Either learn how to mate or quit chess.
Avoiding stalemate is basic knowledge.
Even amateurs know how to avoid it.
Give me a break. You are a class D player who twice in a row fell for the Blackburn Shilling Gambit . You have never faced a player who knew how to play for a stalemate. The great Samuel Reshevsky fell for stalemate traps twice in his career, and you couldn't begin to fill his shoes. Until you have side stepped stalemate traps set by an expert like Larry Evans, it is rather presumptuous of you, to say you know how to avoid them.
Getting rid of stalemate has many deep, subtle and interesting (probably not your strong suit) ramifications.
Exactly, so why try to bring about such an upheaval that would ultimately change a completely functional game into something completely different? Isn't simply creating your own variant a much better and practical alternative than trying to alter something already established? I'm repeating myself verbatim from the other thread, but if you truly want to get rid of the stalemate rule, creating a variant would be the right way of showing the merits of abolishing stalemate to the "nay-sayers" that think it would ruin chess.
If abolishing stalemate is truly an improvement to the rules, the no-stalemate variant would naturally become more popular than the current chess and eventually replace it as the mainstream chess. I'm sure that's how the current rules were established centuries ago.
+1
I am not a big specialist in chess variants, playing only Fischer Random and Bughouse occasionaly. But it's an interesting fact that the variant with stalemate=win either has never been created or has near zero popularity. IMHO it means that the idea is not appealing to general chess public at all.