The downvotes are because you're resisting easily-observed reality with the seemingly-rational response "Where is this 'air'? If I'm breathing it, it should be easy to point to, no?"

No. If you can't see it, and don't understand it's there, you cannot be explained to. You're someone with no palate asking how anyone else can know if a wine tastes good.

▲

CoastalCoder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I appreciate that response. I don't know if/how to convince you that I'm asking the question in good faith, but (FWIW) I am.

Regardless, wouldn't it be easy to point me to even one example if it's as prevalent as (I think) you're saying?

Or am I missing your main point, i.e. that what's being described can't be demonstrated via example?

▲

gilrain 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> wouldn't it be easy to point me to even one example

Read and think about my wine analogy, if you care.

	▲	CoastalCoder 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're saying that it's hard to articulate why some particular comment should be judged as having come from a bot. I.e., similar to the SCOTUS opinion regarding pornography: "I know it if I see it". Is that correct? If so, wouldn't that still admit someone providing a specific example? The whole point of my original comment was that I knew I wasn't judging these things the same as others were.

▲

MomsAVoxell 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nonsense. They’re trying to breathe and the downvotes won’t allow it.

	▲	gilrain 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Point out any wine that doesn't taste the same as any other, to me who has said he cannot taste wine. Only then, I'll believe you that wine can taste good or bad. Is my mind open? Is this not a waste of your time?