What is the distinguishing factor between conviction and threat?
I want my friend to restrain from doing an action. I am showing him the bad consequences of the action thus, I am trying to convince him for not doing the action. He can be convinced or may not be depending on how strong my arguments are against doing the action. I can keep showing him stronger arguments until he becomes convinced of not doing the action.
At what level my arguments will be called threats? The question arose in my head because whatever the final decision of my friend, it actually depends on the cost and benefit (i.e. loss and greed) of my friends.
A concrete example (progression of discussion with my friend),
- Don't do that because someone might die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because many people might die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because someone will die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because many people will die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because your family members might die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because your family members will die with your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because your family members might be killed for your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because your family members will be killed for your action - NOT convinced
- Don't do that because you might die with your action - NOT convinced/convinced
- Don't do that because you might will be killed for your action - NOT convinced/convinced
- Don't do that because we might kill you for your action - convinced
- Don't do that because we will kill you for your action - convinced
Regardless the decision, at which point I can say it was a threat to my friend instead of an argument for conviction? In other word, when can I say my friend was convinced and when can I say my friend was threatened?
Note: If I couldn't express my actual question, please help me to make it precise as I am a non native english speaker.
