Also you fail to understand that I am not against curators personally, I didn't create this posts because I wanted to eliminate their gains. I created this post to improve the system and increase the value of steem.

Yes, and your plan to "increase the value of steem" is by eliminating the incentives for curators - to "eliminate their gains."

This is not the argument actually. This is a response to a stupid argument which is that people will stop voting if curation rewards are eliminated.

No, that was a response to the notion that "rewards aren't necessary because people will vote anyway." You have argued this point repeatedly - that users don't need monetary incentives to vote for content. The exact same is true for people who post online and do it without monetary incentives. There is no difference at all in the two arguments. Since this system is based on incentives for both content creators and content consumers, because they both perform necessary tasks of creation and evaluation, the reward incentives are for both types of users. If you eliminate one or heavily favor one over the other, then the incentive structure becomes imbalanced and the results become skewed, as we have observed.

Posting rewards do not harm the system in any way, they actually bring value to the site unlike curation rewards.

What is your proof that the existence of curation rewards "harms" the system? And why do you believe that posting rewards do not? And are you not aware of the spam, plagiarism, and sybil attempts to game the system? I don't see how you can simply say that one incentive is bad and the other is good when both can be gamed, both are gamed, and both were designed to achieve specific results for the platform. But for all of the gaming that occurs (and was known would occur), the incentive structure has been proven to work for both creation and curation.

Your argument would be valid only if posts had the same bad incentives that curation rewards have which is not the case.

My argument is valid because people do post and do vote on other sites without monetary incentives. This is a fact. Let's not pretend that voting is done on other sites for free, therefore, we don't need to incentivize it. And let's not pretend that only voters are driven by the desire to earn. This isn't why curation is incentivized on Steemit. It's incentivized because this platform was created explicitly for the purposes of rewarding social media users for their social media activities.

There is only a tiny amount of people who actually make any significant money from curation.

This is irrelevant. The average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from upvoting posts in the first place. And I would argue that the average user isn't supposed to be making "significant money" from posting either. But users do have the opportunity to earn some money from being active on the platform. This isn't a job and this isn't supposed to be a UBI. It's simply an onboarding mechanism for a cryptocurrency. That's one of very few things that this site actually does well, in my opinion.

Curations rewards are not the same has authors rewards, please don't take things out of context.

Nothing was taken "out of context." I was simply applying the arguments to posting rewards.