Cupcakes, The Most Complex Food Of Them All

"Your statement was subjective. I know not everybody likes peanut butter. but I'm pretty sure not everyone likes lemons too.  it always depends on the person. and you, as an individual, you are not the whole world."         -me!
i remember a conversation i had with some companions and the statement above is what i should have said.
here's the scenario.

we were eating cupcakes, i was eating peanut butter and jelly, and my companion was eating lemon.  suddenly she said. "you know how people say that what you eat defines who you are? well here it goes.  not everybody likes peanut butter but you just have to deal with it"
well i was eating peanut butter so of course I'd pay attention to what she was saying. when she said "deal with it" i was confused whether she meant deal with the fact that not everybody likes peanut butter or peanut butter tastes bad. nonetheless of course, to avoid further conflicts,  if my memory serves me right, i responded with "well shouldn't you be criticizing yourself first?" and that's when the conversation ended.
after that short-lived conversation it still bothered me. is she really that..hmm.whats the right word.. "tactless" to bring up such subjective topic? or is she just frank..well then if she were "frank" wouldn't it be careless and illogical of her to bring up ,again, such subjective topic? 
in both cases of course, no one would win the said argument since after all, it is subjective. 
i don't know if this is legitimate but there is this something called the spiral staircase syndrome where you think about stuff you should have said in a previous argument.

"Your statement was subjective. I know not everybody likes peanut butter. but I'm pretty sure not everyone likes lemons too.  it always depends on the person. and you, as an individual, you are not the whole world."  

its what i should have said.  but then again, even if  i have said this. i do not think that she'd be able to comprehend it since ,after all,  a person with a mind like that bringing up an argument which no one is to be called the winner is mind-numbingly stupid, and to say it with such bravado is for me, shamefully arrogant.  and of course, for my own sake, not deserving of my wisdom.

i might seem arrogant at his point but do you not agree with me? i just carefully dissected and fully understood an argument which was not meant to be won.  and i tell you, of all my years debating with my mind and others, that understanding an argument, rather than winning it is far more fulfilling.(and it makes me feel smart too! )