Odd. You assert one thing that is not necessarily supported by fact and then ask that the discussion is pointless and it should cease?
The moving/non-moving throttles have been an issue since they were introduced and when I transitioned from Boeings to Airbus, I wondered about it also. But in the years I flew it, I never had any problem knowing what the engines were doing. I fell back on my old training of respect any weakness and play to any strength.
And when I was on the 737, we had an accident in CLT where a 737 landed, hydroplaned and went off the end of 36R. (aside... the airplane went off the end of the runway and wound up resting on a railroad track. Months earlier I had complained to the union and company about the practice of the railroad of parking cars on the track. I was mocked and told there was no way an airplane would make it that far. But I persisted and eventually the railroad agreed to NOT park cars on the extended centerline of the runway. Had there been cars on the tracks that night, there would have been significant fatalities. My point is to always argue the point of safety even it is seems a distant possibility)
Were one to scan the accident record, it would be hard to prove one design markedly better than another without cherry-picking. I flew the 737 during the rudder hard-over era and we spent a lot of time working through that issue. But would I suggest Boeing designs were better/worse than Airbus or Douglas or others based on that flaw? No. Each design has its flaws and good points and the wise aviators knows what they are.