Bonding and the merits of Compulstion

[anotherfingolfin]

The 3 oaths, I don't have an ethical problem with. Though, what would happen if someone who qualified for AS refused the three oaths? Would they just let her on her merry way, albeit without the AS tag?

 

Are Warders completely aware that their AS could can use the bond to compel them? If so, while I still find it disgusting, as long as the Warder excepts the bond off his free will, it's ok, I guess.

 

I think it's utterly preposterous for anybody to claim that the Asha'man were not allowed to take drastic measures against an extremely hostile force. If you think the Compulsion is so bad, would you rather the AS be executed? It's either this or that. To presume that the Asha'man are in any way obliged to pander to a defeated agressor in any manner is being disingenuous/blindly biased/inexplicably naive.

[EvilSocrates]

I don't suppose there is really any such thing as "unadultrated" evil, but Compulsion is pretty close.

 

And Gods save us from your ethical system, if you really believe that means are never evil. Unadultrated utilitarianism is also pretty close to unadultrated evil.

 

You just admitted that there is no "unadulterated evil." I take that to mean that you agree with my point that means are value neutral, and only ends matter. I'm guessing you value free-choice (soft-deterministic kind, probably). That just means that, in most cases, Compulsion cannot be used to capture your ends, because it is intrinsically tied up with stripping choice. Surely you would agree to the use of Compulsion to prevent some large harm to your ends, such as the enslaving of a large group of people.

 

I don't think that I'm advancing anything radical here. I just don't value freedom as an end in itself. It's great because it promotes things I do value though. That doesn't mean I can't respect the fact that other people value freedom. If someone said "kill me instead of using Compulsion on me" and was correct about their actual preferences, then I would kill them, all else equal. I think the AS prefer their situation to death though. Afterall, the could have just killed themselves. Recognizing that we try to capture our ends is not utilitarianism, by the way. That theory assumes the only ends that matter are the avoidance of pain and capture of pleasure. Not my view.

 

For those of us who do not place freedom above all other values and all other costs, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Compulsion. It is just that, in practice, it is extremely dangerous and tempting and destructive. It should therefore be generally restricted, because people cannot be trusted to use it wisely. RJ seemed to view it as intrinsically evil for some reason though.

[solarz]

I think the Aes Sedai reaction was very believable. For over 3000 years, one of the main functions of the White Tower was to capture and gentle men who could channel, because men who could channel literally caused the END OF THE WORLD!

 

To take a (quasi)real-world analogy. Imagine that for 3000 years, one man in a million was born with a mutation that had the potential to turn him into a living nuclear bomb, and that mutation would eventually cause him to explode in a thermonuclear reaction. Now, all of a sudden, this guy who claims to be the Christ Reborn gathers those men together and try to make them into a weapon. Then the Christ Reborn says those nuclear-men have gained control of their powers and won't explode against their will anymore. Of course, they still *could*, if they wanted to, or if they had an "accident". Or if the Christ Reborn decided to use them against you.

 

Now tell me you support the right of those guys to live in peace.

[Zentari]

 

For those of us who do not place freedom above all other values and all other costs, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Compulsion. It is just that, in practice, it is extremely dangerous and tempting and destructive. It should therefore be generally restricted, because people cannot be trusted to use it wisely. RJ seemed to view it as intrinsically evil for some reason though.

Thankfully for the rest, most people value freedom, not the perks that go with it.It should therefore be banned because it is one of the the biggest threads that exist,not restricted.Before you go "well there are cases where.." allow me to point out that necessity is a sweet sweet poison.What happens if say a power hungry monarch gets it ? Can you imagine what damage would that cause ?

 

As an aside , I find your views to be bitterly ironic considering your username.

[MasterAblar]

I think the Aes Sedai reaction was very believable. For over 3000 years, one of the main functions of the White Tower was to capture and gentle men who could channel, because men who could channel literally caused the END OF THE WORLD!

 

To take a (quasi)real-world analogy. Imagine that for 3000 years, one man in a million was born with a mutation that had the potential to turn him into a living nuclear bomb, and that mutation would eventually cause him to explode in a thermonuclear reaction. Now, all of a sudden, this guy who claims to be the Christ Reborn gathers those men together and try to make them into a weapon. Then the Christ Reborn says those nuclear-men have gained control of their powers and won't explode against their will anymore. Of course, they still *could*, if they wanted to, or if they had an "accident". Or if the Christ Reborn decided to use them against you.

