Comment by throw10920

> I did point it out, quite explicitly so.

No, you factually, objectively, did not, because fallacious arguing is not the same as intellectual dishonesty (as can easily be learned from looking up the definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty). So, this is the first factually incorrect thing you have stated in this post.

> LLM don't operate on facts, LLM generated output is irrelevant to your assertion.

This is the second factually incorrect thing. LLMs are trained on vast corpus of human writing and so have an extremely large amount of latent understanding of tone of language. Factually, the output of an LLM is relevant to my assertion.

> I don't care that it's emotionally charged.

> I am happy for people to challenge me and improve the way I can argue.

So now you're being a hypocrite and a liar - if you don't care that it's emotionally charged, then you're definitely not happy to have people improve the way you can argue, because emotionally charged statements are not arguments.

> However then refuting arguments against inequality without offering a solution is effectively supporting it

Third factually incorrect statement. I don't have to tell the cook how he made my soup wrong if it tastes bad. I just have to say that it's not good, and that's that.

That's three falsehoods and one lie in just those parts of this comment, let alone the many others in your other comments. You have no intention to actually engage in debate or seek truth.