Why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing? From I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?, I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point." 

This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering. 

I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, this person stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then all answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.) 

There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me:


My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected
If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta) 


So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?



FWIW, my though is said to be interesting if the readers are in analytic mode.
Related: Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?
Yes puthujjanas crave intellectualism, building fantasies, speculating, building a system of thoughts, classifying ideas, creating ideas, searching for definitions, and they always invent a story where they are good people for spending their day doing philosophy. Always claiming that their speculation ''makes things clearer''. It is completely normal.

And, when they hear that the only good use of mano in the dhamma is to judge the thoughts and sanna and vedanna, and select only the good ones, in order to purify mano to the point where mano has piti, just before the jhanas,  they get disappointed to see that they are not as righteous, with respect to the dhamma, as they thought they where in their intellectual bubble.

Then, like you said, some puthujjanas even manage to say that dukkha can be good. They try to salvage dukkha, because that's all they have in their life. It's like some people claiming that pain has meaning, pain can be useful, creates a person because it would strengthen a person and the person would learn something valuable from pain.

The whole point of the buddha is that there is nothing behind dukkha. Dukkha is just dukkha and is never ever worth it. There is no deep meaning with dukkha. There is no hidden purpose tied to dukkha. Dukkha is purely meaningless. There is no exploration of dukkha that is worth it. But puthujjanas manage to fall in love with their aggregates, and then they claim that dukkha can be skillful. This unconditional love, the clinging to this love by the puthujjanas is pure insanity.