You know what? I liked your answer. You didn’t claim it was truth, and it started a discussion. I think it sounds like a reasonable enough theory, it’s probably weirder than that, because that’s usually how things be, but I like how you think!
Plus someone else would inevitably come up with the same comment anyway as it’s the intuitive answer even if another comment disproves it.
Guesses are fine as long as they’re marked as such, and will often not be that far from the real answer and can trigger someone else to dig deeper and further add.
Even if you end up completely wrong, now that’s a searchable thread with child comments disproving it.
I bet if this comment just claimed this is what happens, nobody would complain and it would have more upvotes. If I tell you I’m 90% sure I’m right, that doesn’t discredit my analysis, I’m just being honest about what I don’t know, at least the reader can make the determination as to whether it’s good enough for them or not. This is social media not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
I see that kind of crap all over politics too. Candidate A is honest and replies with nuances, candidate B makes bold claims, people vote candidate B because A “looks weak and indecisive”.
You know what? I liked your answer. You didn’t claim it was truth, and it started a discussion. I think it sounds like a reasonable enough theory, it’s probably weirder than that, because that’s usually how things be, but I like how you think!
Plus someone else would inevitably come up with the same comment anyway as it’s the intuitive answer even if another comment disproves it.
Guesses are fine as long as they’re marked as such, and will often not be that far from the real answer and can trigger someone else to dig deeper and further add.
Even if you end up completely wrong, now that’s a searchable thread with child comments disproving it.
I bet if this comment just claimed this is what happens, nobody would complain and it would have more upvotes. If I tell you I’m 90% sure I’m right, that doesn’t discredit my analysis, I’m just being honest about what I don’t know, at least the reader can make the determination as to whether it’s good enough for them or not. This is social media not a peer reviewed scientific journal.
I see that kind of crap all over politics too. Candidate A is honest and replies with nuances, candidate B makes bold claims, people vote candidate B because A “looks weak and indecisive”.
deleted by creator
Eventually we’ll be able to have civilized conversations without mentioning it.
But until then, thank you guys for this awkward but wholesome display of mutual respect.
Whoever downvoted this comment is a very small person.