Strange as it sounds to say it, thank you for the rant and the time you took in making it.
I agree that the vow is incredibly stupid. But there are a few things to take into consideration. First is that Peter is pretty screwed up from Uncle Ben's death. In fact, that's pretty much the whole premise for the character. It's apparent that he's got serious mental problems that arose from the death he blames on himself. Therefore it would not, in my opinion, be out of character for Peter to make that kind of vow. The second thing to consider is that Dan Slott knows how incredibly stupid that vow was. In fact, in ASM 688 (I believe) Mary Jane told Peter pretty much that. Aside from that, good points about the vow vs. creed thing.
It's way too early in Superior Spider-Man to judge the handling of Peter Parker's legacy. As far as we know, MAYBE HE'S NOT EVEN DEAD! Regardless of that, Carlie Cooper's probably about to figure out who Peter really is now. That will obviously open a lot of doors for exploring Peter's legacy.
What makes you think that Slott has no respect for Peter Parker, or that he disrespected the character by killing him off in that way? You apparently haven't read Superior Spider-Man #9, so I won't go into the crazy s*** that's been going through my mind after that. But Peter's death in ASM 700 was great in my opinion. If he had died a "hero's death" it would have been pretty epic, but bland at the same time because the tendency seems to be to make every superhero's death a "hero's death." It's not disrespect to make a superhero's death more moving by making it less normal. Then there's the replacement of Spider-Man with "a contemptible asshole." Yeah. You're exactly right: Ock is a contemptible asshole. But the whole premise of Superior Spider-Man is Otto Octavius trying to fill Peter Parker's shoes. In his opinion, he needs to buy some bigger shoes because he's outgrown Peter's, but it's pretty obvious that the reader is supposed to get the sense that he's wrong. He is undeniably a more efficient Spider-Man, but Slott isn't trying to make him a better hero. I would even go so far as to say that this might even be a story WRITTEN OUT OF RESPECT FOR PETER PARKER! Think about this: if Dan Slott did not have a huge amount of respect for the cultural icon that Parker is, then he could easily cheapen Pete's creed by allowing Octopus to simply realize everything Peter stood for and instantly turn his life around and basically make himself into Peter Parker. Instead, Slott has shown me (at least) just how great a character and hero Peter really is by having him replaced by an asshole. He's given me a whole new level of respect for the previous Spider-Man by showing just how hard it is to live by Peter's creed the right way, not Ock's way. GO FIGURE!
Moving on, then.
Hey, you're right. There is nothing wrong at all with being emotionally attached to any fictional character. HOWEVER. The reaction to Peter's death is not one of sadness and mourning, but one of anger and F**KING DEATH THREATS!!! Now that's just wrong. If a character dies in a movie, what do people do, at the worst? They cry. They don't start yelling at the screen or sending death threats to anyone involved in the movie.
Let me give an example from history of a huge emotional response to the death of a fictional character: the "death" of Sherlock Holmes. His fictional death evoked a huge display of emotion from England's reading public. But the response was more one of sadness than of anger.
Yet with the "death" of Peter Parker, the response is more one of anger than of sadness. Why? I think the reason his "death" has elicited this response is because a lot of people feel like they have some kind of part-ownership over the character. That's at least what I'm getting from most everybody on this thread except for people like @akbogert. It seems they think that they have a right to read new stories involving Peter Parker. I think what the people who enjoy SSM are doing differently is this: they are looking at the bigger picture. And the bigger picture involves a few things I've mentioned above in this and other posts, mainly that this is not Slott saying that Ock is somehow morally superior to Peter Parker. Another thing is that death isn't permanent in comics.
The argument that "Peter's return is inevitable" is absolutely true. But I don't think that's really the reason the people who like SSM enjoy it; it's just something a lot of us say in an attempt to calm angry haters down. I do try to avoid saying that because everyone else says it. Seriously, how can you keep a cultural icon dead for more than 5 years, tops?
I think that everything I've said above rebuts the arguments made in your 7th paragraph because I've pretty much proven that I, for one, don't have that "rinse and repeat" attitude. Nor do I keep coming back for more because I just love it so much that I'm willing to have my heart broken over and over like the abused wife in your example.
How do you respond to death threats? I think Dan Slott has handled it pretty damn well. Seriously, what would you do if you got death threats for your story decisions? Personally, I'd either break down or do what he's done, go troll the haters. If you'll notice, he actually only trolls the stupid ones and he's really damn good at it. In dealing with the ones that actually make intelligent arguments and good points, he responds quite respectfully. I suggest you do some research before making inaccurately broad statements like you made in your 8th paragraph. You could go look at some threads here on the Spider-Man forums for posts from him. You can even talk to @punyparker for proof of what I'm saying; punyparker (an SSM "hater," by the way) wrote Slott a very respectful post on the Marvel.com forums, to which Slott replied politely and logically.
It sounds to me like you hate Dan Slott even more than the idea of Superior Spider-Man. Tell me, would you hate Brian Michael Bendis this much if he had killed the Earth-616 Peter Parker in the same way Slott did? What about Stan Lee?