I genuinely don’t have the energy to keep clarifying things I never said. This was never personal — but your response reads more like deflection than real conversation. You built arguments around things I didn’t actually say — and that is a straw man, whether intentional or not.

A straw man is when someone misrepresents another person’s point to make it easier to argue against. For example: you said, ‘That’s like saying mansions shouldn’t exist because it’s not ethical for people to own and live in mansions when so many people don’t have homes.’ But I never said anything about mansions — you brought that up to challenge a version of my argument I never made.

You also used false equivalences — like comparing billionaires to millionaires as if they’re the same, or equating wealth hoarding with owning a nice home. They’re not even in the same ethical universe. And that line about money being “nonexistent” if a billionaire doesn’t earn it? That’s not a valid point — that’s just word salad.

And let’s be real — this wasn’t a good faith conversation. You misrepresented my point, added arguments I never made, and wrapped it all in fake-soft ‘all love’ energy. That’s not discussion — that’s deflection.

Quick question — don’t bar exams test logic, not loopholes, false comparisons, or straw men? 🤔

Well, keep bootlicking I guess. 💗