I do not consider "off chain" solutions or "second layer" solutions to be a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all. The only way to significantly scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize.
Then we have nothing to talk about. Your limited and closed-minded view (not ad hominem, nor am I trying to be offensive) is not adaptable to changing and new technologies.
I am not against LN and SD, I am not against it being implemented at all. I just do not think we should change the economic policy of Bitcoin now unessarelly just because Bitcoin does not scale perfectly according to your ideals. In regards to me having a limited and close minded view, that is how I view your perspective so I suppose I am not offended.
You would pick a very inefficient way of transacting instead of a very efficient way of transacting for what, bragging rights?
Bitcoin does not make sense from an engineering perspective, but it does make a lot of sense in a human way. It makes certain technical sacrifices in terms of efficiency in favor of political and or ideological goals of freedom and decentralization. Concepts of democracy and decentralization might be very inefficient. However they are better for very human reasons, based on our subjective ethics.
What you don't understand is that LN gives the opportunity for two persons (or companies) to have an theoretically infinite amount of transactions between themselves and then settling on the block chain. Tell me why this is bad if the transactions on LN (a decentralized solution) are almost equally as secure, cheaper and faster (near instant transacting in a payment channel)?
I do not think that your vision of Bitcoin will be more decentralized or secure. Payment channels will still be possible on a more unrestricted Bitcoin, and of course can be used for the appropriate use cases. You view is limited and restricted, I am saying that Bitcoin can do it all. We do not have to choose between features, that would be a false dichotomy.