Loka wrote: But on that score, my reading is "fallacious" only relatively, from your point of view.
Not really because Buddhist traditions for the last twenty-five centuries, Mahāyāna included, have all regarded rebirth as a phenomenon that sentient beings all undergo as a result of their afflictions.
We don't really need to debate that fact. If you want to argue otherwise, you're just advocating a revisionist opinion not based on tradition or canon.
But there is no difference between samsara and nirvana, absolutely none. But teach me, what are these implications you say I don't understand?
If you haven't actualized such a profound principle, then you're an ordinary common being like the rest of us and the horrors and pains of saṃsāra are real enough to cause extreme mental agony.
There is a difference between noble and common beings. The former don't suffer. The latter do.
So, in principle saṃsāra and nirvāṇa might be non-dual, but for common people on the ground such a principle is only abstract and intellectually understood at best. That means if someone accuses you on false charges or physically harms you, you still continue to suffer mentally regardless of how much intellectual understanding of emptiness you have.