictatorial weirdo who can't keep his shit together, but otherwise, It would be a very cowardly move. That's why the world wont service Russian's continually hostile attitudes to geopolitics. Sometimes, it is right to deny those what they want.

key to try to live with this mental condition. — javi2541997

Do you truly think this is key, and not trying to overcome it? Depression is clearly not intractable, so this seems an odd position is all.

I could be shown how to listen, what to listen for, and who does it well and who does not do it well — Fire Ologist

I thikn this is a really interesting point.

I enjoy all genres of music i've come across. However, there are only a few where I like the genre. Generally, I like certain artists. For Country, I am also a 'non-fan'. However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. Generally, if I hear that jingle jangle, I'm actively turning it off though.

People like different genres - but people also like different sounds. It's totally possible that someone who entirely rejects, say, metal, would hear like Planet Caravan and change their mind. Or Kingdom by Devin Townsend. Or H. by Tool - or whatever - sometimes its something particular that grabs people rather than the genre. My wife couldn't get on with Choral music until I introduced her to Miserere and Deo Gratias. I think aesthetics are far more nuanced that the sort of crayon/duplo style of lumping things into broad aesthetic categories.

P.S: I highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend Evan Bartell's newest lil Ep called To Make You Cry. Particularly the first two tracks, Death of A Good Man and Lulu. Absolutely devastating. That's what country is about to me. Alternately, 'Country Song' by Bo Burnham is hilarious enough that I'm sure you'll get through it.

I think the concept of depression, as pathologized, is utterly demeaning and ridiculous. People get sad. Big fucking whoop. Habit forming behaviour forms habits.

You have to work you mind like your body to avoid deterioration either intellectually or emotionally. This does not reject that depression comes from some chemical imbalance (though, the literature on this is sketchy at best and psychiatry is fucking disgusting and unethical most of the time) and that this is is indeed a condition one can be in. Just like being fat. It sucks, and sympathy is called for. But dealing with depression requires doing hard things you don't want to do. As does almost every worthwhile goal in life. Develop habits and discipline.

Now that that's out of hte way - I was diagnosed chronically depressed when I was 14. I was on heroin at the time. I then moved onto drinking when i quit opiates. I made six genuine attempts on my life during this time (14-about 19). The depression didn't go until i got my shit together and started doing good things for myself. Working out, eating well, forcing myself to socialize, not giving in to irrational and clearly fucking stupid thought patterns. I am not, in any way, saying this is easy. I am saying it is simple. It was this simple for me, and I do not know a single depressed person who has come out of it without doing the above. This says nothing but that this is my experience and in turn, my recommendation. Get out there and involve yourself in the good things in the world.

I think it is folly for the depressive to engage in activist causes which distract and further entrench depressive modes of thinking. Take care of yourself first. There seems to me two very general versions of depression: Narcissistic (most common) and nihilistic (externally fixated). Both can be fixed by engaging with the good as a matter of developing habits. As someone said, it is not exactly bad to feel sad about injustice(though, there is a good chance that if you are depressed you are mislabeling things you don't like as injustice - a rather standard intellectually habitual pitfall) but it is absolutely unhealthy and in fact destructive to focus on injustice over your own wellbeing. One need cultivate resilience, courage and conviction (along with flexibility, honesty and intellectual rigour) before approaching the world and its purported problems in my view.

If all else fails, there is extremely good evidence that structured, supported use of psychedelics is more effective than any known treatment for depression.

Perhaps you don't understand what a non sequitur is. That is a shame, because it is literally the crux of most of your responses. I actually did explain why, also. I can elaborate:

Your responses are not in line with the questions asked of you, or the points put forward. They are AOC type prevarications that do not relate, and do not follow, from what was said or asked. That is the nature of a non sequitur.

This is why I gave an opportunity for you to explain slowly, and like i'm five, why you asked the question, If the above is supposed to answer that question, it does not. It is some unrelated gripe you have with some unnamed person with an amorphous view you're not pinning down vis a vis the actual position being put forward. Non sequitur. Your complaint about your own bad wordings is not anyone elses problem. That's something to either reflect on, or in good faith understand and reject. Up to you.

The fact is people are moved by words. There is literally not an argument you can make against the demonstrable, historical and extant fact that this is so. Your rejections of reality are just not taken seriously, and perhaps that's hurtful. So be it. We do this with anyone who is purporting to claim something which is demonstrably false (the earth is flat, for instance).

Thanks for your reply. Interesting way to spin it (i do not mean that as in 'deceptive'. Just that we al see things 'a way'). I don't think Trump is a serious enough person for all that, myself. Very much the kind of information I was looking for though; appreciated!