 

Now tell me you support the right of those guys to live in peace.

 

When you say they have gained control of their powers, are you alluding to the ashaman learning how to channel and control their powers, or them no longer risking going insane because of the taint? If the second then how are they different from the various women channelers since they can no longer go mad?

 

I don't think that the aes sedai reaction is unbelievable. However it remains despicable as it is both arrogant and sexist.

[Puny]

I don't suppose there is really any such thing as "unadultrated" evil, but Compulsion is pretty close.

 

And Gods save us from your ethical system, if you really believe that means are never evil. Unadultrated utilitarianism is also pretty close to unadultrated evil.

 

You just admitted that there is no "unadulterated evil." I take that to mean that you agree with my point that means are value neutral, and only ends matter. I'm guessing you value free-choice (soft-deterministic kind, probably). That just means that, in most cases, Compulsion cannot be used to capture your ends, because it is intrinsically tied up with stripping choice. Surely you would agree to the use of Compulsion to prevent some large harm to your ends, such as the enslaving of a large group of people.

 

I don't think that I'm advancing anything radical here. I just don't value freedom as an end in itself. It's great because it promotes things I do value though. That doesn't mean I can't respect the fact that other people value freedom. If someone said "kill me instead of using Compulsion on me" and was correct about their actual preferences, then I would kill them, all else equal. I think the AS prefer their situation to death though. Afterall, the could have just killed themselves. Recognizing that we try to capture our ends is not utilitarianism, by the way. That theory assumes the only ends that matter are the avoidance of pain and capture of pleasure. Not my view.

 

For those of us who do not place freedom above all other values and all other costs, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Compulsion. It is just that, in practice, it is extremely dangerous and tempting and destructive. It should therefore be generally restricted, because people cannot be trusted to use it wisely. RJ seemed to view it as intrinsically evil for some reason though.

Hmm EvilSocrates is scary =P .. for me means are not value neutral as long as the end matters. With that view you can justify pretty much anything as long as the end matters.. or is good. That is not a world I would like to live in.

It would be oki to say put up a huge surveillance system in the streets, and in people´s home and online with the pretext of finding terrorists and throwing people in jail that search for words online such as rape, terrorism, bombing and serial-killers cause end matters; letting people be safe from terrorists and evil serial killers. And Compulsion is meant to be used in practice...and most people value their freedom.. atleast freedom of the mind, as they seem to do in Randland.

[EvilSocrates]

 

For those of us who do not place freedom above all other values and all other costs, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Compulsion. It is just that, in practice, it is extremely dangerous and tempting and destructive. It should therefore be generally restricted, because people cannot be trusted to use it wisely. RJ seemed to view it as intrinsically evil for some reason though.

Thankfully for the rest, most people value freedom, not the perks that go with it.It should therefore be banned because it is one of the the biggest threads that exist,not restricted.Before you go "well there are cases where.." allow me to point out that necessity is a sweet sweet poison.What happens if say a power hungry monarch gets it ? Can you imagine what damage would that cause ?

 

As an aside , I find your views to be bitterly ironic considering your username.

 

Well, it is EvilSocrates, after-all, not NiceSocrates. Just Sayin' :D

 

Also, people are actually responding to a straw man of my view. Which is probably my fault, as it means I am not expressing it well. You'll note that your hypothetical is EXACTLY what I said.

Me: "Sure there is nothing wrong with it, in itself, but it should be restricted because it is too dangerous and tempting"

You: "But it is dangerous and tempting! It should be restricted!"

 

There is nothing in consequentialism that means you cannot value privacy (and this not want cameras on every street) or accurate trials, or any of the other things some of you are apparently assuming can't matter. In practice, people value privacy more than they value the increased crime fighting abilities that cameras everywhere bring. They thus construct rules to capture those ends (no cameras). All I'm saying is that it is simplistic to say "well cameras are evil." They aren't. They are tools only. It is the fact that they are used in a way that invades privacy (A VALUE) that makes us want to restrict their use. Not their camera-ness.

 

Similarly, it isn't the Compulsion-ness of that of Complusion that gives us pause, it is the capacity of that particular weave to turn people into mindless slaves by people who cannot be trusted. The fact that it enables Graendals is why it bothers me. randsc apparently values freedom more than say, happiness. This is consistent with my view. He values freedom; Compulsion usually, but not always, reduces freedom, so he favors a rule that allows him to, in general, capture his ends (aggregate freedom) i.e. "No Compulsion." I'm just pointing out that it isn't crazy to value, say, peace, love and happiness MORE than freedom, and therefore form different rules. i.e. only Compulsion in controlled circumstances or with great need (Three Oaths qualify under the controlled circumstances). Its the value being destroyed that makes Compulsion use wrong. If the value isn't destroyed (Compulsion generates more freedom), then there is no wrong.

 

If randsc does not actually value freedom more than other things, then he is forming an irrational rule. If he DOES, then he is rational, and we just have different value-priorities. He seems like a rational chap in general, so I assumed the latter. I just wanted to point out the value commitments that a view that "Compulsion should never be used even to avert death in extreme circumstances" entails.

[Zentari]

 

Also, people are actually responding to a straw man of my view. Which is probably my fault, as it means I am not expressing it well. You'll note that your hypothetical is EXACTLY what I said.

Me: "Sure there is nothing wrong with it, in itself, but it should be restricted because it is too dangerous and tempting"

You: "But it is dangerous and tempting! It should be restricted!"

Or I understand your argument perfectly and I find it inherently abhorrent.

 

 

No , I did not agree with you , stop putting words in my mouth.YOU said it should be restricted , I said it should be eradicated.Perhaps you translated banned as in good for some cases , restricted to others.

 

There is nothing in consequentialism that means you cannot value privacy (and this not want cameras on every street) or accurate trials, or any of the other things some of you are apparently assuming can't matter. In practice, people value privacy more than they value the increased crime fighting abilities that cameras everywhere bring. They thus construct rules to capture those ends (no cameras). All I'm saying is that it is simplistic to say "well cameras are evil." They aren't. They are tools only. It is the fact that they are used in a way that invades privacy (A VALUE) that makes us want to restrict their use. Not their camera-ness.

 

Sorry , but cameras do not lobotomize you so I fail to see what correlation can be drawn between the use of cameras and the use of compulsion.Unless it's the old good " it's not the gun , it's the guy who pulls the trigger" argument.

 

Similarly, it isn't the Compulsion-ness of that of Complusion that gives us pause, it is the capacity of that particular weave to turn people into mindless slaves by people who cannot be trusted. The fact that it enables Graendals is why it bothers me. randsc apparently values freedom more than say, happiness. This is consistent with my view. He values freedom; Compulsion usually, but not always, reduces freedom, so he favors a rule that allows him to, in general, capture his ends (aggregate freedom) i.e. "No Compulsion." I'm just pointing out that it isn't crazy to value, say, peace, love and happiness MORE than freedom, and therefore form different rules. i.e. only Compulsion in controlled circumstances or with great need (Three Oaths qualify under the controlled circumstances). Its the value being destroyed that makes Compulsion use wrong. If the value isn't destroyed (Compulsion generates more freedom), then there is no wrong.

Compulsion always reduces freedom.That is not up for discussion , you take the ability of another being to make his own decisions.What you seem to be arguing is that sometimes , like for example on a mental ward patient, it might be beneficial to do so.Not mention that saying that compulsion generates more freedom is utterly ludicrous.

 

And no , it isn't crazy to value some things more than freedom but it is a nice slippery slope.

[Suttree]

I don't think that the aes sedai reaction is unbelievable. However it remains despicable as it is both arrogant and sexist.

 

I find it astonishing that people are having a hard time with why Elaida would have taken this action. It was the Red's job to gentle men who could channel. That has been the way of the world since the breaking. You can't rightly call something sexist when that event has shaped the world in such a way. At this point in the story the taint still exists and Elaida's rogue group, unbacked by the Tower(not sure why people keep mentioning Tower Law when the Tower had no idea this was even taking place)decided to do their job. It is actually one of the few times we have seen someone take a decisive action based on what their Ajah represents. Did Elaida go about it the wrong way? Sure, much as she has gone about everything especially after Fain came into the picture. Would the Ashaman have been right in using force to defend themselves? Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they are men who were destined to go insane. For thousands of years they have been a threat second only to the Forsaken in reputation. The AS really took a quite reasonable course of action but went about it in entirely the wrong way.

