Calling out your repeated disrespect is not the same as being offended. I can recognize when a person is trying to divert the topic as well as attempt to discredit me (both things can happen, they are not mutually exclusive) without being offended by it.
If anything, I'm just disappointed that you would rather resort to petty antics instead of addressing points directly. If you insist on carrying this assumption, which is showing disrespect by giving credence to such a silly idea, then it's best we move to a medium where we can be more confident
Really? In this scenario, on this site, in this conversation, you think there is a way to be 100% certain that you (or any online entity) is a bot?
Yes, I do. I know with 100% certainty that you are a human being that I have been interacting with.
it would only establish you weren't a bot in that particular interaction
And I would be thrilled to have that interaction with you. It would allow us to have the conversation in that particular interaction, and address our points more clearly!
You're making an excellent argument for why switching to video or audio would be the superior medium, so thank you! Now, it's a great opportunity for us to move to that medium.
I only care for productive conversation
Then let's have one in a medium where we can both be more confident that we are interacting with human beings.
The turing test can be applied to any entity purporting to be / presenting as human
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from a human.
Every human, by default, including me, passes the Turing test because their behavior is, inherently, human.
No, there are no accusations of lies that you provided which contain links/citations/quotes of mine which were not already addressed, refuted, and you did not contest the refutations of.
I have, a number of times, quoted you directly. I urge you to go back and reread the conversation. If you missed the quote, it is not my responsibility to feed you the information again, I'm sorry to say.
Calling out your repeated disrespect is not the same as being offended.
No one said it was. I said you were acting offended, and that you should stop if you can. A good way towards demonstrating your "lack of offense" would be to abandon this utter waste of time and get back on a topic of productive conversation - if you can.
You are free to feel disrespected any time you wish, but that was never my intention or action.
instead of addressing points directly
What points have i not addressed directly? Name one. I'll wait.
You haven't made ANY relevant points to respond to in somewhere around 20 comments because you've been too busy expressing how "offended" (which necessarily includes "disrespected", by the by) you are ad nauseaum.
it's best we move to a medium where we can be more confident
If you had read and understood my previous repeated responses to this incessant request, you would already understand why there isn't such a medium, why such a medium will never exist, and why even if such a medium could and did exist - it wouldn't matter because you still demonstrably lack the ability to have a productive conversation :( Feel free to demonstrate me wrong by engaging in productive conversation instead of this endless pity party.
I know with 100% certainty that you are a human being that I have been interacting with.
Then you are foolish. Nothing i've said couldn't be accomplished by a bot or bot/human (hybrid) team.
Then let's have one in a medium
This is the superior medium. Demonstrate that you are capable here, or be silent.
Every human, by default, including me, passes the Turing test because their behavior is, inherently, human.
And yet, you still failed it and appeared as bot-like to a human evaluating you. What does this teach you about the turing test (besides that it can obviously be used on you - a purported human)?
I have, a number of times, quoted you directly.
Yes, and just like the latest time - i have responded, refuted, and discarded your baseless accusations without any further contest from you. If you feel you still have further contest to levy on one of the previously addressed "lies" you erroneously claimed, please point out which one, or be silent.
Hi there, audience here. :-D I don't normally chime in but I felt compelled by the... unique rathole y'all have taken this discussion into.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath, but also so unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation! It's honestly fascinating: you're like two turtles duking it out by bopping each other gently on the shell, venturing nothing, yielding nothing, dedicated entirely to stubbornness-presented-as-patience.
Y'all are usually fairly interesting to read; but now you're being dull.
If it helps you reset the conversation and "get back on a topic of productive conversation", here are my takes on the recent points:
Modeler: Jack is right, defending this "Turing tests can only be used on bots" position is irrelevant at best. You're wasting words defending a semantic point of no value to the conversation. You've seemingly dug in only to avoid "losing a point," so to speak, not because it's important to the central debate. You're not gonna out-semantic Jack---that's like his whole schtick.
