That is totally orthogonal to what the parent said.

They could know what they are doing, or they could be blathering idiots. Or, possibly, their use cases might be different than another person's.

Whatever the case, by just saying that they "won't miss feature X", they still tells us something about them but nothing about the feature.

To do the latter, they'd have to up their argumentation.

Yes, and that they aren't giving enough discussion to the universe of situations and whether given that universe, the trade off of feature inclusion or exclusion is worth it. There may be a fitter initial frame of discussion for language policy than focusing on your situation. At the very least, if you argue broadly, then you should give a clue about why you think your case is a sufficient proxy for the general case.