So is social deference the missing ingredient in my post?

It would help, but the difference I was refer to was that Jayson was embarrassed by his failure of rationality, while you either failed to recognize yours or were proud of it.

Could you be more specific in what exactly was/is my failure and why/how I was arrogant about it, and what are the ad hominems?

Ad hominem arguments are attacks against the arguers, rather than the arguments. For example:

what can we say about the epistemological waterline here?

Comments like that will not impress people here. They may provoke a more hostile response than is really warranted, but they are not serious arguments.

You don't consider the mention of prima facie evidence to be productive?

Starting an argument is often not perceived as productive by those who consider the topic a no brainer.

No one here is going to consider whining about persecution to be productive.