Expressing dismay out at the audacity of somebody to even dare state something, as opposed to stating why either it's wrong in the case of a fact or why you dis

Expressing dismay out at the audacity of somebody to even dare state something, as opposed to stating why either it's wrong in the case of a fact or why you disagree in case of an opinion, is language policing. In other words it is attacking the choice of language, instead of discussing or debating the view itself. Note the person who started this line of discussion chose to immediately go ad hominem on the author instead of provide rationale for why their personal opinion was that 'just' understates the issues in play. I have no concern for what people think facts "promote." Give the same information to different people and they will come to different conclusions. Ultimately facts are what inform our opinions. When you believe something may promote some opinion or another, you should consider the fact that you may likely be projecting. People interpret things differently. For instance let's take another controversial example, but one that also brings the issue down to its most fundamental level. Imagine somebody states that blacks make up 38% of the prison population, yet only 13% of the US population. This is very true. However, it's also true that that same 13% of the population also commits more than 52% of all the murders in the nation, along with similar over representation in most forms of crime. Rather than trying to cherry pick data to lead people in one direction or the other, I think it is important that all facts are considered - even when we might consider those facts as less than pleasant. In my example here, both facts are very likely to mislead without the context of the other. And if either fact were presented without the context of the other, I would fully agree with you about 'cherry picking' facts. When I asked you to provide any relevant facts I may have omitted after you claimed I was 'cherry picking data', you failed to be able to provide a single one. -- As a sort of meta comment. Line by line quoting tends to create somewhat scattered and disparate logic, made even worse with paraphrasings. Try to think of things holistically and I think you might be able to express yourself more clearly if you're perhaps expressing some nuanced view I'm still too dense to perceive.