Jack: It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder. This is kindergarten-level interpersonal stuff; there's no way you don't see why Modeler would feel disrespected or heck, even offended, by your statements. That rhetorical habit of yours is counter to the "productive conversation" you claim to love and belies the image you try to project of a calm rational interlocutor---knock it off. Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls, not one of the few people obviously actually trying to have a discussion with you.
And for the record, Jack: to an outside observer, Modeler doesn't seem to be behaving like a bot any more than you are; to my eyes, he's only demonstrating the same conversational stubbornness (e.g., refusal to yield trivial points, refusal to specifically cite to prior comments, insistence on semantic distinctions) that you yourself are guilty of.
Anyway, I'm hugely impressed and thankful for the stamina you both display in sticking to this conversation. And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these, then by all means, continue. But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
Well color me surprised! Welcome to, and apologies for, the rathole!
While you're here anyhow, i hope it will prove useful to have a somewhat objective third party's perspective on said rathole.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath
As far as i recall, i am the only one who has been doing that (though the question "god, why?!" frequently comes to mind). This other "participant" does not express that view, and acts pretty consistently contrary to it.
If they agreed that their responses were a waste of breath, i certainly missed that interaction!
unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation!
I disagree. I've extended earnest apologies for unintended offense several times, and have been earnestly trying to resolve the situation. The only "inch" i will not budge on is to take responsibility for their (re)actions. I acknowledge that by telling them they were/are acting in a bot like manner that i upset them, caused them to feel disrespected, and contributed to their abandonment of the conversation writ large - and although i do and have apologized for any unintended offense, i cannot take responsibility for their actions. To do so would only ensure such childish habits in the future, and be disearnest placation.
venturing nothing, yielding nothing,
I'm open to suggestions! I cannot and would not force the horse to earnestly converse - though i can stupidly continue to try and lead them towards it. Repeating the same action and hoping for a different outcome :(
but now you're being dull.
I could not agree more. I probably should have just blocked them when i said i would. Pity and hope got the better of me - perhaps with a little prostration/attempted restitution mixed in.
They have made it very clear that they have no want or interest in continuing any earnest or productive conversation - even if they should happen to be capable of it. So be it.
It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder
I can certainly understand this view, but i don't agree with it personally. As i said to modeler - perhaps i have become callous to such accusations having been online for so long, but i can't help but feel like such callous is a good and necessary thing to have. I am from the "sticks and stones" generation, after all.
From my perspective, there is no rudeness intended by any captcha or other bot detection method - including my own. Telling them that they are exhibiting bot like tendencies which are preventing meaningful discussion was not intended to be rude or to offend - but so such tendencies could (hopefully) be avoided so that productive conversation could continue. Although it certainly can be received as rude, such minor rudeness (even major rudeness, in my view) must be able to be overcome/overlooked if productive conversation (rational discourse) is your aim. It is a necessary conversational skill.
I expressed an earnest concern and evaluation that they were appearing more likely a bot through exhibiting these behaviors (repeatedly, to boot).
That rhetorical habit of yours
What rhetorical habit? Being rude? I don't think i have a habit of that - rhetorical or otherwise. Though, as i said - i can certainly see how i was received that way and understand why in this context.
Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls
In general, i agree that some of my interactions here have been more "troll handling" than i would prefer - but it was difficult to feel that there wasn't a willful troll on the other side considering their absolute steadfast refusal to get back on any topic, and utter devotion to continuing this endless "aside" ad nauseaum despite repeated pleas to the contrary. Top that with a barrage of baseless "you're a liar (but i won't quote/cite how or when)" "cherries" and you have yourself a troll sundae :(
that you yourself are guilty of
That's because they are mirroring me (another bot tendency, by the by). Even the specific verbiage used is lifted. However, i don't shy away from admitting mistake or quoting/citing specifically (within reason). As for being a semantic pedant - guilty as charged, but i do try not to be needlessly pedantic.
