On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian <peter.dam...@btinternet.com> wrote: > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html
Also, what do you think of the previous example of a non-fallacious argument: "If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident. Therefore you should not (drink and) drive." Is that one also fallacious? It's still missing a step "you should not cause yourself to get into a car accident". But then, it also is different in that there is no third party imposing a punishment. I dunno, I think the whole article [[argumentum ad baculum]] is just piss poor in general. "If you are not a christian, God will torture you forever. Therefore, Christianity is correct." Okay, that I can see as a fallacy. Whether or not that's what meant by argumentum ad baculum, I don't yet know (couldn't find a good source for what it means). Would this be a good example of argumentum ad baculum: "If you think drinking and driving is okay, then you will get into a car accident and die. Therefore drinking and driving is not okay." (I note that "you should not get into a car accident and die" is still left as an implicit assumption.) "If x accepts P as true, then Q." is not the same as "If P, then Q". _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
