Calling me “delusional” doesn't erase what you wrote. Let's review the evidence you're so determined to ignore.
“Prepending ‘what it is like’ to them doesn’t mean anything. ‘Like’ means ‘akin to’ or ‘similar to,’ and ‘what it is’ regards being. And so the phrase, if taken literally, is about ‘similar being’...”
You declared the expression meaningless, then dissected its constituent words to argue that its literal interpretation makes no sense. That's a characterization of your reasoning, not a fabricated quotation. I never claimed it was your only objection.
In that very same comment, you wrote:
“Words are ultimately a social construct, what is real is what they refer to when used in practice, and not the specific definition in the dictionary.”
“You can just know what it means by its social use.”
Source: your comment, paragraphs beginning “Of course, if we have...” and “You can just know...”
I identified the inconsistency between your appeal to social usage and your literal dissection of an established expression. You haven't explained that inconsistency, let alone resolved it.
Instead, after being presented with direct quotations, you've resorted to categorical denials and personal insults. Repeating that an interpretation was “hallucinated” doesn't demonstrate that it's false. You need to show where the inference fails. You've done nothing of the sort.
If you can't distinguish between quoting someone's words and critically examining their implications, you have no business lecturing anyone about language or reasoning.
I've provided the evidence twice. I'm not wasting a third explanation on someone whose entire rebuttal amounts to “I never said that” and “you're delusional.” Get your shit together.