Threats Disguised as Arguments

"The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Ayn Rand

"He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument." Chinese Proverb
"How many divisions does the Pope have?" Joseph Stalin

Argument from intimidation (also known as 'Argumentum ad Baculum' or 'Appeal to Force') takes many forms, but boils down to one thing - believe the conclusion, or you will be punished. This argument is fallacious whenever it fails to address the subject at hand (a fallacy of relevance). It is generally, but not always fallacious, however. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not arguments and so are not fallacies (E.g. "Study hard or your grades will fall.")

An example of a subtly worded ad baculum: "We need a strong military in order to deter our enemies. If you don't support this new spending bill to develop better airplanes, our enemies will think we are weak and, at some point, will attack us - killing millions. Do you want to be responsible for the deaths of millions, Senator?"

Sometimes we are asked to do things that we know we shouldn't do. If the other party resorts to an ad baculum argument, you can be pretty certain that you are being asked to do something you shouldn't, that your participation is needed, and that you will be held responsible should things go badly.

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.

Being a fallacy of relevance, the best way to challenge such a fallacy is to challenge its relevance such as; "I understand there are potential risks associated with this decision, like most others; but is there any argument relevant to the MERITS of the case?"




Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication