sorry,but pointing out that your attempt, to "dress up" your OPINIONS as IF they were facts, fools NOBODY. further, pointing out that your OPINIONS do NOT constitute either FACTS nor an argument is NOT an "ad hominum attack". instead it just points out that you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".
as i've said before, you should request membership in "the DAMNyankee coven of lunatics,REVISIONISTS, nitwits,FOOLS, "useful idiots",BIGOTS, etc." from the unionist leader, Non-Sequitur. you'll fit right in.
free dixie,sw
You have not addressed any of the arguments put forth in Mr. Sandefur’s article that I posted. You’ve chosen to attack me directly. Textbook ad hominem. I posted an article with which I much agree. It supports my opinions. I have replied back to others with my opinions. I believe that the south’s secession was unconstitutional. That is my opinion. Mr. Sandefur put forth this in several arguments and backed it up with historical references that he indexes at the bottom of the article. One may attack the validity of his arguments with counter arguments or by questioning the validity of his interpretation of the quotes and cases he references and not be accused of ad hominem. You have chosen to do neither. You have said this:
“sorry,but pointing out that your attempt, to “dress up” your OPINIONS as IF they were facts, fools NOBODY. further, pointing out that your OPINIONS do NOT constitute either FACTS nor an argument is NOT an “ad hominum attack”. instead it just points out that you “know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT”.
That is called a argumentum ad ignorantiam and/or argument from personal incredulity.
“The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (”appeal to ignorance” [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting evidence or proof that another view is true.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance