You are correct that under this extremely unlikely scenario this principle does not hold, a slightly modified statement would though: "I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain that also contains the Bitcoin genesis block should be defined as Bitcoin". Another exception might be if the hashing algorithm is ever changed for legitimate reasons, thanks for pointing this out, you are keeping me sharp!
You've also factored in something that may likely be modified to a certain degree in the future. Even if the algorithm was only modified to SHA512, then even the current Bitcoin wouldn't fit into that description.Good to hear that Lauda, the possibility exist that we might one day be in agreement then. 
I could always be proven wrong in the future as well, and I would have to admit the fault and continue learning.
I think that, even if we disregard a lot of the misinformation in regards to the block size limit (e.g. idiotic posts like:"My computer could handle 100MB+ blocks"; "Scale now or doomsday"), there are some people with genuine concerns on each side. Such people would not be afraid of being wrong. The goal is to scale Bitcoin in the best possible approach. I'm primarily anti controversial hard forks. Additionally, I think that this debate is being abused by people who could be damaged by Bitcoin's success. They could easily abuse it by paying people to "infiltrate" each side and keep inciting war, flame and hatred on each other. I could always be proven wrong in the future as well, and I would have to admit the fault and continue learning. Point taken about consecutive posts, I will do my best to avoid that. I can lump them together now actually.
Great!