As to the question: I don't know. I am an 'act as if' type person for things that risky, so I don't particularly care about whether its 'true'. I think taking care of the planet is a good idea. It sounds like perhaps you're on a similar track.

While I appreciate you chiming in, this doesn't give me anything that i was after.

I asked a specific question only answerable by those who hold the views I outlined. While I don't expect a good-faith response for the reasons you put forward, I want one.

If you can, carefully, and as if i am five, explain why you asked this double-sided question, I might be able to answer you.

Currently, this doesn't make any sense as a response to noting your non sequitur (given you have no done anything to dissuade me from your plentiful non sequiturs, i am confident enough in that assessment anyway).

On a "totally unrelated" type of basis, both of those things are true.

Ah yep, fair enough. Yes, the whole 'death or taxes' mentality seems ridiculous to me.

As I say, this was not a critique. I just add to your comments.
I shall further add that these other elements are also coercive, of the enforcement apparatus, as to what they coerce the populous into.

There is a clear circularity to the idea that the power of the people controls what coerces tehmselves.

Hey man, sorry it takes me so long to reply. — Jeremy Murray

No trouble!! I sometimes go a couple of weeks without replying here. It takes some effort and time that I don't always have. No harm/no foul my man :)

I don't want to waste anyone's time. — Jeremy Murray

That's quite a hard thing to do, despite what Banno and 180 might say :P

I don't believe that any moral system could ever be universal. It feels to me as if your responses have been towards that premise. — Jeremy Murray

Definitely part of it - most theories are intended to become a universal (i.e realists are of the opinion moral facts can be understood, which is a form of raciocination, being a universal human trait (barring aberration)). It's unique (and something I run with) that theories for morality cannot be universal. Looking for such is a "waste of time" as it serves no moral purpose to do so, under any theory, really.

My argument is that without an 'aspirational' element, moral systems become static and irrelevant, or at least, ineffective. — Jeremy Murray

I see what you mean. Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I think that is true, but I also think that is, roughly, baked-into moral theories. They require that you aspire toward their ideal description of any given decisions/act. No?

Who do you see doing this? — Jeremy Murray

One extremely good example (though, I understand potentially contention) is Islam. The teachings of Islam (and conversely the behaviour of conservative-radical Muslims who adhere) are virtuous, by their lights, in almost every way one would want virtue to manifest. But this is clearly not what Anscombe had in mind.

The average person today is either a utilitarian (often, a moral relatavist outsourcing their morality to experts), or deontological (usually premised on religion). — Jeremy Murray

Huh. Hte most common refrain I hear from anywhere really is "I just try to be a good person". It's rare for someone to come with some 'principled' morality when asked, in my experience. Interesting take on the other two - they seem to be true deliberative systems. I can't see them as lacking a need for critical thought. Divine Command seems the best candidate there.

As a catch-all comment on the sections I missed between those last two replies, I would say I think we are fairly close on how we see 'woke'. But I also hasten to add that this seems to be a result of stupid people doing 'woke'. Those who are 'woke' who can have a reasonable conversation don't seem to fall into these traps. I think its a maturity issue, rather than a particularly pernicious ideological one. That said, there's an added non-moral position which is the whole "in or out" mentality which seems more to do with logistics and avoiding drawn-out analysis than a moral deflection.

I am advocating for people to chose to improve their morality, via practice, whatever method makes sense to them, while also sort of figuring out that virtue ethics might be a path for me personally, having come to a point where I can find no meaning aside from choosing to make a choice. — Jeremy Murray

So, in reverse: Great. That's a good way of working through things Imo, and coming to self-directed conclusions. I do not think people are able to 'improve' their morality without understanding that morality is subjective. Otherwise, it couldn't be improved. It would 'be' and we simply aspire to a rubric. I am an emotivist ethically, and morally I do no follow 'named' systems as best I can tell. Most here have been surprised and even taken a-back by my position.

To me, the problems of deontology are most obvious in terms of informing social policy - whose deontology? — Jeremy Murray

Kantian, usually. Deontology tries to take inarguable obligations and turn them into rules, as best I can tell. So the "who" relates to "everyone" in the system. I reject it, too.

Utilitarianism seems deontological as well, in a sense, because this too promotes a 'correct' moral action, assuming you can calculate the moral math. — Jeremy Murray

The thing Utilitarianism gives us, though, is room to be wrong or to disagree. Utilitarians can simply have different weight on different elements of a calculus. They may come up with totally different utils for the same actions/outcomes. This makes it more flexible imo, and more directed toward actual reality than principle. Deontologists would give up Anne Frank. Utilitarians would not.