[EvilSocrates]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth Zentari, I was just saying that we don't end up as far apart as you seem to think we do. Both of us are very wary of Compulsion. I did not mean to misstate your view.

 

It is trivial to come up with a circumstance in which Compulsion increases freedom. Imagine a pedophile who cannot help but be attracted to children and is a convicted sex offender. We would normally lock this person up, inhibiting their freedom to do almost anything. Instead, we might use compulsion to force them to not regard children as attractive, and to not be able to engage in illegal behavior. Surely that man has more freedom with Compulsion than in jail, because the restrictions on him in jail are the same as compulsion (no sex with kids) plus a host of others (no living a normal life, no having a home, no having a job, no coming and going as you please, etc.). Thats basically what the Oath Rod was originally used for actually, I think--an alternative to jail for criminals.

 

Less esoteric: imagine that you could use Compulsion on one of Graendal's pets and get him to stab her when she isn't looking. This action will probably not just increase total freedom, but also decrease total Compulsion usage, and it should be favored.

 

I think the bonding of the AS was arguably freedom enhancing too, because I think they experience more freedom as bonded sisters than they would as corpses, although I guess there is reincarnation in Randland, so perhaps not. Morality is so much easier when there is divine reward and punishment, no?

[Zentari]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth Zentari, I was just saying that we don't end up as far apart as you seem to think we do. Both of us are very wary of Compulsion. I did not mean to misstate your view.

We are not far apart.I'm just saying that once you agree to use something like that , it's a slippery slope.

 

It is trivial to come up with a circumstance in which Compulsion increases freedom. Imagine a pedophile who cannot help but be attracted to children and is a convicted sex offender. We would normally lock this person up, inhibiting their freedom to do almost anything. Instead, we might use compulsion to force them to not regard children as attractive, and to not be able to engage in illegal behavior. Surely that man has more freedom with Compulsion than in jail, because the restrictions on him in jail are the same as compulsion (no sex with kids) plus a host of others (no living a normal life, no having a home, no having a job, no coming and going as you please, etc.). Thats basically what the Oath Rod was originally used for actually, I think--an alternative to jail for criminals.

You could also make an argument that if you shoot a dictator to death, guns could do some good.

Doesn't change the fact that the goal of a gun IS to kill, just like compulsion's is to force something on someone.

It's the same thing with balefire really.It can be used to say, put down a darkhound or forsaken down for good or even reverse a death.It is however inheritably destructive.

 

Also,nice quantification of freedom.

The oaths are not because AS have some need to do so, it's because the world would have kicked all of their collective conniving asses if it was not somehow placated a little.

 

Less esoteric: imagine that you could use Compulsion on one of Graendal's pets and get him to stab her when she isn't looking. This action will probably not just increase total freedom, but also decrease total Compulsion usage, and it should be favored.

See above.

 

Morality is so much easier when there is divine reward and punishment, no?

It is not about morals.Personally, I'm a firm believer that morals are subjective.They change from person to person, place to place, time to time.My case is this: some things are of a particular nature and the potential for abuse is too great.Such things shouldn't be controlled, they should be wiped out.

[MasterAblar]

I don't think that the aes sedai reaction is unbelievable. However it remains despicable as it is both arrogant and sexist.

 

I find it astonishing that people are having a hard time with why Elaida would have taken this action. It was the Red's job to gentle men who could channel. That has been the way of the world since the breaking. You can't rightly call something sexist when that event has shaped the world in such a way. At this point in the story the taint still exists and Elaida's rogue group, unbacked by the Tower(not sure why people keep mentioning Tower Law when the Tower had no idea this was even taking place)decided to do their job. It is actually one of the few times we have seen someone take a decisive action based on what their Ajah represents. Did Elaida go about it the wrong way? Sure, much as she has gone about everything especially after Fain came into the picture. Would the Ashaman have been right in using force to defend themselves? Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they are men who were destined to go insane. For thousands of years they have been a threat second only to the Forsaken in reputation. The AS really took a quite reasonable course of action but went about it in entirely the wrong way.

 

Well, I wasn't talking about Elaida's reaction to the BT. I was talking about how the aes sedai reacted to the ashaman not rolling over and dying to satisfy the aes sedai who went to kill them. Romanda was more or less appalled at the fact that the ashaman defended themselves against aes sedai and bonded them, even though the alternative was killing them, in which case she would have been even more appalled. Basically the only way the ashaman could have not pissed off the aes sedai would have been to not fight back against the aes sedai Elaida sent.

