On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian <peter.dam...@btinternet.com> wrote: > I gave a list of problematic articles. Here is > one of them again. > > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about argumentum ad baculum (I agree with you that the Wikipedia article is not a good one at presenting it - the examples of fallacies and the example of a non-fallacy are not even in the same form). The link you provided just says Wikipedia is wrong, but it doesn't really explain why. Yes, there is an implicit step missing from the argument "that you should not do that which you do not want to do", but that's not the same as saying the argument is fallacious. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
