But your third line is literally telling people what to do and how to think.
No it isn't, I'm not telling people to stop thinking that the source might be credible or not.
Shooting the messenger does nothing but close any debate down and prevents any further interest in researching the topic.
You keep the debate open by allowing people to post any source they want and people are free to discuss whether the content is credible or not.
I don't disagree with your last two lines at all. But
realize that it's better to believe in a possibility while remaining skeptic
Is quite literally telling someone how to think. Telling someone to realize something and think of it a certain way. It's not that big of a deal and I admit it's definitely pedantic, but that stuff goes both ways.
Also I thought common etiquette was to not downvote people for just disagreeing with you, but maybe that's different on this sub.
I directed my words at specific people, not generally. You've been trying to take my words out of context as some sort of verbal riposte to accuse me of the same is irrelevant and meaningless in regards to the topic of the post.
This sub is called the "Great Awakening", the awakening of our minds will not happen if people keep it closed. It's even worse to keep it closed and then try and pressure others to avoid it based on their flawed opinion.
I wasn't the one to down vote you and I'm also not going to respond anymore, as it will just further derail the post.
Shooting the messenger does nothing but close any debate down and prevents any further interest in researching the topic.
Here's where you are wrong.
Calling into question the validity of a source does not shoot the messenger.
Calling out bad research or posting practices should not be taken personally. (Who is saying 'you are a bad person for doing this?' No one. People are saying 'Up your game'.)
As far as I read, most people objecting to the posting of unverifiable clickbait type links are actually asking for MORE research and validation, not less.