Obviously I'm a sede but I think when others speak of the so-called dangers they are referring to falling into a dogmatic thought process (calling others who don't hold the same opinion as schismatic, heretics, non-Catholic, etc).
But of course to your point that could happen with those on the sedeplenist side as well (as we have seen with certain posters here).
I agree that it seems to me that every single "danger" of the sedevacantist thesis applies at least equally to the R&R thesis. But when Matthew specified that he agreed with various posters about the dangers the sedevacantist thesis holds, I truly wanted to understand what those perceived dangers are.
I don't know a single sedevacantist who is happy with the current situation. I don't know a single sedevacantist who relishes in the crisis in the Church and the usurpation of the papal throne by heretics and apostates. I don't know a single sedevacantist who is actually gleeful about what happens in the Vatican and in the Conciliar churches on a daily basis.
It seems to me that the sedevacantist thesis is a safer position than the one the R&R has constructed that
reinterprets Catholic doctrines concerning the infallibility of the magisterium, that
reinterprets Catholic doctrines concerning canonizations, that
degrades the office of the papacy to a mere figurehead who has no real jurisdiction over the faith and morals of the simple faithful, etc., etc., etc.
On the other hand, I have no vested interest in being wrong. If the sedevacantist thesis is truly a
danger and if consistent reason can demonstrate that it is wrong, I
want to disavow that thesis. But, frankly, no one has shown that the sedevacantist thesis is a danger, at least, not a danger that isn't just as present in any other explanation of the Crisis while it seems to me that it poses less danger than many other explanations.
Legalisms aren't useful, for the sedevacantists can point to Canon Law as well (Canon 188, which, frankly, trumps every other canon Siscoe, Ferrara, and others have presented).
We hear a lot about the dangers of the sedevacantist thesis, but if this was so self-evident, I would expect that it should be easy to present them.