|
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 10:11 AM by RandomThoughts
If someone gets you to do something by intimidation, then that indimidating event needs to become so common it is no longer intimidating.
So if someone threatens some hardship to get a tax break, or some legislation, then if people give into that threat, the exact thing they threaten has to become a regular event so that it can not be used for intimidation.
Or people should not back down to intimidation.
Logically that seems to be the other alternative to remove the use of intimidation used against people.
So if someone threatens something, then it only occurs if someone does not call the bluff, if they go along with the idea becuase of intimidation, then the events they were threatened with should occur to stop them from thinking intimidation should be given in to.
On a side note, that is actually how it works, it is just not seen the same, since if you give into someone intimidating you, they will still do what they threaten just in a different way, or a way you think wont effect you. It can be seen to not be correct when you see the effects that occurred to the dictators that sided with the totalitarian or military side of the USA over the years. Noriega, Saddam, Marcos, The Shaw, and many others. Then again, maybe they retired to Dubai instead.
:shrug:
How would you know.
I should add that I actually talked to a guy at work at the grocery store years ago that used to work for the Justice Department many years ago that knew guys on the plane when Noriega was flown back to the USA, they said he was not even allowed to use a toilet and soiled his pants, the guy said he was terrified so maybe it didn't work out for him.
|