Why is stalling considered so bad in chess?

Hello there, i was thinking a but recently, why is stalling the game in losing position considered bad?

I mean the main point of chess after all is to win a game. I usually play lower time controls since i don't have time to play 30 min game, but when someone stalls the game in losing position, i respect that, not gonna lie. 

If you got yourself into situation where you are in losing position - parking ticket, let's say jail time, etc, you would do the best you can to win, even if winning seems hopeless, resigning or accepting loss if all your options are not exhausted seems stupid

If you get into situation where you are very close to losing, isn't stalling just trying to use your own time to win?

You can either move and lose, or let your opponent wait for however long you have left and you might get a win?

You understand, it's your own time and your opponent is not forced to wait for you, he can resign or pffer a draw if he doesn't want to wait

I'm not stalling myself, since i play mostly blitz, but i thought about it and in retrospective i consider my opponents that stalled smart

What do you guys think about this?

You are hopefully playing for fun and/or intellectual stimulation, not your freedom.

Both sides can share both things in a good game.

When you stall, you take away the fun and make it just a pointless waste of time.

Chess is not for fun completely, it is for strategy of wars.

You got "very close to losing" and now both you and your opponent are just watching your stylish clock running down to zeros, I dont think this approach leads to your victory

Using time to create real chances or practical complications is different from just trying to annoy or waste time without chess substance.

I'll sum up my thoughts with one word... Ragebait.