In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Derek > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > Derek > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> >> >Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Then forced complicity
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no such thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
> >> >> you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
> >> >> be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
> >> >
> >> >We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
> >>
> >> Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
> >> a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
> >> comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
> >> person can be forced to comply with brute force
> >> and coercion if applied firmly enough.
> >
> > Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
> >
> > I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
> > situation.
>
> You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
> under extreme duress does not form complicity.

Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.