Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Scribbler1 · May 9, 2007, 06:41 pm

I believe, for the sake of this descussion, you would need to word the "threat" differently. No matter WHO says it, a statement such as that means the speaker knows something and is not letting on what he knows.

And I think there's a legal angle to this too. If someone tells me he is going to kill you and I tell you without revealing the source that makes me an accessory to whatever the speaker does.

saltinespike · May 9, 2007, 06:50 pm

True, unless the messenger was forbidden to, without a price on his head, also.

Scribbler1 · May 9, 2007, 06:56 pm

Now that makes things REALLY complicated. In that case, when somebody tells you that, just kill them on the spot and move away, fast.

saltinespike · May 9, 2007, 07:04 pm

Ah, but you are skewing from the topic more and more. It boils down to be a warning, no?

Epistemologist · May 9, 2007, 07:31 pm

If doctor tells me I'll die in a year if I eat too many potato chips, then it's a warning.

If he tells me I'll die in a year when he injects me with a sodium thiopenthal if I don't pay my bills, then it's a threat.

If he tells me I'll die in a year since I have an inoperable brain tumor, then it's a notice.

If he tells me he loves me, then that's just gross.

saltinespike · May 9, 2007, 07:34 pm

But you cannot assume any conclusion if he does not specify.

Epistemologist · May 9, 2007, 07:38 pm

No, it depends mainly on the receiver's perception as to what constitutes a threat/warning. Now, there is a certain window of reasonable assumptions, but yeah, sometimes things go beyond that and statements get harder to classify. As for the giver's own perception of what his/her statement is, it's often not the same as the receiver's if it's beyond this window.

May 9, 2007, 06:41 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,832	I believe, for the sake of this descussion, you would need to word the "threat" differently. No matter WHO says it, a statement such as that means the speaker knows something and is not letting on what he knows. And I think there's a legal angle to this too. If someone tells me he is going to kill you and I tell you without revealing the source that makes me an accessory to whatever the speaker does. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 9, 2007, 06:50 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
saltinespike 20-20 Atheist Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 466	True, unless the messenger was forbidden to, without a price on his head, also. Torture is the gradual elimination of emotions.

May 9, 2007, 06:56 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,832	Now that makes things REALLY complicated. In that case, when somebody tells you that, just kill them on the spot and move away, fast. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

May 9, 2007, 07:04 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
saltinespike 20-20 Atheist Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 466	Ah, but you are skewing from the topic more and more. It boils down to be a warning, no? Torture is the gradual elimination of emotions.

May 9, 2007, 07:31 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Epistemologist God is good Location: Down by the river, stealing your water Posts: 1,518	If doctor tells me I'll die in a year if I eat too many potato chips, then it's a warning. If he tells me I'll die in a year when he injects me with a sodium thiopenthal if I don't pay my bills, then it's a threat. If he tells me I'll die in a year since I have an inoperable brain tumor, then it's a notice. If he tells me he loves me, then that's just gross. But what's to stop the manic tide, The suicide of our own pride? The Complex

May 9, 2007, 07:34 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
saltinespike 20-20 Atheist Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 466	But you cannot assume any conclusion if he does not specify. Torture is the gradual elimination of emotions.

May 9, 2007, 07:38 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Epistemologist God is good Location: Down by the river, stealing your water Posts: 1,518	No, it depends mainly on the receiver's perception as to what constitutes a threat/warning. Now, there is a certain window of reasonable assumptions, but yeah, sometimes things go beyond that and statements get harder to classify. As for the giver's own perception of what his/her statement is, it's often not the same as the receiver's if it's beyond this window.