Threats vs. Warnings

[saltinespike]

Me and a few guys have been debating this. It is centered around a quote from the movie "The Ring": "you're gonna die in seven days". I am the only person who is seeing this as a potential warning instead of a threat. It can be a threat, but you cannot just assume that because someone said you were going to die.

A threat is when someone says "I'm going to kill you." But let's not get this mixed up with a warning, which would be something like "you're going to get into a car crash." How they would obtain the information is irrelavent, but if you need a reason, let's just say it was from premonition.

Back to the quote. I don't think that "you're gonna die in seven days" can be classified as a threat nor a warning, because you do not have enough information to come to either conclusion.

What do you think?

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: saltinespike It is centered around a quote from the movie "The Ring": "you're gonna die in seven days".

Taken by itself it's a warning, but you also have to consider the attitude/way in which it was said. When someone says, for instance, "You better watch out for your family," it could be interpreted both ways. A government official issuing a tornado alert could just make it warning. But a mobster making sure you deliver his goods could make it an explicit threat.

But since this attitude is such a big factor in determining if it's a threat or a warning, there's often confusion when the stuff is written down. Now, it could still be determined, if say, a letter is written that's really weird consists of clippings of newspaper letters, that it's making a threat. But it's often more ambiguous than in spoken conversation. Either way, it's prudent to be more careful upon receipt.

But then there are other factors too. If you know for sure that the person giving the statement is capable and likely to do the harmful action, then it's probably a threat. Indeed, they may have experienced a change of heart and become a good person, but we're dealing with probabilities here.

And so back to the original quote, I would say it's a threat since it seems the voice is going to do it and it's rather ominous.

[Jack]

Perhaps it should be considered a prophecy.

[gw120]

Perhaps it should be considered a prophecy.

Or better yet perhaps the ramblings of some crazy guy.

[5010]

Quote by: saltinespike Back to the quote. I don't think that "you're gonna die in seven days" can be classified as a threat nor a warning, because you do not have enough information to come to either conclusion.

I agree.

I consider a warning to be something intending to make a person alert so that they can avoid a danger. The danger is what threatens them.

I say every warning includes a threat. The person is threatened by the danger. If I say "give me your money or I will kill you", I am both warning and threatening you. I am the danger. If I say "eat brussel sprouts or you will die of cancer", then I am warning you and cancer is threatening you.

The sentence "you're gonna die in seven days" is a prediction. No danger is mentioned. The sentence mentions no danger to be alert about or avoid. In fact, it imply that the outcome is unavoidable.

[Osborn F Enready]

I haven't seen the movie, so I don't feel qualified to answer in relation to that.

As far as the quote itself, "you're gonna die in seven days", I think that could be taken either way depending on context. Hard to justify in court, but could be shown with enough evidence of the actual comment being made and the context and physical presentation of the comment.

[Slevin57]

To me a warning is high a high-priority threat.

You only believe it's a warning when the issuer has a high credibility of delivering on his friend.

[saltinespike]

No. A warning is just telling someone about a threat that was not in relation to themselves. A threat (in this case) would be threatening someone in your own doing.

Where to draw the line, I don't know. I guess saying something like "he's going to kill you!" might be considered a threat (an indirect one, but a threat nonetheless.

I think a threat can also be identified as putting forth aggression in you're warning.

[ZNFYRH]

saltinespike

I have a simpler view on it.

A threat is inevitable.

A warning can be altered.

Just as I believe that until you correct it, an accident is an accident. Once you correct it, it is a mistake.

A threat is a threat unless you take steps to prevent it; then it's a warning.

[saltinespike]

So would you consider "I am going to kill you and your family" a warning and not a threat? You can take steps to alter or eliminate the threat, making it in-inevitable (evitable?).

[ZNFYRH]

That's basically it.

If I do nothing, then it's a threat.

If I try to stop you, fail or succeed, it was a warning.

Gotta love individual semantics.

[saltinespike]

Eh. I don't believe that. A threat is an intention to inflict evil, injury or damage. So whether you take action or not, it was still a threat. If anything is inevitable, it is that a threat cannot change once it is made. At least that you made the threat. The only way the threat as a thriving thing would change is if the intentions changed, which does not fit within the confines of this debate.

Basically, you cannot change a threat that you made, for it only existed in those few moments. But you can change a threat as an ongoing thing, but only by changing your intention.

To break it down even further (if you still don't understand), it's like saying "I love you". You can't change the fact that you said it, but you can change if you love them or not (the thriving thing), but only if you change your view on things.

[Madeline]

If you were terminally ill and your doctor told you that you have 7 days left more to live, would you consider this a threat or warning? It all depends on the context.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Madeline If you were terminally ill and your doctor told you that you have 7 days left more to live, would you consider this a threat or warning? It all depends on the context.

Obviously. But the question is where to draw the line. Where the warning ends and the threat begins. And there are some that go over the line and are still able to be a warning/threat.

[ZNFYRH]

I guess that depends on how you define "live."

If you see it as meaning you have 7 days and then you die, then it's a threat.

But if you see it as 7 days left to live life to its fullest, then it's a warning.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I guess that depends on how you define "live." If you see it as meaning you have 7 days and then you die, then it's a threat. But if you see it as 7 days left to live life to its fullest, then it's a warning.

Not necessarily. As others mentioned, if a doctor said "you have 7 days and then you die", it is not a threat. It may be a bit harsh, true, but it's not a threat, but a warning. Sure, the latter would be a bit nicer, but both are warnings. You just showed us what's a bit harsh and what's not so harsh.

[Mia]

In the movie it's a warning, imo. There is a way NOT to die in 7 days.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Mia In the movie it's a warning, imo. There is a way NOT to die in 7 days.

But even if it was inevitable, that does not automatically make it a threat.

[Scribbler1]

It's more likely a threat than a warning, if I understood it correctly. If somebody looks me in the eye and says I'm going to die in X days, and he's not wearing a lab coat with the stethoscope around his neck, that's a threat.
Not too many people would be in a position to know when I'm gonna check out.

[saltinespike]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It's more likely a threat than a warning, if I understood it correctly. If somebody looks me in the eye and says I'm going to die in X days, and he's not wearing a lab coat with the stethoscope around his neck, that's a threat. Not too many people would be in a position to know when I'm gonna check out.

Yes, but would you apply that to somebody who knows about a threat? Like they were told "I'm gonna kill that guy." Still a warning. Even if it is your arch enemy.