| Authors |
|
| Publication date |
2015
|
| Host editors |
-
F.H. van Eemeren
-
B. Garssen
|
| Book title |
Scrutinizing argumentation in practice
|
| ISBN |
|
| Series |
Argumentation in context, 9
|
| Pages (from-to) |
313-326
|
| Publisher |
Amsterdam: Benjamins
|
| Organisations |
-
Faculty of Humanities (FGw) - Amsterdam Institute for Humanities Research (AIHR) - Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication (ACLC)
|
| Abstract |
Ad baculum threats can be seen as a mode of strategic maneuvering which takes on a reasonable appearance in real life situations when it mimics, legitimate pragmatic argumentation. In this paper the hypothesis was tested that ad baculum fallacies are seen as less unreasonable than clear cases when they are presented as if they are well-meant advices in which the speaker cannot be held responsible for the occurrence of the unpleasant consequences if he does not get his way.
|
| Document type |
Chapter
|
| Language |
English
|
| Published at |
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.9.18eem
|
|
Permalink to this page
|