Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is said by some to be a United States who opposed the Vietnam War were told that they should not hold such a view, because they would face discrimination from potential employers.
A similar fallacy is the claim that one should believe in the validity of the Bible lest God strike you down!
Since the Middle Ages, this form of argument has been identified as a logical fallacy by many philosophers, but pragmatists and others claim not only that it is no fallacy, but rather that many of our beliefs are based on this kind of useful reasoning.
These appeals are heard in the king's bench division, except in the case of appeals from judgments of a county court sitting in the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, which are heard by two or more judges sitting in the probate, divorce and admiralty division.
Appeals from the Liverpool court of passage and from the chancery courts of the duchies of Lancaster and Durham lie by statute direct to the court of appeal.
Appeals from secondor third-class magistrates are dealt with by the district (first-class) magistrate (§ 407).
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.
This form of argument is a logical fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers.
This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".
Feeds |
Contact