but why? I know I sound like a toddler asking like that. is it pointless to add that stuff?

The statement commits the fallacy of equivocation by ambiguously shifting the meaning of “monetary transaction.” In the context of Bitcoin, this term typically refers to transfers of value (e.g., sending BTC between parties as a form of payment or exchange). However, the statement redefines it to include any transaction that incurs a fee paid to miners for inclusion in a block, even if the primary purpose is non-monetary, such as embedding arbitrary data without value transfer. This equivocal use of the term makes the argument appear valid when it isn’t.