 

As for Elaida sending aes sedai to exterminate the ashaman, well if they're unbacked by the Tower then they are just a bunch of murderers. If they are backed by the Tower then they are breaking Tower law and are still in the wrong. And this is without even getting into the how stupid it was politically since it was basically a declaration of war agains the DR and the only reason complete disaster was averted is because Rand told the ashaman not to harm aes sedai.

[yoniy0]

Okay, this thread was made by me, by moving post from here that were irrelevant to the original topic. Feel free to continue your conversation here.

[EvilSocrates]

Thanks yoniy0, for moving over the posts! Sorry for the accidental threadjack. I started out trying to be on topic but it turned into an interesting talk instead of fighting about Egwene haha.

[yoniy0]

I know, it's not that clear cut in the beginning, but it sure took on a life of its own

Oh, and sure thing.

[USURP888]

Regardless of the merits of the Aes Sedai decision, the role of the Red Ajah historically and the real fear of another breaking due to Ashaman going mad. What exactly is the proper response the Ashaman should have taken when faced with 51 AS sent to kill and gentle them?

 

Put yourself in the shoes of the Ashaman and think what you would have done. Rand forbid them to kill or harm AS, would you slap them on the wrist and sent them away? Would you shield them and lock them up and then have to guard them 24/7?

[Sleeper]

Absolutely, Compulsion is evil. Including "lesser" forms like the Three Oaths and the Warder Bond.

 

Kill them.

 

Hahaha. That was pithy, but you don't actually think that Compulsions is an unadulterated evil do you? Including Warder style or thee Oaths (which is typically chosen, btw). It is a tool like any other, and can be used for good or ill. Means are never evil, only ends.

Compulsion, in my opinion, comes as close as anything can to being objectively evil. That's why I despise the institution of Wardership, because Aes Sedai are able to compel them to do things. Warders essentially are relegated to the position of a guard dog.

 

Any tool that gives someone control over another person's actions without their consent and allows you to exert influence over their behavior possibly against their own will lands in the darkest shade of grey I've ever seen.

[Guest PiotrekS]

I agree with the critique of compulsion.

 

Warder bond is a little more complicated, because the candidate gets the choice whether to enter into this situation and the Aes Sedai should free the warder if he so requests (or at least that's how it should be, it definitely is problematic given the Aes Sedai's mindset). There are also definitive benefits to the warder...But I think that the option of compelling the warder should either be removed entirely from the construction of the bond,or at least the act of said compelling should be a crime and anathema among Aes Sedai.

 

Freedom rules

[Zentari]

I agree with the critique of compulsion.

 

Warder bond is a little more complicated, because the candidate gets the choice whether to enter into this situation and the Aes Sedai should free the warder if he so requests (or at least that's how it should be, it definitely is problematic given the Aes Sedai's mindset). There are also definitive benefits to the warder...But I think that the option of compelling the warder should either be removed entirely from the construction of the bond,or at least the act of said compelling should be a crime and anathema among Aes Sedai.

 

Freedom rules

Sorry if I'm wrong about this but when was the last time an Aes Sedai told her would be warder that she could "pull his reigns" if necessary ?

[sleepinghour]

Sorry if I'm wrong about this but when was the last time an Aes Sedai told her would be warder that she could "pull his reigns" if necessary ?

A number of Aes Sedai (including Delana and Myrelle) wanted to bond Mat in LoC, but none of them mentioned the Compulsion aspect or Warder death rage/depression. So the question is, how many of the Warders were aware of those things when they agreed.

[Zentari]

Sorry if I'm wrong about this but when was the last time an Aes Sedai told her would be warder that she could "pull his reigns" if necessary ?

A number of Aes Sedai (including Delana and Myrelle) wanted to bond Mat in LoC, but none of them mentioned the Compulsion aspect or Warder death rage/depression. So the question is, how many of the Warders were aware of those things when they agreed.

My point exactly.

[EvilSocrates]

Absolutely, Compulsion is evil. Including "lesser" forms like the Three Oaths and the Warder Bond.

 

Kill them.

 

Hahaha. That was pithy, but you don't actually think that Compulsions is an unadulterated evil do you? Including Warder style or thee Oaths (which is typically chosen, btw). It is a tool like any other, and can be used for good or ill. Means are never evil, only ends.

Compulsion, in my opinion, comes as close as anything can to being objectively evil. That's why I despise the institution of Wardership, because Aes Sedai are able to compel them to do things. Warders essentially are relegated to the position of a guard dog.

 

Any tool that gives someone control over another person's actions without their consent and allows you to exert influence over their behavior possibly against their own will lands in the darkest shade of grey I've ever seen.

 

I don't see how magical coercion is morally distinct from physical coercion. I take away your choices if I kill you too. For that matter, if I lie to you and trick you into doing what I want, thats basically the same thing as compelling you to do so (although it is less certain to work, when it does, I have controlled your actions). Seems to be a difference in degree, not in kind, from other types of manipulation and coercion.

 

Do you all have the same problem with Mat or Rand ta'verening people? Nobody seems to think that is evil, but it is practically the same thing.

 

In response to the question of what I would do if I were an Ashaman, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be one in the first place. Until the source was clean, I would have submitted for gentling, or moved to a stedding. I'm not about to risk blowing up everyone around me.

[David Selig]

Sorry if I'm wrong about this but when was the last time an Aes Sedai told her would be warder that she could "pull his reigns" if necessary ?

A number of Aes Sedai (including Delana and Myrelle) wanted to bond Mat in LoC, but none of them mentioned the Compulsion aspect or Warder death rage/depression. So the question is, how many of the Warders were aware of those things when they agreed.

IIRC Moiraine and Siuan didn't mention anything about it to Lan/Gareth either. Neither did Egwene to Gawyn.

[Hopefire]

I think the Aes Sedai reaction was very believable. For over 3000 years, one of the main functions of the White Tower was to capture and gentle men who could channel, because men who could channel literally caused the END OF THE WORLD!

 

To take a (quasi)real-world analogy. Imagine that for 3000 years, one man in a million was born with a mutation that had the potential to turn him into a living nuclear bomb, and that mutation would eventually cause him to explode in a thermonuclear reaction. Now, all of a sudden, this guy who claims to be the Christ Reborn gathers those men together and try to make them into a weapon. Then the Christ Reborn says those nuclear-men have gained control of their powers and won't explode against their will anymore. Of course, they still *could*, if they wanted to, or if they had an "accident". Or if the Christ Reborn decided to use them against you.

 

Now tell me you support the right of those guys to live in peace.

 

I think that you may have missed the thrust of the disagreement, or at least the disagreement as I see it.

 

Attempting to get rid of the Black Tower? From the information that the White Tower had at the time, it was potentially a good idea from the perspective of the White Tower. On a strategic level, or on a tactical level, perhaps it was a bad idea. But the base idea, that men who can channel are one of the greatest dangers known to the world and should be put down, by any means necessary if normal means are likely to be a failure, makes sense.

 

The supporters of the Black Tower in this thread are not, as I see it, taking issue with the Aes Sedai decision to wipe out the Black Tower. The area that the supporters of the Black Tower are taking issue with is the Aes Sedai being horrified at the women being bonded. It's essentially seen as hypocritical from the part of Aes Sedai. "They wanted to kill us all. We did something that's left them alive and healthy, and they haven't been abused. And you're outraged?"

 

[Zentari]

I don't see how magical coercion is morally distinct from physical coercion. I take away your choices if I kill you too. For that matter, if I lie to you and trick you into doing what I want, thats basically the same thing as compelling you to do so (although it is less certain to work, when it does, I have controlled your actions). Seems to be a difference in degree, not in kind, from other types of manipulation and coercion.

Right , because having control over what the other is even able to think is comparable to say, leaning on him.

With lies and or physical violence you might be able to make someone do what you want.Or you might not, you try to force a choice which you hope would result in what you want.The choice to do so however is still with the person.You might be able to say lie to someone and get what you want or you might not and pay for it.Compulsion however eliminates that.The choice is no longer the other person's to make.Heck , he can't even think if you don't allow him to do so.

 

So no , they are not a difference in degree , they are another kind entirely.

 

Do you all have the same problem with Mat or Rand ta'verening people? Nobody seems to think that is evil, but it is practically the same thing.

No it isn't actually.One is the use of a power from a person , the other is the universe itself exerting it's influence on you.