Don’t sweat about karma, it’s there mostly for feedback and filtering, not as a judgment tool.
I didn’t get this. Isn’t it that people should vote down everything they disagree with?
If you define “rational” as “those who understand what I mean, rather than what I say, and agree with me”, then no, you have not.
Maybe you’re right, I can’t possibly judge how did it look like when read from a different person. Mental contamination.
Famous last words...
Would you still say that if I said “it’s 15:00 here, therefore it’s not night—this contradicts your claim that it’s night here, I can’t possibly be biased here”? Because I said something of similar probability, and by “can’t possibly”, I obviously didn’t mean “100% confidence”, because that would be an oxymoron (I can’t have 100% confidence). I expected you to point at some of my statements and claim them to be wrong, that would help me to reach your conclusion, if it’s any different from mine.
Isn’t it that people should vote down everything they disagree with?
Not really. The usual convention is “vote down what you want to see less of.” People differ in terms of what they want to see less of. For example, some people downvote poorly-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with, because they want fewer poorly-reasoned arguments. Some people downvote well-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with about topic X, because they want fewer discussions of topic X. Some people downvote well-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with in response to known or suspected trolls, because they want fewer response to trolls. Etc.
I didn’t get this. Isn’t it that people should vote down everything they disagree with?
Maybe you’re right, I can’t possibly judge how did it look like when read from a different person. Mental contamination.
Would you still say that if I said “it’s 15:00 here, therefore it’s not night—this contradicts your claim that it’s night here, I can’t possibly be biased here”? Because I said something of similar probability, and by “can’t possibly”, I obviously didn’t mean “100% confidence”, because that would be an oxymoron (I can’t have 100% confidence). I expected you to point at some of my statements and claim them to be wrong, that would help me to reach your conclusion, if it’s any different from mine.
Not really. The usual convention is “vote down what you want to see less of.” People differ in terms of what they want to see less of. For example, some people downvote poorly-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with, because they want fewer poorly-reasoned arguments. Some people downvote well-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with about topic X, because they want fewer discussions of topic X. Some people downvote well-reasoned arguments defending positions they agree with in response to known or suspected trolls, because they want fewer response to trolls. Etc.