[lmm]

> If you're jumping to conclusions by looking at people's photos - you're probably not really coming to a considered conclusion based on the breadth of evidence.

There's a reason "me or your lying eyes" is a joke. At some point you have to be willing to look at something rather than thinking yourself into a position when you can't see what's in front of you.

[butter999]

I invite you to elaborate, because because while I see how it's true you should draw conclusions from what you see in general, abstract terms, I don't understand what you mean to imply in the context of the comment I made (eg "don't judge a book by it's cover" or "if you're judging a book by it's cover, don't be surprised or claim victimhood if you get the feedback you've come to errant conclusions").

[lmm]

What I'm saying is that looking at a photo is a reality-check and a valuable one. Yes, sometimes something isn't what it looks like. But often things are exactly what they look like. If your elaborate theory leads you to one conclusion, and looking at the photo leads you to another, you should at least consider the possibility that it's the elaborate theory that's wrong.

[butter999]

You've not really elaborated on how your views apply to this discussion and the original comment. If your commentary is generic rather than related to this particular discussion, then it was already priced into the discussion, and didn't need stating. Generic tangents should be avoided.