I was just making a simple factual observation. Why did some people think it was an argument in favor of regulation?
I've noticed that Argument by Innuendo is unfortunately common, at least in in-person discussions. Basically, the arguer makes statements that seem to point to some conclusion or another, but stops a few steps short of actually drawing a conclusion, leaving the listener to draw the conclusion themselves. When I've caught myself doing this and ask myself why, there are a few reasons that come up, including:
Needless to say, this is pretty manipulative, and a generally Bad Thing. But people have sort of been conditioned to fall into the trap of Argument by Innuendo - to not look stupid (or "slow"), they want to try to figure out what you're getting at as quickly as possible instead of asking you, and then argue against it (possibly by innuendo themselves so they can make you look stupid if you don't get it right away). Of course, this makes it extremely easy to argue past each other without realizing it, and might leave one side bewildered at the reaction that their innocent-seeming statement of fact has provoked. I think that this has simply become part of how we reason in real-time in-person discussions.
(To test this claim, try asking "so what?" or "what's the conclusion you're getting at?" when you notice this happening. Note the facial expressions and tone you get in response. In my experience, either the arguer treats you as stupid to ask for clarification on such an "obvious" point, or they squirm in discomfort as their forced to state explicitly the conclusion that they were trying to avoid criticism for proposing, and may weasel into an entirely different position altogether that isn't at all supported by their statements.)
So, I'd venture to say that that's what's going on here - your audience heard your factual observation, interpreted it as laden with a point to be made, and projected that conclusion back onto you, all in the blink of an eye.
I think the sentiment you're trying to express is captured in simply upvoting the post you're in agreement with. If you have nothing to add, it's probably best not to make a comment.
Mathematics is largely already excepted from the above discussion - this post is talking about empirical clusters only ("When you draw a boundary around a group of extensional points empirically clustered in thingspace"), and mathematics largely operates in a priori truths derived from axioms. For example, no one needs to do a study of triangles to see whether their angle all do, indeed, add up to 180 degrees - when that's not part of the definition of triangles, it follows from the other definitions and axioms.
I'm skeptical. After all, the anchoring effect isn't weakened by being reminded that it exists. It seems that anything the jury sees will influence their decision, and they will likely be unable to discount its influence appropriately to account for its unreliability (especially if its emotionally charged).
I've always been uneasy when the judge on some court TV drama sustains an objection or asks that something be stricken from the record, as if that means it's stricken from the minds of the jury so it won't influence their decision. We have good reason to believe that that's impossible - the jury's brains have been primed with a piece of argumentation that the judge has recognized is unadmissible. It's too late. At least, it has always seemed that way to me. What does the legal literature say about this?