Draws

That's fine, except he's not bending the rules, you are. (Or you're not bothering to read them, which isn't much better.) The FIDE rules and USCF rules talk at length about the ability to claim a draw if the opponent isn't trying to achieve a win through normal means. That speaks volumes about what the rules of chess have to say on the topic of the clock. The rules of chess are not subject to opinion.

There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me.

Well, although it's true that the rules of chess aren't subject to opinion, the terminology used in the stating of the rule, "normal means," involves a subjective judgment of the position, doesn't it? What's the definition of "normal means?" I know I'm being fastidious here, but I just think it's simpler to do without adjudication entirely. I don't like adjudication, because it will always be based on someone's own opinion.

"There are exceptions to that rule in the context of blitz, and in that case, playing for the clock seems to be legal and moral to me."

Even in that K+R vs K+R position?

There is little doubt as to what "normal means" refers to in this context, I'm afraid.

I agree that it's simpler to do without adjudication, but AnthonyCG has been spot on about the history and purpose of the clock. It was never meant to decide games on its own, or to change the truth of a position. That's why the rules are the way they are. True, the result of the adjudication will be dependant on the arbiter, but arbiters at the highest levels generally know just as well what they're doing as soccer referees, baseball umpires and so on. Whether the rules should be like this or not is a different question. I don't think long-form chess is about the clock, so I like the rules as they are.

As for when the rule isn't in effect? Now that there's no mechanism present designed to stop you from doing it, I'd say it's perfectly fair game to play for the clock. That includes a K+R vs K+R position.

The most recent USCF rules requires you to play out the position of K+R v. K+R unless both players agree to a draw.

Well, could you provide me with the relevant text? Because I find that very hard to believe.

It's hard to pinpoint "normal means" though. Does the player need to be making a set number of moves in a certain amount of time to be considered "playing too fast to not be playing for the clock?" Does the player have to be using a specific strategy, e.g., moving the rook back and forth? If he instead plays different moves each time but still quickly, does it become normal means? Does the player have to be looking at the clock a set number of times to indicate that he cares about the clock? My point is that the determination of normal means isn't as incontrovertible as, say, checkmate.

"As for when the rule isn't in effect? Now that there's no mechanism present designed to stop you from doing it, I'd say it's perfectly fair game to play for the clock. That includes a K+R vs K+R position."

Ok Because I'm not sure on the specifics of the OTB rules. But you're saying that if it's within the rules, there is no moral problem with it. lol, you're probably the only one who agrees with me.

For the record, I think there are strategies one can use to try to win K+R vs K+R. Sure, they probably won't work, but just like in any position, anything is possible. I would probably prepare lateral checks with my rook, and I'd be looking out for this one trick: If my king is attacking his rook, and his king is protecting his rook, I would be trying to use a rook check to either pull his king away from his rook, or try to skewer the king and rook with a check along the same line. I've allowed this idea to be performed on me before! It's plausible for a player to keep his rook and king close, but that does put the player at risk for this deflection/skewer idea. Not to mention the rook being outright hung.