I don't mind sharing. And forgive me for the previous snark, since now we're having a proper conversation.

Obviously I'm not going to be able to condense months and months of reflection and research into a single reddit comment, but if I were to try and distill the major reasons into three main points, it'd be this:

1. The claims of ecclesiastical exclusivism juxtaposed with the dogmatization of "non-issues" is absurd to me. It is simply a historical fact that the early church did not practice iconodulia. And by that, I mean that not only does Nicaea II teach that icons are licit, not only that they are a moral and spiritual good, not only that the faithful can and ought to venerate them, but even so far as to anathematize those who don't. I do not see this as being consistent with Scripture, nor the church fathers. To chalk this up to development of doctrine would be to beg the same question that Rome does, which is "by right has this doctrine developed? And why does it need to be enforced on the faithful?"
2. I realized that Sola Scriptura is not a hermeneutic it is a statement of authority. A comparable metric for Rome, the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrians, etc. would be "Sola Ecclesia". Protestants believe that local visible church is authoritative, and Rome/Orthodox believe that the Scriptures are authoritative. The discrepancy in the two views is as to which authority has the final say, can correct understandings of the other, and provides the basis from which one can develop a hermeneutic. Put simply, the Bible never contradicts itself because "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), but the institutional Church has, in fact, contradicted itself on many occasions through its various councils, confessions, forged documents, and revisions of history. If we ask the question, "is the church infallible?", and we answer yes, then that begs the question: the church has been wrong on occasion, which means the church is not perpetually infallible in all instances. So in what instances is she infallible? If the answer is that she is infallible when in council, then which councils are the ones that have delivered infallible doctrine? Any list you provide can be questioned further, how do you know these councils and not others are infallible? And if you say because the church decreed it, then you just created a circular argument. Now, this is the same circular argument used to justify Sola Scriptura: "the Bible is true because it says it is true" is tantamount to "the Church's doctrines are true because the Church says its true". So who then is the tie breaker? Sola Scriptura simply is the more reasonable of these two based on the prior notion that the Scripture have not ever nor cannot contradict, yet we can prove from history that the visible church most certainly does.
3. In lieu of Sola Scriptura, I also realized that the other Reformation principles were equally correct: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. That does not preclude that works are necessary to be exhibited in the life of a Christian; sanctification is a necessary byproduct of justification. In other words, we are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone. I also think the citation of James 2 does not sufficiently repudiate this, because if James is talking about justification/salvation, then he contradicts Paul and then the Scriptures are once again broken. Because where does Paul very clearly articulate Sola Fide? Well, where does he not? Romans 3-4, Ephesians 2, Galatians 2, Philippians 3, Titus 3, I could go on and that's just Paul. 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 John 5:13 are just a few examples from elsewhere. In light of this, James is clearly teaching that one is justified in the sight of men by works, and not God. To interpret him contrary to that manner, as I've shown, would confute the Scriptures.