Dear Christian, threats don't make things true.

[bilby]

Argumentum ad baculum ?

View attachment 8740

The sign doesn't cause there to be crocodiles.

If you were to say "There is a crocodile in the creek today", the existence of that sign would have no bearing on whether or not your claim is true. Crocs move around. The sign warns that they might be there. It doesn't prove that they are.

Anyone can put up such a sign, for any reason. It's up to the reader of the sign to decide whether the Kakadu NP warden who put the sign up knows more about crocodiles than the casual visitor to the park. He probably does; He has likely seen crocodiles.

If someone who has likely seen hell tells me about it, then I would listen. But nobody has seen hell. The people who warned sailors that going too far would lead to sailing off the end of the world were ignored, because they couldn't possibly have actually known that the threat was real.

Crocodiles are easy to test. You can go see them for yourself in the Kakadu. Nobody wants you to accept their existence on faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If your sensitive nature is triggered by such talk then consider them warnings rather than threats.

Soft-pedaling the threat doesn't work, either, if we don't accept the understated threat behind the warning.

Either way, threats of hell, warnings of hell, fluffy cartoon drawings of smiley-faced demons and soft, puffy fires of hell won't change my mind.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Christians threaten the Moslems with hell for not being Christians. The Moslems threaten the Christians with hellfire for not being Moslems. If threats don't work here for Christians and Muslims, mutually threatening each other, why should either think such threats will move the sentiments of atheists?

 

[Lion IRC]

Threats of lung cancer don't work on smokers either.
It's the same thing.

 

[bilby]

Threats of lung cancer don't work on smokers either.
It's the same thing.

Except that the existence of lung cancer is not something people have to accept on faith. And the warnings given by doctors are not the reason lung cancer is accepted to be real - it's the exact opposite way around.

So not the same thing at all.

 

[Sarpedon]

I never threaten people with hell

Of course not, you aren't a priest. Your livelihood doesn't depend on results. The priests have got you conditioned to do their work for them. It doesn't matter that your methods aren't as sophisticated as theirs, because you don't cost them anything. Whether you know it or not, you are contributing to the environment in which they make their money.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Threats of lung cancer don't work on smokers either.
It's the same thing.

Except that the existence of lung cancer is not something people have to accept on faith. And the warnings given by doctors are not the reason lung cancer is accepted to be real - it's the exact opposite way around.

Also, we know that cigarettes exist. People do light leaves on fire and suck the smoke.

So, saying that a consequence we can observe is connected to a practice we can observe is unlike the con of declaring that there's a soul i can't detect, which is tainted by a crime no one can prove was committed, thus a judge no one can show me will punish my undetected soul by throwing it in a unproven afterlife penal colony... Unless i believe in the unshown judge's son, who may not have existed, to protect me from the judge by washing my soul in his invisible blood.

Not very similar, no.

 

[Underseer]

Threats of lung cancer don't work on smokers either.
It's the same thing.

Who uses the threat of lung cancer to prove a truth claim?

We know there is a link between smoking and lung cancer because of a larger number of scientific studies. The threat of lung cancer has nothing to do with whether or not the link is real. Only the scientific studies do that.

 

[Underseer]

Threats of lung cancer don't work on smokers either.
It's the same thing.

By the way, looking cancer, therefore magic is the funniest and most poorly considered argument I've encountered all day, but then I haven't talked to any Trump supporters yet.

 

[blastula]

R

eminds of Kissing Hank's Ass.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's because threats don't make things true. You should already know this.

You know what's worse, though?

When threats don't come true, all threats lose a little bit of their credibility.

I've been abusing myself for 40 years, and I haven't grown hair on my palms. Also, while my eyesight has gotten worse over the years, none of my optometrists or ophthalmologists have inquired about those habits during an examination or treatment. The guy fighting the blood leaking into my eyes does track my blood sugar and my blood pressure, but not the status of my playboy subscription.

When I realized adults were just making shit up, it freed me from a lot of guilt and fear and my schedule became much more flexible.

I was, for instance, able to go swimming right after eating with no consequences.

I attracted a mate despite being open about my scifi interests. In fact, I was attracted to a girl who reads ALL THE TIME, despite the warnings she got from HER parents about what scared boys off.

I read in the car and didn't get carsick (except for that one time grandma bitched about how I was going to get carsick for the entire 3-hour drive. I puked on her).

I made patrols on subs and did not turn gay.

Grandma's generation really liked to lead by threats. They turned out to be bullshit almost as often as not. But I did get into the habit of questioning such wisdom.

How the hell would she know if doggie-style made baby Jesus cry? She was wrong about the mirror. I broke it and was immediately accepted into a summer math program that was a high point of my high school years.

And she was wrong about homosexuals being so terribly evil that they cannot live a normal life.

You just have to pay attention and a pattern starts to develop...

 

[Underseer]

That's because threats don't make things true. You should already know this.

You know what's worse, though?

When threats don't come true, all threats lose a little bit of their credibility.

I've been abusing myself for 40 years, and I haven't grown hair on my palms. Also, while my eyesight has gotten worse over the years, none of my optometrists or ophthalmologists have inquired about those habits during an examination or treatment. The guy fighting the blood leaking into my eyes does track my blood sugar and my blood pressure, but not the status of my playboy subscription.

When I realized adults were just making shit up, it freed me from a lot of guilt and fear and my schedule became much more flexible.

I was, for instance, able to go swimming right after eating with no consequences.

I attracted a mate despite being open about my scifi interests. In fact, I was attracted to a girl who reads ALL THE TIME, despite the warnings she got from HER parents about what scared boys off.

I read in the car and didn't get carsick (except for that one time grandma bitched about how I was going to get carsick for the entire 3-hour drive. I puked on her).

