Argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
At any rate, the burden of proof would seem to be on you.
But, of course, you chose to pose your ad hominem as a question, so you can dodge that bullet.
What do they call that?
Argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
***Abduction is a kind of logical inference described by Charles Sanders Peirce as “guessing”.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
And yet, it is still classed among the fallacies.
Your usage of it here is not convincing at all. Since you’ve offered the postulation, the “burden of proof” is on you. But you know that you cannot prove it, since it involves abduction. So that raises the question why you would suggest that proof of any kind is involved?
But, of course, you chose to pose your ad hominem as a question, so you can dodge that bullet.
***I used an Ad Hominem? How am I attacking you or even Gingrich by asking about whether he has the courage to do something?
What do they call that?
***They call it a hodge-podge, as in, you’re not really familiar with classic fallacies, abductive reasoning (which emphatically does NOT involve proof nor burdens of proof), and you just threw all of it together hoping it would sound intelligent.