🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Tim Carey (990504.2130)]


>[From Rick Marken (990503.1720)]
>
>Just one quick question for those of you (just about everyone
>but Bill and me and now Kenny Kitzke) who believe that the
>intentions of both coercer and coercee must be taken into
>account to determine whether or not coercion is going on:


Yep, that must be me.

>Isn't it impossible, then, to say, in advance (before it is
>actually used on a particular group of people) whether or not
>a particular program (approach to dealing with people) is coercive?


And the angels wept ....

>So doesn't saying that "coercion depends on the intentions of
>both the coercer and coercee" make it impossible to market a
>program as non-coercive (or coercive) since you can't tell
>whether the program is coercive or not until you've tried it
>on each person.


Yep. In my opinion it would be nonsensical to market a program as
"particularly anything" if you said that you were basing it on PCT. Could
you market a program or even a particular strategy as rewarding or
punishing? Would you be prepared to predict before the event that everyone
of the people you were going to use your favourite "rewarding strategy" on
would be rewarded?

Cheers,

Tim