Sugar is clearly not a necessary part of nutrition. I have several relatives who live completely sugar-free who are feeling better than they ever have. No sugar intake, not even fruit, no carbs that turn into sugar. It’s the LCHF diet. So it’s a pretty good example after all.

Ketogenic and low carb diets aren't sugar free, they are very low sugar, even grains contain trace amounts of sugars.

But let's agree to disagree on that one,it's not particularly important to this general context.

Look, you’re doing your very best at making me out to be the bad guy here.

If you think that me disagreeing with your viewpoint is making you out to be a bad person there's not much i can do about that.

With your extreme stretching of what I’m saying, that “we as one people on earth” is “still a grouping” but it’s a group consisting of all people? Come on, bruh. Really? That’s just being extreme.

My stance has been that categorization and grouping are core parts so linguistic understanding and communication, so trying to make out that they are only detrimental in their usage is silly.

I keep pointing out your usage of groupings in your attempts to explain why grouping is bad, to emphasise that point.

Claiming hyperbole doesn't negate your usage of groups, large or small.

I feel like you’re up to some kind of rhetorical abuse here. It’s not sea-lioning, but almost tangential. Breaking down every single detail of what I’m saying, isolating it from its context, then generalizing it. Ignoring the major points. It’s not a pleasant way to have a discussion, friend.

If you want to make broad claims and then insist counterpoints are nitpicking, that's on you.

If you want to quote a major point you made, with all the context surrounding it, i will point to the direct counter to that.

You know what I’m saying and what you’re doing isn’t cool. Just thought I would let you know. (Also, inb4 “oh oh, it’s not pleasant when you’re WRONG?!” I can see this one coming, so please. I’m saying this knowing full well how it sounds.)

Your opinion of coolness isn't really a concern, if you don't want to engage that's fine, just say so.

Incidentally the pleasantness of a conversation isn't necessarily tied to the correctness of your (or my) position. If it's unpleasant for you feel free to disengage.

Look, I’m just calling it out like I see it, that name-calling isn’t productive,

There was no name-calling, quote the section where it happened and i will concede this point.

and I told you I’m focusing on this particular example of calling this person a Luddite and how it isn’t helpful to the conversation at all. There’s no need for grouping one individual in this case. Right? That was my point.

And i used that specific example in my response.

The message i originally replied to is here :

I don’t understand the reason or need to be calling anyone anything, even if it’s accurate. Names for groups of people who think a certain thing only serve to polarize the discourse, at best, or worse, target them with propaganda (aimed at the “other” group).

Creating a “them” is just counterproductive to the conversation and the facts.

I responded to that general statement, when you then wanted to focus on the more specific context, i responded to that.

It seems you don't want to discuss this with me, that's fine, pretending to be aggrieved about me responding in general to a specific statement when that's provably false is "not cool"