And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these
Not at all. My finger hovers above the block button even now. I am not completely convinced they are not a bot or have not been a bot at previous times in this discussion - however, for my part - i don't much care if they are or not. If they can avoid the conversational habits that bots engage in and otherwise hold earnest rational discourse - i'm happy to engage if for nothing else than the ordering (and/or refining) of my own thoughts.
The other impetus to continue discussion is the off chance that it is as you say - as it sometimes appears in communication with them - that they have an earnest interest in the subject/discussions and my demeanor and/or approach has pushed them away from it into this mindlessly repetitive and reflexively contrarian death spiral. I certainly don't want that to be the case, and am happy to make any amends i can to remedy that (possible in this forum).
But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
God, i've been saying that dozens of ways since this whole rathole began - it is my sincere hope that modeler responds differently to your plea than to the dozens of mine.
And I'm telling you you are mistaken. I am simply calling our your disrespect.
you've been too busy expressing how "offended" (which necessarily includes "disrespected", by the by) you are ad nauseaum.
Again, I am not offended. Sensing disrespect is not the same as being offended. You should try and drop that from your understanding.
If you had read and understood my previous repeated responses to this incessant request, you would already understand why there isn't such a medium
Of course there is. On video/audio, it is significantly more diffficult for a bot to pass as human, as real-time interaction and response is something that AI is not capable of to pass a Turing test. If you believe otherwise, then that's an interesting stance you have, but I would be extremely surprised if over video you still were not able to tell if I were human or not.
Then you are foolish
I would say it's foolish at this point to even consider the idea that you might be a bot. Only a fool would suggest such a thing. For instance, see here:
And yet, you still failed it and appeared as bot-like to a human evaluating you.
You say here that you are a human, so then why on earth would it be considered foolish for me to say that I am certain you are human? You insult me just for the sake of insulting me? Seems pretty illogical.
I make a correct evaluation of the person you are, and you call me foolish for thinking so. It seems you are just trying to be confrontational.
I've already explained my position on this thoroughly. If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.
I would say it's foolish at this point to even consider the idea that you might be a bot
If only that were the case :( We are well and truly "through the looking glass" now. It is foolish to not consider any online entity potentially a bot - even one that was previously a human.
You say here that you are a human
I do. Bots can (and do) too :(
so then why on earth would it be considered foolish for me to say that I am certain you are human
Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life - is foolish.
You insult me just for the sake of insulting me?
Certainly not. I fully and sincerely apologize for any offense or insult you have interpreted/received from my words; i know you may find this hard to believe, but it is not my intention.
I work very hard (though admittedly do still fail) to only ever attack the thought and never the thinker (aka: avoid ad hominem). Foolish, stupid, genius - these are aspects of humanity, not archetypes. When i call an idea or action of yours stupid or foolish (or vice versa) that does not mean i am attacking you or saying that i do not also have foolish and stupid ideas/actions. When i say you are foolish for believing i could not be a bot, i am not painting you as an archetypal fool incapable of any better or otherwise a fool in every regard - i am saying that that specific view is foolish.
I make a correct evaluation of the person you are
Things are not always as they seem. It is true that i am a human, and that you are correct in that (though bots can claim the same). It is not true that i was intending to disrespect you at any point during this discussion - but i fully understand (and even earnestly apologize for) why and how it was received that way by you. Things are not always as they appear to us - even though that subjective reality we experienced was!
It seems you are just trying to be confrontational.
Not intentionally no. Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.
The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.
If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.
I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.
This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video, or any other medium
Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life is foolish.
I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.
When i say you are foolish for believing...
If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Your actions are showing to be one that are attacking my character rather than the idea. It's clear that the idea is not worth attacking, because you an I both know that you are a human being. It's inreasonable for you to go after that idea.
However, you still do attack my character imilar to how you in your repeated suggestions that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, often in efforts to either distract or avoid the topic at hand, but ultimately to not address the idea that I present to you.
This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.
Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.
Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.
It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.
Calling out your repeated disrespect is not the same as being offended. I can recognize when a person is trying to divert the topic as well as attempt to discredit me (both things can happen, they are not mutually exclusive) without being offended by it.
If anything, I'm just disappointed that you would rather resort to petty antics instead of addressing points directly. If you insist on carrying this assumption, which is showing disrespect by giving credence to such a silly idea, then it's best we move to a medium where we can be more confident
Yes, I do. I know with 100% certainty that you are a human being that I have been interacting with.
And I would be thrilled to have that interaction with you. It would allow us to have the conversation in that particular interaction, and address our points more clearly!
You're making an excellent argument for why switching to video or audio would be the superior medium, so thank you! Now, it's a great opportunity for us to move to that medium.
Then let's have one in a medium where we can both be more confident that we are interacting with human beings.
The Turing test is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from a human.
Every human, by default, including me, passes the Turing test because their behavior is, inherently, human.
I have, a number of times, quoted you directly. I urge you to go back and reread the conversation. If you missed the quote, it is not my responsibility to feed you the information again, I'm sorry to say.
No one said it was. I said you were acting offended, and that you should stop if you can. A good way towards demonstrating your "lack of offense" would be to abandon this utter waste of time and get back on a topic of productive conversation - if you can.
You are free to feel disrespected any time you wish, but that was never my intention or action.
What points have i not addressed directly? Name one. I'll wait.
You haven't made ANY relevant points to respond to in somewhere around 20 comments because you've been too busy expressing how "offended" (which necessarily includes "disrespected", by the by) you are ad nauseaum.
If you had read and understood my previous repeated responses to this incessant request, you would already understand why there isn't such a medium, why such a medium will never exist, and why even if such a medium could and did exist - it wouldn't matter because you still demonstrably lack the ability to have a productive conversation :( Feel free to demonstrate me wrong by engaging in productive conversation instead of this endless pity party.
Then you are foolish. Nothing i've said couldn't be accomplished by a bot or bot/human (hybrid) team.
This is the superior medium. Demonstrate that you are capable here, or be silent.
And yet, you still failed it and appeared as bot-like to a human evaluating you. What does this teach you about the turing test (besides that it can obviously be used on you - a purported human)?
Yes, and just like the latest time - i have responded, refuted, and discarded your baseless accusations without any further contest from you. If you feel you still have further contest to levy on one of the previously addressed "lies" you erroneously claimed, please point out which one, or be silent.
Hi there, audience here. :-D I don't normally chime in but I felt compelled by the... unique rathole y'all have taken this discussion into.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath, but also so unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation! It's honestly fascinating: you're like two turtles duking it out by bopping each other gently on the shell, venturing nothing, yielding nothing, dedicated entirely to stubbornness-presented-as-patience.
Y'all are usually fairly interesting to read; but now you're being dull.
If it helps you reset the conversation and "get back on a topic of productive conversation", here are my takes on the recent points:
Modeler: Jack is right, defending this "Turing tests can only be used on bots" position is irrelevant at best. You're wasting words defending a semantic point of no value to the conversation. You've seemingly dug in only to avoid "losing a point," so to speak, not because it's important to the central debate. You're not gonna out-semantic Jack---that's like his whole schtick.
Jack: It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder. This is kindergarten-level interpersonal stuff; there's no way you don't see why Modeler would feel disrespected or heck, even offended, by your statements. That rhetorical habit of yours is counter to the "productive conversation" you claim to love and belies the image you try to project of a calm rational interlocutor---knock it off. Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls, not one of the few people obviously actually trying to have a discussion with you.
And for the record, Jack: to an outside observer, Modeler doesn't seem to be behaving like a bot any more than you are; to my eyes, he's only demonstrating the same conversational stubbornness (e.g., refusal to yield trivial points, refusal to specifically cite to prior comments, insistence on semantic distinctions) that you yourself are guilty of.
