Abstract: Two brainless curs, Alan Brinton and Douglas Walton, have recently had the impudence to suggest that several of my views on argumentum ad baculum are mistaken. While hardship and toil await them in this life and eternal damnation in the next, punishment begins with this paper. In it, I clarify my position, defend my views, and critique their arguments. Last, I argue ad baculum against both of them, threatening both with the loss of reputation, employment, and respect unless they repudiate every objection raised against me and publicly abase themselves.
Full Paper: Knockdown arguments.pdf – Google Drive
Two critics-for such people, I regret to say, do exist-have recently made all sorts of nasty and altogether cloth-headed remarks about my articles on argumentum ad baculum. “Wreen must have taken one too many on the button himself,” says the one. “His brains are as scrambled as Sunday’s eggs.” The other is no less insulting. “Perhaps his mother can forgive such idiocy,” he smirks in a vain attempt at wit, “but personally I think that it should be beaten out of him.”
Bears have probably eaten them both by now, like the children who made mock of the prophet Elisha. But in case they’ve temporarily managed to elude their fate, all will be remedied with this article. The blush of embarrassment will mantle their cheeks once it’s published, and their colleagues will be of one voice for their resignation. Hungry job applicants in argumentation theory, then, please take note. Two positions will soon become available, one at Boise State University, another at the University of Winnipeg.
Via Alex Strasser on X (shared with me by Shaun)