I view your post as ill advised as those you seem to be reacting to. The camera is a tool. RAW and JPG are options of the tool that can be used for good or ill advantage.
"Pros" are not "all of the same opinion" on any topic -- not even RAW vs. JPG.
I was mostly a jpg shooter my first 2 years with a DSLR. I'm now a raw shooter. I know all the ins and outs of the debate.
When I was a jpg shooter, I chaffed at the RAW bigots who poo pooed any body who didn't shoot RAW.
Now that I've made the switch I certainly don't want to become such a bigot. Frankly, if there was a jpg workflow along the lines of Rawshooter, I'd probably shoot jpg more often. Yes, even knowing the advantages of RAW.
The advantages of RAW never go away, but they are NOT nearly as great when you start out with a well exposed photo.
The disadvantages of RAW are real as well -- and are enough to convince many a REASONABLE shooter to choose to shoot jpg. If one can get the exposure and wb that one seeks to get most of the time such that the images one gets are pleasing -- there is no need for the HASSLE of raw.
Every photo is not a singular work of art worthy of being doted on. And even the relatively small amount of time a seasened RAW veteran can spend on a raw file will add up when you have hundreds or a thousand to do at a time. And the space adds up very quickly.
So -- how about we tone this back a bit into the "when is it advisable to shoot raw vs. jpg" kinda discussion.
Lee
