5:58 AM
Thank you @a4android, @AndyD273 and @sphennings for the inputs.
@AndyD273 In a nutshell, what I'm concerned about is, does the original premise of the question have to be consistent with logic, or e.g. laws of Physics? Or are we proposing a hypothetical situation, which may not always be logically viable, and then using logical and scientific reasoning to answer it within the rules of the post?
The reason why I thought I should post in chat is, e.g. there was recently a question about building a wall to guard against, uhm, zombies.
I saw that on the HNQ list. Naturally, it is difficult to resist against clicking on these things.
Now, the posts go on and talk about why it makes more sense to post a wall with the zombies in, rather than out.
But suppose I ask the question, what happens if these zombies climb the walls?
Certainly that isn't illogical.
But clearly, there must be something that I'm missing in the scope of the site.
The rules of the post don't exclude this possibility:
> Infected humans have a sense of numbers, time, distance, and self-preservation; they can learn from observation; and they can use tools
So, if I post an answer that says, "No, it is pointless building a wall, since zombies are going to find a way of climbing it", is that answer dismissive and off-topic?
I certainly personally find it dismissive.
Because this way, using hypothetical constructs, one can practically dismiss anything.
So clearly, I do not understand the rules of the game.
I will certainly dig into Meta as suggested by @a4android, but in case anyone has anything to say about this, the comments would be more than welcome.