So it has an all aluminum chassis, 8000rpm engine, double wishbone suspension, Senna involvement with testing (on a track no less), and a long history of winning championships because it's meant to be something other than a sports/track car?
What percentage of people on this forum actually track their cars? 10%? Probably less? So the vast majority of people here are posers because they don't track their sports/track car?
Just because a car was developed to be competent at something doesn't mean that's all it's good for. Quite the opposite in fact, as witnessed by so many small and efficient Hondas make great track cars. By your definition, the NSX should have been sold without A/C or a heater, and should have only been sold as a stripped down track only version. Are the SUVs that are developed at the Nurburgring, or a BMW M5 track cars too?
Your logic isn't consistent:
-So if a car scrapes it's silly. My stock NSX scraped everywhere, so it's silly.
-Things that take skill are with merit, but donks are stupid because you deem them to be made without any skill involved (fitting 34 inch wheels to car designed for 15 inch wheels doesn't take any skill?) yet Bosozoku is "retarded" but requires impressive fabrication, so it's somewhat ok?
-VIP is stupid because the originally comfy car rides poorly, yet pre-runners, which I see on the street all the time, are ok because they are a form of race car (you're assuming a lot), but they are inherently dangerous on the street given their soft suspension and lots of body roll.
-Cafe racers are "kind of silly" in your book but they are actually much closer to race car inspired than the other styles mentioned, as they tend to be stripped out and very minimalist.
-Rat rods are "impressive" because of the fabrication that goes into them, yet they scrape all over the place, ride poorly and have taken cars that otherwise might be valuable but have, strictly speaking, been devalued and made to ride poorly with purposefully beat up exteriors. All of that seems to be "retarded" or "silly" in your book but rat rots remain impressive.
What's my point? I think you need to admit you just don't get it, don't have a rational reason for disliking it (and you really don't need one, you just don't like it) and quit arguing your point because none of your arguments make sense.
This isn't a personal attack, I just don't think your reasoning holds any water. I've actually really enjoyed this thread because it forces me to look at why I do and don't like certain things automotive. What I don't do, however, is spend lots of time dumping all over other people's tastes and ways of doing things, and go as far as dumping on a whole generation of people over something as minor as cars.