When are you going to give an honest appraisal on the flaws of your big-blocker ideology?  Why can't you openly admit that you wish to compel everyone running a full node to bear a larger cost to achieve your preferred outcome?  That's your fantasy.  It's unlikely to come true any time soon.  And what annoys you more than anything else is that LN isn't a fantasy.  It's real and people are using it.

You're the one trying to sell utopia, where there are supposedly no tradeoffs in cranking up the size of blocks to squeeze in more transactions.  Be honest for once in your miserable existence.  Admit there is a cost to having larger blocks.  Admit that you want those who secure the network to bear that increase in cost.

Ours is the pragmatic approach.  If you wish to make lots of relatively small transactions, you have the option of paying for the same on-chain security as someone sending a vast sum, or you have the option of sacrificing some security and making some of your transactions off-chain.  No one is being forced.  We're just presenting the options.

You aren't giving people options.  You're demanding that other people pay for your ideology.  Only problem is, you can't make them.  The people who bear the costs would have to volunteer to increase their burden.  It's collectively up to them.  None of your weasel-words and obnoxious behaviour can alter that fact.

If you have any better ideas (and let's be honest, you clearly don't), then we're going to continue highlighting the benefits of LN because Bitcoin isn't a dictatorship and most users seemingly don't agree with dumping the cost of greater throughput onto those who help secure the network.