Anyway, I'm hugely impressed and thankful for the stamina you both display in sticking to this conversation. And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these, then by all means, continue. But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
Well color me surprised! Welcome to, and apologies for, the rathole!
While you're here anyhow, i hope it will prove useful to have a somewhat objective third party's perspective on said rathole.
As far as i recall, i am the only one who has been doing that (though the question "god, why?!" frequently comes to mind). This other "participant" does not express that view, and acts pretty consistently contrary to it.
If they agreed that their responses were a waste of breath, i certainly missed that interaction!
I disagree. I've extended earnest apologies for unintended offense several times, and have been earnestly trying to resolve the situation. The only "inch" i will not budge on is to take responsibility for their (re)actions. I acknowledge that by telling them they were/are acting in a bot like manner that i upset them, caused them to feel disrespected, and contributed to their abandonment of the conversation writ large - and although i do and have apologized for any unintended offense, i cannot take responsibility for their actions. To do so would only ensure such childish habits in the future, and be disearnest placation.
I'm open to suggestions! I cannot and would not force the horse to earnestly converse - though i can stupidly continue to try and lead them towards it. Repeating the same action and hoping for a different outcome :(
I could not agree more. I probably should have just blocked them when i said i would. Pity and hope got the better of me - perhaps with a little prostration/attempted restitution mixed in.
They have made it very clear that they have no want or interest in continuing any earnest or productive conversation - even if they should happen to be capable of it. So be it.
I can certainly understand this view, but i don't agree with it personally. As i said to modeler - perhaps i have become callous to such accusations having been online for so long, but i can't help but feel like such callous is a good and necessary thing to have. I am from the "sticks and stones" generation, after all.
From my perspective, there is no rudeness intended by any captcha or other bot detection method - including my own. Telling them that they are exhibiting bot like tendencies which are preventing meaningful discussion was not intended to be rude or to offend - but so such tendencies could (hopefully) be avoided so that productive conversation could continue. Although it certainly can be received as rude, such minor rudeness (even major rudeness, in my view) must be able to be overcome/overlooked if productive conversation (rational discourse) is your aim. It is a necessary conversational skill.
I expressed an earnest concern and evaluation that they were appearing more likely a bot through exhibiting these behaviors (repeatedly, to boot).
What rhetorical habit? Being rude? I don't think i have a habit of that - rhetorical or otherwise. Though, as i said - i can certainly see how i was received that way and understand why in this context.
In general, i agree that some of my interactions here have been more "troll handling" than i would prefer - but it was difficult to feel that there wasn't a willful troll on the other side considering their absolute steadfast refusal to get back on any topic, and utter devotion to continuing this endless "aside" ad nauseaum despite repeated pleas to the contrary. Top that with a barrage of baseless "you're a liar (but i won't quote/cite how or when)" "cherries" and you have yourself a troll sundae :(
That's because they are mirroring me (another bot tendency, by the by). Even the specific verbiage used is lifted. However, i don't shy away from admitting mistake or quoting/citing specifically (within reason). As for being a semantic pedant - guilty as charged, but i do try not to be needlessly pedantic.
Not at all. My finger hovers above the block button even now. I am not completely convinced they are not a bot or have not been a bot at previous times in this discussion - however, for my part - i don't much care if they are or not. If they can avoid the conversational habits that bots engage in and otherwise hold earnest rational discourse - i'm happy to engage if for nothing else than the ordering (and/or refining) of my own thoughts.
The other impetus to continue discussion is the off chance that it is as you say - as it sometimes appears in communication with them - that they have an earnest interest in the subject/discussions and my demeanor and/or approach has pushed them away from it into this mindlessly repetitive and reflexively contrarian death spiral. I certainly don't want that to be the case, and am happy to make any amends i can to remedy that (possible in this forum).
God, i've been saying that dozens of ways since this whole rathole began - it is my sincere hope that modeler responds differently to your plea than to the dozens of mine.
Thanks for chiming in!
lol thanks!
