As for how you contradicted yourself, you said “if the threat isn’t listened to then they act on it”, then went on to claim a threat that has to be followed-through on is worthless. On the contrary, a threat that has been known all-along is rendered moot when you spell it out long after the time for it is past.

That’s not a contradiction. If you have to follow through on your threat then it failed to achieve its goal. Usually it’s not a desired outcome. It doesn’t gain you a thing. It still needs to be done though or your threats will be ignored.

Its the threat you have to verbalize that’s worthless.

It depends on the context, but usually no. There needs to be clear boundaries where the threat becomes acted upon for it to be effective most of the time.

its a threat made-up on the spot that’s easilly invalidated in so, so many ways.

This is exactly my point. This threat was just made up. It can’t be used retroactively. That’s not how things work. They need to set boundaries, then execute it if the lines are crossed. If you set boundaries that have already been crossed then what are you trying to gain?