What a poor understanding of the discussion. First off, you can have access to the textures without having access to the car model. DR1 did this, and it was fine.
Secondly, nowhere did he mention adding in cars or changing car-track combos, which still wouldn't be an issue.
Thirdly, adding in modded physics doesn't break the integrity of the game. I'd like to see you apply that argument to everyone's favorite, Richard Burns Rally.
What exactly kind of mods do you "respectful" modders plan to add in? Liveries? Ooh, exciting!
TOS doesn't mean anything. I didn't pay (Well actually I got this one for free) for a product so that I can strictly only use it how someone else dictates I do. Especially in a game that I play solo. There's more than likely already systems in place to check for physics changes online. If I want to take a WRX car up Pikes Peak, what exactly is the harm in that? DLC being locked is not about modders, it's about pirates. Modders change values or add things, pirates steal stuff.
And no, the tarmac physics are in fact ****. Every one of us Beta testers (and the community as a whole) agrees with that.
ACAT doesn't give anyone advantages. You're not doing it online and it's a car and track combo that's not available, so where exactly is the advantage there? And once again, they can give access to the texture files without giving access to the car files, a la War Thunder with plane skins for example, which is solely online. That issue is straight from someone at CM.
Sometimes I'm baffled by the things I see other people saying. Like, Oh no, there's some mods for GTAV car physics, Rockstar loses $1 billion dollars. Uh oh, someone made me be able to play The Witcher 3 like Deadpool, Link, or Big Boss. I should get a refund.
Except, oh yeah, mods actually make games far more successful and seriously prolong the life of the product.
Factually false, and any location that's heavily anti-gun like Chicago, L.A., New York, London, etc. all have significantly higher crime statistics than places literally flooded with them. Those numbers are also often cherry picked or are based on total population, which to make that fair would be more like comparing the US to the entirety of Europe. Alternatively those figures are looking solely at gun related crimes, and once again, remove the gun free zones I mentioned earlier and the US is statistically actually far safer than a lot of other "rich" countries. Not to mention the fact that the FBI accurately reports all crime data while England actually expressly states that it very often reduces the severity of crimes (Like turning armed robbery into just petty theft) to make it seem safer than it is.
But this is not the place for politics, though I agree it was a terrible analogy.
Your source is Wikipedia? Wow.
Also in that source;
"Research suggests that intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence. They may also be under-reported for political reasons."
But again, let's stop this pointless debate of defenseless European against Freedom Loving Americans.
Well then by definition your conclusion is flawed.