> I wasn't even arguing with you, nor saying that it doesn't matter to me, rather just pointing an out an observation.

My interpretation of your comment was that it related to my use of the word "important", which has a more subjective connotation than "significant" and arguably allows my comment to be interpreted in two ways. The second way (that I feel people should care more about the distinction I highlighted) was not my intended meaning, since obviously people can care about whatever they want. It was a relevant observation of imprecise wording on my part.

> there's no point in insulting the humans who could engage with you in that conversation.

There would be no point in engaging them in that conversation, either.

Disagreeing with me that the difference in kind I highlighted is important is fine, and maybe even an interesting conversation for both sides. Disagreeing with me that there is a significant difference in kind is just nonsensical, like arguing that there's no meaningful difference, at any level, between painting a painting yourself and buying one from a store. How can you approach a conversation like that? Yet positions like that appear in internet arguments all the time, which are generally arguments between anonymous strangers who often have no qualms about embracing total intellectual dishonesty because the[ir] goal is just to make their opponent mad enough that they forget the original point they were trying to make and go chasing the goalposts all over the room.

The only winning move is not to play, which requires being honest with yourself about who you're talking to and what they're trying to get out of the conversation. I am willing to share that honesty.

I am, to be clear, not saying you are one of these people.