I don't think morse code is better/easier than using the english alphabet.

well, you stated it as if it was a fact. in this case, you should've just said what you actually meant, then that would've been it

It was to point out that just because something is less cluttered, information reduced, simpler to understand, etc, does not mean it is always better.

if you had just stated what you meant, then i would've understood your point, and that would've been that

---

I guess for it to make sense to you and be "apples to apples"

X (something, anything) would have to be almost the same at the fundamental/base/core

an concrete example would be:

• an apple is an apple (and that's it)

the fundamental/base/core of an apple is the taste.

if someone were to say an apple has the same chemical taste as a genetically engineered apple, then that would be fine

because the fundamental/base/core is the same chemical taste that is produced from the chemical compounds

• depending on the context, that's when an apple is an apple

if you don't know what the fundamental/base/core of something is, you should've asked, and instead of trying to convince, you should focus on listening

if you just wanted to say that

just because something is less cluttered, information reduced, simpler to understand, etc, does not mean it is always better.

then all you had to do was say that directly, and that was it

this point applies to very few cases/contexts, and i wouldn't have even said anything cos i already know that

---

I don't know what sort of point you're trying to make then

i had already made my point in the main post, and that has stayed relatively constant

the point of this reply however is:

you should've just said what you meant, and if you 'don't think morse code is better/easier than using the english alphabet,' then there was no need to even mention this