You're doing that thing again where you ridicule someone who has a graduate degree in philosophy just because you're arrogant and ignorant of the context of discussion. I never claimed that an argument from authority is a deductively valid argument. It's nonsense to expect a deductively valid argument from a normal discussion, though, even though validity is generally an ideal to strive for. I'm not making an argument from authority. I'm simply suggesting that you went to people who are authorities and didn't trust them even though a) you had no reason not to trust them, and b) they provided perfectly valid answers to your question. I am also not claiming that you need to have knowledge to ask a question. Yes, your question was poorly formed and confused. This is why we were asking for clarification. The problem is that you refused to clarify your question (why even bring up Cicero and Marx in the same thought? why do you think Cicero isn't considered important? which aspects of Marx seem defeated?) while simultaneously rejecting the sound advice given to you. This is the issue. You can name fallacies all you want. You can reduce what I'm saying to terrible versions of argument because you have no commitment to the principle of charity. At the end of the day, though, you're just doing the very thing you were banned for. This is what happens when someone who has no understanding of philosophy tries to set the norms for discussion.