Difference between revisions of "Argument from force"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Replacing page with 'BRIAN PEPPERS WAZ HERE!!!!!!!!!') |
m (Reverted edits by Barack Obama and John McCain are gay with each other (Talk); changed back to last version b) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Overview== | |
| + | [[Category:logical fallacies]]An [[argument from force]] is an argument where the threat of force is given as a justification for the [[truth]] of a conclusion.{{seed}} | ||
| + | It is a specific case of the negative form of an [[appeal to consequences]]. | ||
| + | ===Other Names=== | ||
| + | * '''Argumentum ad baculum''' (Latin: "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick") | ||
| + | * '''Appeal to force''' | ||
| + | * '''Might makes right''' | ||
| + | ==Related Pages== | ||
| + | * The [[argument from force]] is often used in [[carrot-and-stick negotiation]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Reference== | ||
| + | * {{wikipedia|Argumentum ad baculum}} | ||
Revision as of 10:12, 4 September 2008
Overview
An argument from force is an argument where the threat of force is given as a justification for the truth of a conclusion.
|
This page is a seed article. You can help Issuepedia water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!
|
It is a specific case of the negative form of an appeal to consequences.
Other Names
- Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: "argument to the cudgel" or "appeal to the stick")
- Appeal to force
- Might makes right
Related Pages
- The argument from force is often used in carrot-and-stick negotiation.