I know you technically "responded", but you're not understanding what I'm asking in my last comment. Please re-read my comment and understand what's required of

I know you technically "responded", but you're not understanding what I'm asking in my last comment. Please re-read my comment and understand what's required of you to actually think deeply about this topic. The inability of folks like you to do this is at the heart of this whole situation. Thinking through a topic has a type signature. The required type is "example scenario of your point". You are making points that are vacuous, points that have no example scenarios. It's a problem that can be caught in type checking.