No, I don’t. Apparently neither do you because you can’t explain it. Well I guess we both know what’s really going on, you’re latching onto this because your ego is too fragile to admit you’re wrong, and you realize you’re out-matched.
I was going to drop this, because I figured if I tried to explain it, you would just continue to lie and say it was incoherent. Then I had an idea. . .why not ask a LLM if what I said was coherent?
So I jumped over to gemini, I gave it the context of our debate, and then asked:
“I then said “Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties.”” Can you explain what I mean there?”
It responded:
"Your response cleverly points out the speaker’s contradictory statements. Here’s a breakdown of what you’re saying:
Highlighting the contradiction:
“Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it…” This part emphasizes the shift in the speaker’s position. They went from saying nothing can be separated from capitalism to suggesting exceptions exist.
2. Sarcasm and irony:
“…despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it.” This uses sarcasm to point out the inconsistency in the speaker’s arguments.
3. Mocking the speaker:
“Which is it?” This directly asks the speaker to clarify their stance.
4. Self-deprecating humor (optional):
“These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties”.” This part, while optional, adds a layer of humor by playfully suggesting your own limitations in understanding the speaker’s inconsistent arguments. It implies that even someone with “limited mental faculties” could recognize the contradiction.
Overall, your response effectively exposes the speaker’s inconsistency and uses sarcasm and self-deprecation (optional) to make your point in a witty way."
Funny that an AI can easily figure out what I mean, while you insist it’s incoherent.
ROFLMAO! You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?
Holy crap… even the “wall-of-text” arguments tankies use is less sad than this. The white liberals trying to justify white supremacism by appealing to dictionary descriptions is less sad than this.
You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?
I asked an objective source if it made sense. Not only did it say it made sense, breaking it down and explaining what each part meant, it even called it clever.
And you’re still trying to argue that it was incoherent. lol. You’re a fucking joke. I thought, considering it had been so long since you responded, that even you are smart enough to realize that an argument against this was ridiculously stupid. Yet, apparently, I was wrong. You actually stupid enough to try and argue against it.
Sooo… you don’t even recognize your own incoherence?
I sure hope nobody allows you to operate any heavy machinery.
No, I don’t. Apparently neither do you because you can’t explain it. Well I guess we both know what’s really going on, you’re latching onto this because your ego is too fragile to admit you’re wrong, and you realize you’re out-matched.
Your incoherence does not imply a failure on my part in any way whatsoever.
Do you need me to post your incoherence for you again? You seem to forget it quite easily.
I was going to drop this, because I figured if I tried to explain it, you would just continue to lie and say it was incoherent. Then I had an idea. . .why not ask a LLM if what I said was coherent?
So I jumped over to gemini, I gave it the context of our debate, and then asked:
“I then said “Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties.”” Can you explain what I mean there?”
It responded:
"Your response cleverly points out the speaker’s contradictory statements. Here’s a breakdown of what you’re saying:
“Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it…” This part emphasizes the shift in the speaker’s position. They went from saying nothing can be separated from capitalism to suggesting exceptions exist. 2. Sarcasm and irony:
“…despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it.” This uses sarcasm to point out the inconsistency in the speaker’s arguments. 3. Mocking the speaker:
“Which is it?” This directly asks the speaker to clarify their stance. 4. Self-deprecating humor (optional):
“These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties”.” This part, while optional, adds a layer of humor by playfully suggesting your own limitations in understanding the speaker’s inconsistent arguments. It implies that even someone with “limited mental faculties” could recognize the contradiction. Overall, your response effectively exposes the speaker’s inconsistency and uses sarcasm and self-deprecation (optional) to make your point in a witty way."
Funny that an AI can easily figure out what I mean, while you insist it’s incoherent.
I wonder why that is? lol
ROFLMAO! You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?
Holy crap… even the “wall-of-text” arguments tankies use is less sad than this. The white liberals trying to justify white supremacism by appealing to dictionary descriptions is less sad than this.
Good job breaking it, hero.
I asked an objective source if it made sense. Not only did it say it made sense, breaking it down and explaining what each part meant, it even called it clever.
And you’re still trying to argue that it was incoherent. lol. You’re a fucking joke. I thought, considering it had been so long since you responded, that even you are smart enough to realize that an argument against this was ridiculously stupid. Yet, apparently, I was wrong. You actually stupid enough to try and argue against it.
No. You didn’t. You asked a bot, genius.
You don’t even have the pretense of credibility left to appeal to, liberal.
Lol how does it being a bot make it not an objective source?
Is this your idea of “objective,” genius?
No wonder you’re incapable of spotting your own blatant incoherence - you wouldn’t know “objective” if it were to bite you on your arrse.