You: I prefer to talk about problems.
Me: Here are some problems.
You: You’re just trying to be mean.

You: Guilt can correct behaviour.
Me: Yes, if decisions take consequences into account.
You: That’s not relevant.

You: I want to talk about textual representations of concepts.
Me: So you want to talk about the link between text and meaning?
You: No

You don’t understand.

Understand what? That we can apply the abstract concept of feelings to the internal state of a machine? I do understand that. I agreed with it. I made it the basis of my own argument, which you never read.

That compunction can change behaviour? I agreed with that too and addressed it in that argument, which you never read.

That you don’t like to engage in reasonable argument, instead deflecting all critical examination as “you don’t understand”, “dabbling philosophy” or “being mean”?

I never said it was logical.

I think that just about sums up your entire position.