Virtue ethics seems the only path that allows for rapid change, at least, on the social side of things. — Jeremy Murray

I agree, but in light of how 'virtue' works socially, I think its more a performance game in practice. Some of the problem wth 'woke' is found here.

Re-reading that list and thinking about other possible names to add, I can't help but note that it appears only black academics can critique wokeness from the left. — Jeremy Murray

I would add a few: Glenn Loury, Susan Neiman, Elisabeth Roudinesco and Ben Cobley. So, not just Black writers. But I see what you mean, and I take your point quite well. The concept that you cannot speak on a topic you aren't directly, and personally embroiled in is both pernicious and clear false. It is the other way around.

And I was curious about VE being higher than the other two, I assume this is just the nature of the profession? Everybody studies the Greeks? — Jeremy Murray

I think it's more that more and more philosophers have come to the realisation that while they may accept that there are moral facts, these are descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefore, the other theories to hand cannot be worked adequately under that weight. If the descriptive facts are what we need to go by, we can't be 'principled' because the facts have, do, and always will change.

I certainly don't see much evidence of virtue ethics in 'the wild'. I see tribal conformity and almost no disagreement, which is only likely in a virtue ethical model? — Jeremy Murray

Really? Moral disagreement seems to be hte order of the day, locally, globally, politically, socially.... Can you expand on what you mean here?

Morality is just practicing morality, maybe? Always trying to chose morally, even if that is inherently a personal act? — Jeremy Murray

I think this is all the term 'morality' can capture.

He (and you, though this more an addition than critique) are also missing that government speech by way of legislation is clear, highly-effective coercion.

Genuine question (i.e mods, just don't be dicks) for those on the "Trump=faciscm", "Climate change=literal doomsday" type of takes: What are you going to do/say when(in the 'if' sense) none of these doomsday predictions come true? Is this something which would move you, or something that would just further entrench some theory about kicking the can, or hiding the ball or some other prevaricative thing? I am genuinely asking. I cannot understand finding myself in such a position, so it's interesting to see those who hold positions that might turn out that way speculate (though, i understand you may not think it could turn out that way - It could. That's why i'm asking).

I guess I need to also add that the bolded should be read as insinuating a situation where you have clear knowledge, and have had to face the reality that say, with Trump, his term ends, and the economy is better off, less wars etc... (this is a hypothetical, to be sure) and everything is, in the round, either fine or better than under Biden at least.

I cannot see how this would be 'moral' in any sense other than taking 'moral' to mean 'other-regarding' and simply widening it out without any actual analysis.

'Progress' is such a stupid term for moral workings. There's no such linear description of morality available to us without first ascertaining and objective, goal-oriented basis for morality. We could then try to figure out which goals are to be aimed at in an objective sense.

The above seems a subjective, hypericin-centered goal. That's fine, and that's how morality works on my view but I don't think this gets us anywhere near a reason to strive toward that goal, or any other tbf.

It would be pragmatically untenable to include several types of out groups (predators) within the centered group. I also think tihs runs against the nature of competitive speciation.

Yet this evidence completely contradicts your claim that “it is an empirical fact that we do persuade, convince, provoke, incite, coerce, teach, trick, etc. with our words” — NOS4A2

No it doesn't. Yet another absolutely inane non-sequitur.

Knowledge can lead to understanding. And understanding is something philosophy can provide — J

Think I agree with this rough-and-ready take.

Oh, I'm a massive Les fan. Been listening to Primus since Pork Soda :P

I don't think time is something which has properties. It is a situation of 'everything else', individually, in relation to all of those other 'else's (from each perspective).

Seems inapt for discussion other than as a relation between objects. I don't think, for instance, imagination engages time other than as a relation to the world going on outside the mind imagining whatever..

Approaching ethics from my own perspective, I find the field deeply problematic. Unlike other branches of philosophy, a systematic and formal treatment of ethics seems impossible — Showmee

This seems true, and the basis of most moral debates.

Yet, note how in ethical discussions, the validity of an argument or position is largely grounded in emotions and intuitions. — Showmee

I think this is going to ruffle feathers. Plenty here who are very sharp, well-read thinkers will balk at this, despite it being obvious from s 3p perspective. It almost always boils down to "Here's a proposition. If you disagree, i cannot understand your moral position". This is well captured by most non-cognitive theories. Very uncomfrotable for those deeply tied to their emotional reactions.

often take the form of examples, analogies, or metaphors. — Showmee

IN fairness, even in light of your observations (which i largely can get on with) this is the only available way to talk about morality - testing intuitions. Principles wont/don't do despite kicking and screaming cognitivists. The 'principle' boils down to the above in every case I've ever seen. Carlo Alvaro has a paper about the 'incoherence of moral relativism'. It may be the worst paper i've ever read and I cannot understand how it was published - and this, largely, because of the two elements I've outlined here being ignored.

