I think you are trying to read more into my post that I actually say. Scorn means contempt. I don't have contempt for anyone on HN. How could I? Most are probably far smarter than I am.
What I could have contempt for is the act of arguing a matter from an ideological or emotional perspective while choosing to ignore the data and the facts. Note that I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself.
BTW, it's not "my" data, it's the FBI's and the US Department of Justice, both far more reputable than I am in these matters.
I have yet to see one post truly address the facts as reflected by the data.
"I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself."
So what? Showing contempt for your opposition's behaviour is hardly going to be any more conducive to reasoned debate than showing contempt for them as individuals. The difference would be scarcely noticeable to your readers.
Either way, a scornful tone does not foster the impression that you're interested in having a reasonable discussion, and no amount of protestation to the contrary ("address the facts!", "critique the data!", etc) will change that. Why bother even trying to offer a high-quality counterargument to someone who thinks you're a "sheep"?
My point remains:
If you want people to "address the facts as reflected by the data", then, yes, present the facts, as you believe them to be, and present the best data you can find to support your position -- you've got those parts down -- but stop there, so those replying can only address what you want addressed. Leave nothing else for them to reply to.
In particular, keep your own emotions out of it if you want others to do the same.
What I could have contempt for is the act of arguing a matter from an ideological or emotional perspective while choosing to ignore the data and the facts. Note that I didn't say that I have contempt for the people who do this but for the "act" or process itself.
BTW, it's not "my" data, it's the FBI's and the US Department of Justice, both far more reputable than I am in these matters.
I have yet to see one post truly address the facts as reflected by the data.