Orin J Master
ah, but then you enter the realm of ‘emotional duress’…
I never said someone saw it ;), cept Ozone of course… who would promptly put the incident on youtube… >.>
I never mentioned I didn't count duress as harm, but it *is* ridiculous to believe that the sight of someone in a furry costume, behaving ‘furry-like’, would cause true duress… getting into that part of the discussion, though, spurs a philosophical debate over what a person allows of their emotions and how much that person allows their emotions to control them.
The simple act of ‘furry-tree-humping’ didn't *make* you duress ed. You became duress ed. The act itself is not inherently forceful, nor could it be. You would have to allow for it to affect you.
Think of it this way: someone puts a gun to your head and says “pick your nose”. Did he force you? No. He coerced you, but he didn't physically put your hand in your finger in your nose. Emotions are one of the few aspects of a person that can not be physically changed by another… and in that regard, the emotional response to an activity you were to witness ('furry-tree-humping' for instance), would be yours and yours alone. Was the feeling coerced to emerge? Unintentionally, perhaps. But was it forced upon you? No.
That having been said, I know there is precedence for intentional duress, as well as unintentional duress, in law. While I agree with intentional duress' rulings, I think circumstance would have to dictate the the unintentional duress' true affluence.
*edit* Yet another way to think about it: Emotion is a choice, like the Vulcans of Star Trek… sure we have emotions and we're not some fictional species… but when emotions are taken out of the equation, it's very easy to see that they're choices we make just like opinions.