I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical argument:
There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.
I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.
I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.
Actually, you never challenged my argument.
And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument:
It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.
We are not off to a very good start I must say considering how many clarifications it took to move you off of your position that I had made a straw-man argument, and now this contradiction in claims about whether or not you have in fact actually given a logical argument at all. But nevertheless, I am always open to debate and so if you would like to fully flesh out an argument I'm all for it, though at this point in my evolution on this topic I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately, as that is my primary concern in all of this.