Argumentum ad baculum uses force or the threat of negative consequences to make someone accept a conclusion. It does not show that something is true, only that it is safer to agree.
Example
“If you criticize this practice, you will lose your job. So it must be fine.”
(The threat does not validate the practice.)
Applied example (political)
“If you question this decision, we will cut your benefits.”
(Coercion replaces evidence.)
Applied example (mystical)
“If you doubt the ceremony, you will attract bad luck.”
(Fear is used as proof.)
Why it is fallacious
- It confuses power with truth.
- Acceptance is based on fear, not evidence.
- It blocks rational debate by imposing personal costs.
How to spot it
- Warnings or punishments appear as the main argument.
- The topic shifts from content to personal consequences.
- Fear or censorship replaces reasoning.
How to respond
- Separate the claim from the threat: “Fear does not prove anything”.
- Ask for reasons and independent evidence.
- Point out coercion as a barrier to dialogue.