I've never once suggested anybody should stop talking about this. I'm simply pointing out that banning transactions you don't like isn't a viable long term solution to reducing fees.

Which is your opinion. People who use ordinals are of the opinion it is not spam. I happen to agree with you - ordinals are completely worthless spam - but I don't for a second believe that my opinion is the objective truth and everyone should do what I say.

If your barometer for what is spam is anything which isn't in keeping with "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system", then we also need to ban all transactions from centralized exchanges, since they are not peer to peer either.

They already pay for the space they use just like everyone else. And at the current fee rates, that is very expensive indeed.

So as I've pointed out above, you can transfer UTXOs from one address to the other and embed arbitrary data in the public key or even in the signature. It's impossible to ban that without hard forking to introduce some new zero knowledge proof that someone knows the private key of any address before coins are sent to it.