[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian
<peter.damian at btinternet.com> wrote:
> http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html

Also, what do you think of the previous example of a non-fallacious argument:

"If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident.
Therefore you should not (drink and) drive."

Is that one also fallacious?  It's still missing a step "you should
not cause yourself to get into a car accident".  But then, it also is
different in that there is no third party imposing a punishment.

I dunno, I think the whole article [[argumentum ad baculum]] is just
piss poor in general.

"If you are not a christian, God will torture you forever.  Therefore,
Christianity is correct."

Okay, that I can see as a fallacy.  Whether or not that's what meant
by argumentum ad baculum, I don't yet know (couldn't find a good
source for what it means).

Would this be a good example of argumentum ad baculum:

"If you think drinking and driving is okay, then you will get into a
car accident and die.  Therefore drinking and driving is not okay."
(I note that "you should not get into a car accident and die" is still
left as an implicit assumption.)

"If x accepts P as true, then Q." is not the same as "If P, then Q".