This comment seems to me to be requesting clarification in good faith. Might someone who downvoted it explain to why, if it wouldn’t take too much time or effort? I’m fairly new to the forum and would like a more complete view of the customs.
Edited to add: Perhaps because it was perceived as lower effort than the parent comment, and required another high-effort post in response, which might have been avoided by a closer reading?
I never downvoted his comments, and have (just now) instead upvoted them.
However, I would interpret all of Pablo’s points in his response not just as requesting clarification but also as objections to my answer, in a post that’s only asking for people’s reasons to object to the RC and is explicitly not about technical philosophical arguments (although it’s not clear this should extend to replies to answers), just basic intuitions.
I don’t personally mind, and these are interesting points to engage with. However, I can imagine others finding it too intimidating/adversarial/argumentative.
This comment seems to me to be requesting clarification in good faith. Might someone who downvoted it explain to why, if it wouldn’t take too much time or effort? I’m fairly new to the forum and would like a more complete view of the customs.
Edited to add: Perhaps because it was perceived as lower effort than the parent comment, and required another high-effort post in response, which might have been avoided by a closer reading?
I never downvoted his comments, and have (just now) instead upvoted them.
However, I would interpret all of Pablo’s points in his response not just as requesting clarification but also as objections to my answer, in a post that’s only asking for people’s reasons to object to the RC and is explicitly not about technical philosophical arguments (although it’s not clear this should extend to replies to answers), just basic intuitions.
I don’t personally mind, and these are interesting points to engage with. However, I can imagine others finding it too intimidating/adversarial/argumentative.
Thank you for the explanation!