I made patrols on subs and did not turn gay.

Grandma's generation really liked to lead by threats. They turned out to be bullshit almost as often as not. But I did get into the habit of questioning such wisdom.

How the hell would she know if doggie-style made baby Jesus cry? She was wrong about the mirror. I broke it and was immediately accepted into a summer math program that was a high point of my high school years.

And she was wrong about homosexuals being so terribly evil that they cannot live a normal life.

You just have to pay attention and a pattern starts to develop...

I appreciate the humor of your post, but I'm not sure those are examples of argumentum ad baculum fallacies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I appreciate the humor of your post, but I'm not sure those are examples of argumentum ad baculum fallacies.

Does argumentum ad baculum require an agency?

I would agree that 'don't do that or you will get carsick' is different from 'don't do that or God will make you carsick' as far as an agency will inflict force, but i thought AaB only required negative consequences.
Rather than 'Don't do that because it's morally reprehensible' it's 'don't do that because bad things will happen to you.'

Carsick, hairy palms, stomach cramps/drowning, spinsterhood, disappoint the skybeast, turning gay/living a life of ickyness and despairity...

 

[Underseer]

I appreciate the humor of your post, but I'm not sure those are examples of argumentum ad baculum fallacies.

Does argumentum ad baculum require an agency?

I would agree that 'don't do that or you will get carsick' is different from 'don't do that or God will make you carsick' as far as an agency will inflict force, but i thought AaB only required negative consequences.
Rather than 'Don't do that because it's morally reprehensible' it's 'don't do that because bad things will happen to you.'

Carsick, hairy palms, stomach cramps/drowning, spinsterhood, disappoint the skybeast, turning gay/living a life of ickyness and despairity...

Argumentum ad baculum would be "God is real because you'll get carsick if you don't believe He is real."

Fallacies are arguments that fail to support their conclusions. If it doesn't support a truth claim, it can't be a fallacy because it's not an argument.

 

[fromderinside]

If you do that will you get car sick? Seems to me some sort of validity (evidence?) claim is sufficient. ...but then I don't usually deal mere rational discussion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Argument ad baculum is a fallacy insofar as it presumes the consequences are undesireable.

You should/shouldn't do this because you might get car sick. Well, what if I want to get car sick?

There goes your argument. You've just persuaded me to do the opposite of what your carefully crafted argument was supposed to achieve. Hence its not a good argument.

It lacks the element of necessary inference needed to logically coerce people.

Many people might hear the argument and conclude that getting car sick is still worth it since they need/want to get somewhere via car.

 

[bilby]

Argument ad baculum is a fallacy insofar as it presumes the consequences are undesireable.

You should/shouldn't do this because you might get car sick. Well, what if I want to get car sick?

There goes your argument. You've just persuaded me to do the opposite of what your carefully crafted argument was supposed to achieve. Hence its not a good argument.

It lacks the element of necessary inference needed to logically coerce people.

Many people might hear the argument and conclude that getting car sick is still worth it since they need/want to get somewhere via car.

I don't think you understand what a logical fallacy is.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes I do.

By the way, I think your last post violates a basic element of logical argument - attempted conclusion unsupported by any reasons whatsoever.

There's no logical fallacy in attempting to dissuade people from smoking by warning them there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The logical fallacy arises in argumentum ad baculum because there is no necessary inference.

Me - stop smoking because it will or might cause cancer.
Thee - so what?
Me - aren't you worried about getting cancer?
Thee - no
Me - Oh well I guess my argument/reasoning is faulty
Thee - yes, you should reword your argument to say "If you want to avoid cancer you should stop smoking"

The logical error is in thinking that the stick necessarily persuades towards the attempted conclusion. It doesn't.

In fact, as I said earlier, one person's stick might be another person's carrot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes I do.

By the way, I think your last post violates a basic element of logical argument - attempted conclusion unsupported by any reasons whatsoever.

There's no logical fallacy in attempting to dissuade people from smoking by warning them there is a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The logical fallacy arises in argumentum ad baculum because there is no necessary inference.

Me - stop smoking because it will or might cause cancer.
Thee - so what?
Me - aren't you worried about getting cancer?
Thee - no
Me - Oh well I guess my argument/reasoning is faulty
Thee - yes, you should reword your argument to say "If you want to avoid cancer you should stop smoking"

The logical error is in thinking that the stick necessarily persuades towards the attempted conclusion. It doesn't.

In fact, as I said earlier, one person's stick might be another person's carrot.

But that's less a reasonable argument than it is an overly pedantic semantic quibble. While the logical structure of it is, of course, correct, the last statement is what's meant by the first statement. Since "not wanting to get cancer" is not just the default position but the position of such a vast majority that it can be taken as a given.

It's like the not-uncommon response to "Do unto others what you would have done unto yourself" where the guy then responds "Well, what if I'm a masochist?". Clearly, the intent of the statement is not "If you like feeling pain, you should be causing pain to other people", even though that's the logical conclusion of a context-free reading of the line. Similarly, the context of the first statement is clearly "Most people don't want to get cancer, so if you're like most people, you shouldn't be engaging in this cancer-causing behavior".

Given that the context is clear and straightforward in both of these cases, it's incorrect to read either of them absent that context, since nobody saying either of them should feel the need to bother being so redundant as to parse out their phrasing to include this clearly implied context.

 

[Sarpedon]

In fact, as I said earlier, one person's stick might be another person's carrot.

Yes, and it was insane then and it is insane now:

The threat of Hell is not really a threat because some people might enjoy Hell! So we are bad people because we think it's bad to threaten people!

Why don't you go and mug someone, and use this defense in court?

"Your honor, some people pay other people to beat them, therefore, I committed no crime when I beat this person up and took their money."