baculum

The arguments used by such cathedral-style hierarchies are comprised of argumentum ad baculum (see hereunder for further discussion).

It doesn't seem that outrageous that a regulatory change needed for bipedalism might also affect baculum development.

Many placental mammals, including the other great apes, have a baculum, while humans do not.

It's usually resolved in the courts, often partially or wholly in favor of state power, without resort to argumentum ad baculum.

It's not reasoned debate (which has been had ad nauseam) but argumentum ad baculum.

And that some organizations with pro-PC policies use ad baculum or ad hominem attacks to avoid serious debate about their position's weaknesses.

The federal armed forces reduce this to an argumentum ad baculum.

It's speculated this is why human males lack a baculum.

(Logically, at least; you can always argue using various fallacies like argumentum ad auctoritatem or argumentum ad baculum.

You present that as an argumentum ad baculum, which is a fallacy in its own right, but it is really the conjunction of an availability bias couched in a hasty generalization.

Well, ancient Israelis were quite likely to have known that sheep and goats have a baculum (and perhaps wonder why they do not), and less likely to have known about gorillas and chimpanzees.

Quoting the wiki article for penile bone: > The baculum (also penis bone, penile bone, or os penis, os genitale or os priapi) is a bone found in the penis of many placental mammals.

Perhaps of Celtic origin, from Gaulish *bakalakos, itself borrowed from Latin baculum (“stick”).[1] No Arabic roots here.

I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad baculum".

I wonder if anyone has ever said, sincerely, "sir, I believe you are committing an Argumentum ad Baculum," let alone had this produce a useful result.

> I wonder if anyone has ever said, sincerely, "sir, I believe you are committing an Argumentum ad Baculum," let alone had this produce a useful result.