And I'm telling you you are mistaken. I am simply calling our your disrespect.
Again, I am not offended. Sensing disrespect is not the same as being offended. You should try and drop that from your understanding.
Of course there is. On video/audio, it is significantly more diffficult for a bot to pass as human, as real-time interaction and response is something that AI is not capable of to pass a Turing test. If you believe otherwise, then that's an interesting stance you have, but I would be extremely surprised if over video you still were not able to tell if I were human or not.
I would say it's foolish at this point to even consider the idea that you might be a bot. Only a fool would suggest such a thing. For instance, see here:
You say here that you are a human, so then why on earth would it be considered foolish for me to say that I am certain you are human? You insult me just for the sake of insulting me? Seems pretty illogical.
I make a correct evaluation of the person you are, and you call me foolish for thinking so. It seems you are just trying to be confrontational.
Don't tell me. Show me, through your actions.
I've already explained my position on this thoroughly. If you don't want to understand it, or the reasoning behind it (which i've also shared, thoroughly) - then i can't (and wouldn't, if i could!) force you.
If only that were the case :( We are well and truly "through the looking glass" now. It is foolish to not consider any online entity potentially a bot - even one that was previously a human.
I do. Bots can (and do) too :(
Because blindly believing the voices you encounter - wether online or in real life - is foolish.
Certainly not. I fully and sincerely apologize for any offense or insult you have interpreted/received from my words; i know you may find this hard to believe, but it is not my intention.
I work very hard (though admittedly do still fail) to only ever attack the thought and never the thinker (aka: avoid ad hominem). Foolish, stupid, genius - these are aspects of humanity, not archetypes. When i call an idea or action of yours stupid or foolish (or vice versa) that does not mean i am attacking you or saying that i do not also have foolish and stupid ideas/actions. When i say you are foolish for believing i could not be a bot, i am not painting you as an archetypal fool incapable of any better or otherwise a fool in every regard - i am saying that that specific view is foolish.
Things are not always as they seem. It is true that i am a human, and that you are correct in that (though bots can claim the same). It is not true that i was intending to disrespect you at any point during this discussion - but i fully understand (and even earnestly apologize for) why and how it was received that way by you. Things are not always as they appear to us - even though that subjective reality we experienced was!
Not intentionally no. Perhaps naturally, and out of frustration.
The very reason I have to tell you is because you've been misinterpreting the actions I have already shown you. I am simply, politely, correcting you.
I understand your argument, I am refuting it with a counter, by stating that interaction with a bot is significantly easier to discern when the conversation is over audio, video, or better still, in person, something that is quite common knowledge. Obviosuly, I think the latter option will likely have logistical issues, which is why the next best option is video.
This is why I had asked if you believe a robot could pass the Turing test in a conversation with you if had over video (a question you still have not answered). I was making sure whether I'm correct in understanding you have the (extremely uncommon and surprising) belief that you think that it's easier to discern whether a person is human over text, rather video, or any other medium
I'm not blindly believing anything. The evidence is clear, that you are 100% a human being. To doubt that, at this stage, is foolish.
If you need to choose your words more carefully, be more mindful to do so. Your actions are showing to be one that are attacking my character rather than the idea. It's clear that the idea is not worth attacking, because you an I both know that you are a human being. It's inreasonable for you to go after that idea.
However, you still do attack my character imilar to how you in your repeated suggestions that "my behavior is bot-like." It's attacking me, often in efforts to either distract or avoid the topic at hand, but ultimately to not address the idea that I present to you.
This is the entire reason why I have chosen to direct our attention to this tendency of yours, in hopes that you would realize it and learn to be more earnest in having an honest discussion of ideas.
Understandable that you might be frustrated! I'm simply attempting to appease frustration, and lack of clarity, by suggesting we move to a medium where we can more intentional and honest dialogue.
It becomes much easier to answer questions directly, and to not drop off the topic when direct questions are asked by one person to the other.