Establishing a robust non-cognitivist stance requires not only destructive arguments, but also constructive ones—something current accounts fail to deliver satisfactorily. — Showmee

I think you're overdoing it. If the above observations (yours or mine) are right, then this is a non-interesting point to make. non-cognitivism doesn't require destructive arguments, other than comparatively. The arguments themselves are constructive, and obviously account for things like moral disagreement better than cognitivism. I also think this leapfrogs the problem. If there are to be moral 'facts' there must be a way to ascertain them. There isn't. So even if cognitivism about morality were, somehow, from a 'nowhere' view, correct, we couldn't actually argue for it as best I can tell.
I agree we shouldn't overreach, but we are more than welcome to reject clearly untenable positions. All i think taking a non-cognitive approach to morality does is dispel the need to explore failing theories.

But I do think we should all only have tentative moral positions, because of the above (which is not meant to be prescriptive, I just can't think of a better phrasing).

More than likely. Thanks for your time - always a very involved, well-explored discussion with you :)

I suppose that's roughly what I'm driving for. The former is an imaginative, 'what would i feel?' and the latter is being capable of actually feeling some degree of the person's state. So yeah, i agree :)

ooof. Good stuff

If this doesn't move you, I have literally no clue what could.

Havent read the thread, but as far as I can tell they are used interchangeably most of the time, but each is distinct in semantic terms.

Sympathy = hypothetical/imaginative empathy
Empathy = actually understanding what someone is dealing with.

That may not be entirely accurate, as I think i've imported some of my own use here. It's probably two lines similar, but weaker than the above.

100%. This isn't an actual conversation anymore.

Yeah, nothing much to add here. I'll just make explicit what I think is the case as between us again:

This also strikes me as strange, namely your idea that some facts are true and some facts are false. I would say that facts, like states of affairs, are not true or false. — Leontiskos

I may be misusing the word 'fact' here, but it is synonymous with 'state of affairs' for me. If the facts aren't to obtain, but the belief is sound (in the sort of JTB (or adjacent)) sense then I'm happy to call the belief true. I don't feel the need to restrict use of truth to apply to facts only.

Yet I showed that in that moment of duress I made a decision that did not play into the terrorists intent. — Harry Hindu

No. No you didn't. As explained above, and dismissed by yourself. Again, this comes across so intensely removed from what's happening in this conversation that you must be trolling. I don't suggest you are - but i do suggest you perhaps review your repsonses to avoid seemingly like a totally out-of-touch interlocutor. Aside from this, what you hypothetically think has zero bearing on the actual situation of coercion being real. If you could please quote where it was somehow requisite that coercion worked in every case, that would be helpful. But you wont, because I've already noted that some are resilient to coercion and would rather die than acquiesce. So much is true, and has nothing to say about the existence and reality of coercion. If you do not understand this basic delineation, you are inept for this conversation, sorry to say (and not to be mean, but to let you know that you aren't making any sense).

I will simply ignore the totally irrelevant parts going forward, after elucidating above.

Those two sentences contradict each other. — Harry Hindu

They quite clearly, and obviously, do not. Coercion is a use of force or threat to obtain behaviour from another person. If you do not think this can be done, you may need to see a psychologist (or an historian, at the very least). It happens. It constnatly happens. Its a social and legal norm. You are out of step with literally everything in the world relevant to the topic. That you are metaphysically capable of making other decisions is the entire basis for coercion. The dilemma caused is that you could choose otherwise, at risk of a much worse outcome.

If you did not mean "force" as a synonym for "coerce", then what do you mean? — Harry Hindu

The absolute irony:

The force would be whatever is causing the dilemma. — AmadeusD

This, because you asked this question:

What "force" would their words have if they spoke in a language I did not understand? — Harry Hindu

Showing me clearly that you do not know the difference between emotional weight, and force. That is not something (other than pointing it out, which I did) I can help you with. Emotional weight and coercive force are very different things that do not rely on how i am using the word. So... This becomes an obvious troll:

I did what I wanted in the moment of duress, so you have failed to show that coercion is real, or at least not as "forceful" as you claim. — Harry Hindu

False. You made an unlikely hypothetical declaration that doesn't touch on either of your purported conclusions. If you making a truly random, and unlikely hypothetical up constitutes proving coercion doesn't exist, you're not in the realm that critical thinkers are. I haven't made a claim about how forceful coercion is. I have claimed that it is real, serious and social/legal norm. It is. I have also said it is effective. It is. . This is also a decent (I wont say good) read.

