I never said you held that view. I said your rationale is the same as those who do. There is a difference, which you might have grasped were you not in such a hurry to make things personal.
That one word singularly defines the theme of the book. I blogged about this when it happened over at my web site and I'm one of those who thinks this is a travesty. I only hope that one day no one does this to my books. http://www.michaeldevault.com/?p=280 And no, having it "read with the change," is far less preferable to "not read at all," in my book. After all--changing those words demonstrates the system of the Old South as a working model. It changes the theme of the book, the imagery of the book disintegrates and the entire book becomes nothing more than a caricature apology for the Old South.
The absence of 'nigger' does not dilute the text as diasatrously as you seem to think. (Unless he's a very bad writer for whom the only means of depicting one person's disregard for another is to have them uttering pejoratives. Is he a bad writer?) That you think it does, is in part due to investing 'nigger' with a potency that it simply did not have c. 1880.
And in that you're wrong, art. It was one thing to "speak" the word, but another all together to put it in print. One of the biggest complaints about the book when it was released -- and there were loads of complaints about the book -- was its use of crude language and the characters Twain created. I do not think it dilutes the text 'disastrously'. I said the change erases Twain's intended theme. There's a slight difference.
To repeat: it only erases the theme if you believe Twain is a a risibly incompetent author. The original misgivings about the work had nothing to do with a particular word; the concerns were broader: