Forum:Statist aggression when questioned on fallacious reasoning

Statist Ad Baculum

Can someone help me understand, is this a fallacious ad baculum? Statists freak out when I ask this question in debate but I keep getting this and when I ask them to explain it they get real aggressive. Can someone who is really good at logic look at this: "If one were to take "the constitution shall be the highest law of the land" as the literal truth, would that be based on faith or evidence?" "Well, it's enforced, so it's a law of the land. " If [punishment] then [highest law]. Is there something I'm missing here? "Look, Dipshit, if the Constitution was not enforced, then it would obviously not be a law of the land. Therefore, the punishment is relevant to the conclusion and this is not a use of the fallacy. " Can someone help me understand, is this guy just trying to bully me out of challenging or am I misunderstanding something here? The argument is If ~P->~L therefore P -> L? Right? Where P=punishment and L=constitution is law? How is this different from Isis "enforcing" the Koran as a proof of its "truth"? What am I missing here, or is he just trying to bully - also threatened to ban for "arguing" -asking him to clarify and defend the position.LogicMaster777
 * Come on, you've already posted this in one place. Ad baculum is the fallacy "you should believe in this statement, or I will hurt you." The argument is based on the arguer directly threatening their opponent to change their mind ("change your mind by altering your face" is one way of putting it). If someone points out that a consequence which is violent proves something, that is not them threatening you directly. For example, "it is a bad idea to jump into an active volcano, because you will die horribly" is not ad baculum, because I am not threatening to kill you horribly if you jump into a volcano, I'm just saying that's why it's a bad idea to do so. King Skeleton (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You have already started a discussion on Talk:Argumentum ad baculum and people are answering there. What's the point of starting another discussion? Although I'm tempted to move that discussion here, since I don't like the "debate" spilling into mainspace.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)