2. There are sufficient people who are trading Bitcoin NFTs. We can safely say they exist (even if you deem Ordinals Theory a "scam") in their current shape or form, which is up to you to decide if it's worth anything. You can't just hate a concept into non-existence 
There is no such thing as a Bitcoin NFT because there is no such thing in the protocol. Their existence has nothing to do with whether people trade them or not.For example my previous post here "msg64579198" also can be tracked since it has a number attached to it and you can call it a NFT and pay me a million dollars for it. That doesn't make it into a NFT though. It also doesn't prevent me from deleting that post because it is centralized and I control its existence.
Why? Because bitcointalk is not a token creation platform and my post was not a smart contract that is being executed in a decentralized platform.
The same with what you refer to as "Bitcoin NFTs". They are literally treated as arbitrary data by the Bitcoin protocol. There is no script. There is no smart contract. There is no verification. Just arbitrary data.
Quote
If you ask someone who doesn't know anything about Ordinals Theory to track sats (for whatever reason), they will come up with the same rules.
And none of it is part of the Bitcoin protocol hence they are all arbitrary in Bitcoin world. Worst of all is that none of those rules were created nor can they change in a decentralized way. It is all centralized.Quote
4. How will Bitcoin scale if it can't handle a few tens of thousands trading their "fake tokens"? The same high fees would be produced by people using Bitcoin on mass for everyday transactions. What then? We'll shout at people that they're just transferring low amounts of Bitcoin and thus should burden their network with their insignificant transactions? All Bitcoin transactions are the same: be it a "fake token" buy or a Bitcoin transfer, or whatever. For people who can't afford to transfer their btc because of high fees, we have lightning.
First of all lets be clear about what is happening here. People found an exploit in the protocol and have been abusing it to inject arbitrary data into the chain. To put simply people are using the decentralized ledger of a payment system as a cloud storage which is the definition of abuse.Secondly your arguments regarding bitcoin's scaling issues is not a justification for this abuse. One of Bitcoin's shortcomings is its scaling issues, but that doesn't mean people should abuse the protocol and turn it into a cloud storage.
Quote
5. Calling someone an idiot because of their "taste" in choosing what to collect is straight-up wrong.
I already explained why they are idiots at the beginning of this post. That's because they think they are trading a token while what they are trading is not a token at all.Bitcoin is not the ethereum (or other similar) platform(s) that you can create a token on.
You're deviating from the subject of the post. I didn't talk that much about "Bitcoin NFTs". It seems to me at this point that you're just venting your personal issues with Bitcoin Inscriptions, which is fine, but the arbitrary assignment of data to certain sats is not required for rare sats to exist.
Anyway, to address some of your points:
1. Marketplaces and services that engage with ordinals all run their own instance of the indexer. If Rodarmor decides to do an update on the git which isn't liked by the market, the services will just keep running the old version. While that's not a very strong degree of decentralization, it isn't centralized. When Bitcoin had 100 nodes it wasn't very decentralized either (not trying to compare the two, but trying to emphasize that the Ordinals protocol can get a higher degree of decentralization in the future). I don't understand how the analogy with your message is valid, as the data stays on Bitcoin. If you're referring to the consensus that creates the "pointer" might change, refer to my previous phrase. I'd argue it can't be changed now because the market wouldn't agree and run its own fork of the indexer with unchanged pointers.
2. "They are all arbitrary in the Bitcoin world". Yeah, but we're not living in the "Bitcoin world" are we? There can be another market consensus outside Bitcoin. I already explained why the consensus needed for "rare sats" (not for Bitcoin NFTs) is not really arbitrary. Please refer to that.
3. UTXOs are not "rare". Sats can be rare. UTXOs, as you already kindly mentioned, are spent and that's the end of their lifespan. Sats can be considered to flow from inputs to outputs according to "not-so-arbitrary" rules as stated in my post.
4. Using Bitcoin as cloud storage may have advantages (if you're not obtuse and change-averse and you can cherry-pick the good use-cases). I've joined a twitter space with Julian Assange's brother and other laser-eyes maxis who started an initiative based on Ordinals Theory to post the Afghan Logs on the Bitcoin chain, proving that Bitcoin (if you're willing to pay) can also act as a censorship-free publication network. They didn't leverage the "pointer" consensus, as it didn't matter who "owned" the Afghan Logs, but they did try to open the eyes of the people that Bitcoin could have this use-case as well. Wouldn't it have been simpler for Snowden to simply publish the documents onchain if Ordinals Theory was a thing back then? If you refuse the exploration of anything new, you wind up exactly as the old-school economists who dismissed Bitcoin as a fad. Nobody is trying to convince you to trade NFTs on Bitcoin or to acknowledge their existence. You could, however, attempt to derive some usefulness from the "exploit" you're so unhappy about. I argue that objectively positive use cases can arise.
5. Nobody believed they were trading a "token". They bought a sat governed by the rules explained above, which is not a token or NFT.