Talk:Argumentum ad baculum

message: I attempted a rewrite of the article to address the alleged claim that appeal by force is not a logical fallacy. I am of the opinion that when defined in a specific way, it is necessarily a logical fallacy, resulting in the edit. Shawnc 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Logical vs Non-logical arguments

message: * If not P, then I will beat you up.
* Therefore P.
=^_^= - ∅ (∅),
Thanks for presenting this as if it were a genuine logical argument. It's both completely valid content and most definitely silly. Excellent. --Kizor 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better (or at least funnier) example 

message: Is there a naming convention on using the Latin vs. English terms for logical fallacies? 
English main, Latin redirects
* Argument from fallacy/argumentum ad logicam
* Begging the question/circular logic/petitio principii
* Correlation does not imply causation/cum hoc ergo propter hoc
* Appeal to consequences/argumentum ad consequentiam
* Argument from ignorance/argumentum ad ignorantiam
* Appeal to tradition/argumentum ad antiquitatem
Latin main, English redirects
* Argumentum ad baculum/ad baculum/appeal to force
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc/coincidental correlation
* Ignoratio elenchi/irrelevant conclusion    (I think this is Greek, not Latin, but same principle)
* Argumentum ad populum/appeal to the majority
Okay, after compiling that list, this article doesn't stand out so badly.  Still, it doesn't seem like there's a pattern.  It seems likely to me that 'appeal to force' could be more well-known, at least now, than 'argumentum ad baculum'.  If this is named in the Latin for historical reasons, then shouldn't 'cum hoc ergo propter hoc' certainly also be a main title, for example?  
If there's a more appropriate and/or more general place to discuss this convention, please let me know and I'll move it.
Tofof 06:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name convention? 

message: The following example cited:  "You should believe in God, because if you do not, you will go to Hell."  Does not seem, to me, to be rightly classified as a logical fallacy.  Following the form for this sort of argument,
    If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
    Q is a punishment on x.
    Therefore, P is true. 
The cited example certainly fulfills the two premises; however, the conclusion "that God exists is true" is not intended to follow from the premises.
Someone can make the assertion that "If you don't believe in God you will go to Hell."  They may be convinced that this is true for many reasons (unspoken presupposition that "God does exist.").  And they may sincerely believe that those who don't follow Him will be punished.  However, the threat of the punishment, in my experience, is never offered as proof that the initial premise is true.
Therefore, I recommend removing this example from the "logical argument" section, with the possibility of relocating it to the "rhetorical argument" section.
Vanwatts 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Example 

message: If you commit the thought crime of not believing in Jesus Christ, you will go to hell.
    Therefore, Jesus Christ is God. 
This seems like a bad example to me, because following the formula listed, it should read, "If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God...", not "If you [do not believe] in Jesus Christ." 
Also, I think that the term thought crime isn't helpful to this example. First of all, the explicit referencing of 1984 in an example that is specifically about Christianity seems fairly biased to me. It's easy enough to avoid this possible bias in such a simple example! Secondly, the addition of thought crime is irrelevant and doesn't even add anything to the example; it doesn't clarify or make it easier to understand. Valkotukka (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Example

message: If you don't own a computer, you will lose your competitive edge a lot.  
Therefore, owning a computer is a must. Joe2008 (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this an example of Argumentum ad baculum 

message: The current example is not an Ad Baculum at all.
*If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
*You want to avoid going to jail.
*Therefore you should not drive while drunk.
It is a simple Modus tollens (called here earlier contraposition). It would be Ad Baculum if it said:
*If you believe that drunk driving is harmless, I will punish you.
*Drunk driving is harmful.
The given example, however, does not state that a proposition is true or false because of force-related consequences. The original example would only fit the Ad Baculum pattern given in the article if its first line was "If you drive while drunk, someone will be put in jail." and the second was "You will be that someone". Indeed, as someone mentioned earlier on this discussion page, the first two lines can be simplified into one. Anyways, the second line in the "non-fallacious ad Baculum" makes it a modus tollens rather than Ad Baculum.
--JudelFoir (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum" 

message: I am not convinced that The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum is not a fallacy. As a related addendum, I am convinced that legal systems that apply punishments for crimes may very well be based on this fallacy whenever punishments are applied without consideration. 
Let us assume that one who drives while drunk is otherwise reasonable and submissive to logical and reasonable arguments. If through a reasonable argument, the driver realises the hazards and social problems with drunk driving and abandons their driving while drunk behaviour, then going to jail cannot further demonstrate the issues with this behaviour. If on the other hand the driver is unreasonable, then neither reason nor jail can demonstrate to the driver the hazards and social problems with drunk driving, but jail may be a useful physical constraint that prevents the driver from driving while drunk. 
In both cases, the threat of jail as the reason for not driving while drunk is still a fallacy. 
 Runestone1 (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  While the conclusion is true - that you should not drink and drive - kidnapping someone and locking them in a cage to get them to support that conclusion is still an Ad Baculum fallacy.  A non-fallacious argument against drinking in driving might go as follows, "If you drink, your judgement is impaired and your reflexes will be delayed.  That drastically increases your chances of an accident.  Such accidents have been known to kill people.  You probably don't want to kill anyone.  Ergo, you should give me your keys and let me drive."  It is fallacious to threaten someone with jail for them to support your conclusion.  Furthermore, I don't think there even is a non-fallacious example of Ad Baculum.
85.237.211.110 (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Non-fallacious Ad Baculum" 

message: "A distinction should be made, however, between rational reasons and prudential reasons. No fallacy, the Appeal to Force included, can give rational reasons to believe a conclusion. This one, however, might give prudential reasons for action. If the threat is credible and bad enough, it might provide reason to act as if you believed it." - from the About.com article.  Alatari (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prudential reasons to take action 

message: The current example of a non-fallacious ad baculum is:
:If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
:You want to avoid going to jail.
:Therefore you should not drive while drunk.
The current example of a fallacious ad baculum is, in effect:
:If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
:You want to avoid going to jail.
:Therefore you will not drive while drunk.
I don't think this is a fallacious ad baculum argument.  It's just a non-sequitur.  It's a prediction about the future whose 100% certainty is not warranted by the stated premises.
A better example to use would be:
:If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
:Therefore, it is wrong to drive while drunk.
Here, the coercion of the state is a fallacious ad baculum argument in favor of the stated conclusion.
In fact, I'd also suggest changing the non-fallacious example by simplifying it, so it better contrasts with the proposed fallacious example:
:If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
:Therefore, you should not drive while drunk.
Do we really need to state the obvious - that we don't want to go to jail?
--Chuck Messenger (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fallacious Ad Baculum