Do people not understand what a semantic argument is?
Nobody that I can find on this thread has gone anywhere close to suggesting that they would just continue on their merry way if the destination went below minima. Not even if it was just an observation, which some parties suggest doesn't really matter.
All I suggest is that I separate the concept of "providing for an alternate" as a planning issue. After that, it becomes a question of inflight diversion - the concepts are more closely aligned (it is a question of what do I do with what I have, rather than what do I need to cover the known requirement) and I acknowledge that conditions may occur whereby it would be impossible for me to "provide for an alternate". If the legal requirement becomes useless at that point then from a philosophical perspective it is useless otherwise.
If your brain finds it easier to use the concept of alternate planning in flight, be my guest.