What does "highly effective" mean in this context? — Harry Hindu

It means it is effective, to a high degree. It can cause otherwise 'good' people to do extremely bad things, in order to avoid what they perceive to be worse outcomes threatened in lieu.

Separately, you can have a read of this if you like. It's a pretty good overview and explains why most people take this very seriously, as against your responses that quite frankly don't engage the issues, and often aren't sensible.

When does speech become coercive - only when people respond in the way you intend? — Harry Hindu

Assuming you mean the person trying to coerce someone?? Because what i think is not relevant. I am running hte facts by you to gauge your reaction. You are not disappointing, I can tell you that.

On this basis: yes, obviously. I cannot see that you aren't trolling here. That is the definition of a success, in this context. Asking this is like asking "So, why is water wet then?".

What makes some people respond in the way you intend and some not? — Harry Hindu

I would assume their moral fortitude (or, that they have a better risk assessment mechanism than those who don't). But, in reality, it is the degree to which the threat outweighs the requested action. If you are to kick a puppy in the head, or have your entire family tortured**, and you choose the latter, you can simply sit down for the rest of time and never make a moral comment again, in my view.

**You made a point earlier about doubting whether the threatner would make good(here, to torture your family - let's say to death, to make it juicy). That is not your decision; it is theirs and you must make a dice-roll with regard to that factor. However, if you doubt, resist, and you're wrong - your family are all tortured to death while you watch - I presume you will wish you made the other choice (i.e gave in to coercion). That's, in some respects, how it works. Again, if you would not, and are happy with your choice to have your family tortured to death in front of you because you wanted to doubt a strong man's conviction, well... I repeat: Sit down and never make a moral comment again (obviously im not seriousl.. this is hyperbole).

What percentage of the people that hear the speech and respond as intended qualifies as "highly effective"? — Harry Hindu

This is not the correct way to think of it. Let's pick an example where A addresses some crowd of supporters. He is, using serious and credible threats, requesting this group assassinate lets say three opposition leaders in order to... whatever, really.
Ok. A single person can carry out that request. That single person is the success, if they do it due to the coercion. As noted earlier, this would be a definition for success here. Over-determined success is just a piling up of successful instances. It's not an accumulative issue. 'Effective' must be read as 'effected it's intended outcome'. What you're trying to do is play a numbers game, which is intuitively fine, but that's not how this works at all in the world.

Suffice to say you are at odds with basically all theorists worth their weight, the actual history of humanity and possibly the functions of the human brain (this one I say less-strongly, as I can only somewhat understand the neuroscience here, but there are clearly situations of neurologically irresistible requests from those in power to those without. Further than this, I won't comment).

You intended to elicit a type of response from me in writing what you just did. — Harry Hindu

No, no i didn't. I explained to you the concept of coercion and gave you the leading example. It is a legal and social norm that you seemed to be unaware of. I don't really care what your response is.

I could then take this information and instruct my family that if such a situation occurred that I would give a signal that we would then fight our attackers at once. — Harry Hindu

Feel free. This has precisely nothing to do with what is being discussed. Coercion is real, and in most cases you have no lead-in time whatsoever. That's why its a legal and social norm to expect bad behaviour from those under duress.

But the point is that I did something with your speech that you did not intend. I used it for my own purposes. — Harry Hindu

This makes no sense in light of what's being discussed. You can do whatever you want. Coercion is real.

Which I showed I cannot be coerced and would have good reasons to not do what they said. — Harry Hindu

No you didn't. You didn't even touch on either of these. If you think you did, I have literally no clue what to say. You also, were not talking about this - as explained in the very quote you've used.

Sure it is. In talking about "weight" and "force" of speech, you are talking about its coercive power. — Harry Hindu

Which is not, in any way, represented by your example. I get the feeling you're trolling here? Sorry if not, but this is so far removed from actually engaging the content in this exchange I can't see much else.

What "force" or "weight" does a known liar's speech have? — Harry Hindu

This isn't a sensible question. It also leapfrogs every bit of important content in the previous exchange. So, i wont be engaging that.

Look, the fact is that coercion exists and is highly effective. It is a recognized social and legal norm. Bite the bullet.