Then start demonstrating some.  Common sense would suggest not every job demands a sledgehammer.  Sometimes a small hammer is more useful.  Not everyone needs to drive a bus when a small car or even a bicycle can sometimes be more practical.  Bigger isn't always better.  Same applies to blocks.

Forcing everyone to accept bigger blocks is not sensible.  There are consequences which you never admit.



If we accept your premise that larger blocks offer more utility, then you should have no problem explaining why everyone hasn't switched to BCH.  It's everything you claim Bitcoin should be.  They are doing everything you want us to do.  Why should we copy their approach when it isn't working for them? 

I take the stance that having a choice between on-chain and off-chain unequivocally offers more utility versus not having that choice.  That's common sense.  I would also posit that if off-chain transactions didn't offer more utility, people wouldn't be using them.  But they are.  People find this technology useful.  More useful than larger blocks.  Acknowledge this fact.  Learn to accept it.



Believe me when I say that I absolutely would not waste my time responding to you if this were a private message.  It's precisely because other people can read this that I choose to challenge your hard-line fundamentalist dogma.  I want people to know that you are an authoritarian wingnut and you wish people didn't have the freedom to transact in a manner you don't personally approve of.  I want other people to have a better understanding of consensus than you do.  It's also important people understand the consequences of a diminished node count if people ever became disincentivised to run full nodes because the distributed ledger which underpins our network became prohibitively costly to distribute.  You believe that only large corporate entities need to run full nodes and I want everyone to realise and understand the threat that would pose to decentralisation.  But you will never be honest about any of that.