If I said what I want to say I'd get banned from all of IRE, more than likely, so I'm gonna be quiet until I really wanna go out with a bang.

Being a maggot is FUN!

I remember Hajamin and I toying around with maggot-ness(my request, He obliged ) and hunting astral as one, hee!

Seeing Ixion raid Celest as a maggot would be interesting. The deathsight would be hilarious.

Your stats go down to… 5 or 8 or something like that. It's similar to being a toad. I've seen titan and demigod toads though. You know there's a problem when the toad is so tankie that when you stomp on it, it rips your leg off, chews it, spits it out, and asks for more.

Maggot stats = 1

This statement would imply that the argument "if you insult gods you're likely to die" is fallacious. It is not. Therefore this example does not fall into the category of argument ad baculum, as Morgfyre wasn't actually trying to scare you into doing something, he was shooting you down in response to a direct insult.

Hence, no "argument ad baculum" but merely "splosh".

True.

That shout was lame. Sorry someone had to say it

I didn't mean Morgfyre, but rather everyone else and what I said afterwards - "You can't argue with me, so you just zap me. Good going."

That is still no example of argument ad baculum though.

I consider the zap itself to be argumentum ad baculum - It's not an argument, it's just a bit stick.

I'm right because I can zap you twenty times before you can blink so stop questioning me?

You can't have argumentum ad baculum if you don't have a goal to which the argument points. Argument ad baculum is an instance in which someone attempts to force someone else to pursue a specific course of action by threatening that if he doesn't, bad things will happen. For example, if Ialie said to Vesar, "If you do not paint celest in rainbows the demon lords will come and kill you." that would be argumentum ad bacculum. Wether or not the implied violence actually takes place is irrelevant.

In the case of the abovementioned situation there was no argumentum, just lots of baculum.

Was the violence out of place and out of proportion?

Yes, quite possibly. But this still does not make it argumentum ad baculum because there was no argument or goal involved. If Morgfyre had first said "You will apologise or I will zap you." that would have been argumentum ad baculum.

Isn't that what happened? He was forced to shut up by overwhelming force/pain/etc wasn't he?

No, because there was no threat involved. The crucial difference here is the threat. If you just zap someone in retalliation of an insult that's just violence.

I agree with you however, that if there had first been a mention of "You will shut up of you will die." then this would have been a perfect example of argumentum ad baculum. There was no argument involved however, just a zap in connection to one of Verithrax's actions, rather than an attempt to force verithrax to shut up. If Morgfyre had wanted to shut verithrax up he would just have taken away his ability to speak.

Those are just threats, not argumentum ad baculum. There is no proposition being proven or disproven here.

Now, if Ialie said to Vesar, "Serenwilde is better than Celest because we have Rainbow Power! You will accept that or we'll rainbow you to death." that would be argumentum ad baculum, since there is an actual proposition being proven. Or to use a more contemporary example:

Serenwilde: "You started the war, didn't you?"
Celest: "No!"
Serenwilde: *Slaughters all angels*
Serenwilde: "Yes you did!"
Celest: "Yes, yes we did."

There's still the threat that they could keep doing it, threats don't have to be verbal in nature.

and wasn't his voice taken away, it sounds like tet did it from her shout?

Exactly, which is what I said, if a bit more simply formulated.

However, we are clogging up the board. I will discontinue this discussion, if you wish to make another reply please go ahead but there will be no more replies from me. If you wish to continue this discussion with me please feel free to seek me out in game.

To be honest though your both basically arguing over a slight difference in interpretation, over if he was threatened or not. If he was threatened then it becomes argumentum ad baculum if he wasn't threatened then it doesn't. Its basically subjective if you see the threat or not, personally I saw a non verbal threat in the zappings :shrug: but I'm sure you could just as easily argue that there was no threat because it wasn't spoken out loud.

None of these quotes are funny. Insult each other for my amusement.

I knew from the get go that there was no argumentum there, just a whole lot of baculum. I just like saying 'argumentum ad baculum', and pointing out that the gods didn't have a better comeback than a jolt.

ETA: Back to quotes, not posting any more here.