Thanks for the clarification.

I was mainly addressing the topic Komponisto set up:

Sapir-Whorf becomes trivial to abolish once you regard language in the correct way: as an evolved tool for inducing thoughts in others' minds, rather than a sort of Platonic structure in terms of which thought is necessarily organized. [emphasis mine]

You see that just seems to be what this whole Sapir-Whorf debate is about. For one, I don't think there would be anything to talk about if it was simply asserting that 'language occasionally influences thought, like a rose sometimes would'. Since language somehow seems so concomitant (if not actually integral) to thought this seems to show that we are somehow severely constrained/organized by the language we speak. So apologies if i'm getting this all wrong, but I just don't think it is fair for you to say 'of course I agree that other things influences thought'. You seem to be ignoring the obvious implication of language being so intricately tied up with thought.

We do have a substantial disagreement in that you seem to think that even though language is one of the many influences of thought, it's impact is especially significant since language is somehow intimately dependent on thought.

I can simultaneously agree that language can influence thought and that speaking different languages has little influence on thought. This is because I think most of the time other factors, culture being the most obvious one, screens off language as an explanation for differing thought patterns among people who speak different languages. This simply means that the seeming influence of language on thought is actually the influence of culture on thought, and in turn of thought on language, and then of language on thought again.

I mentioned the expressiveness of language because I wanted to show how it can seem like it is language affecting thought, when it is simply channeling the influences of other factors, which it can easily do because it is expressive.

I'll try to summarize my position:

If you somehow managed to change the language a person speaks without changing anything else, you will not see a systematic effect on his thought patterns. This is because he would soon adapt the language for his use, based on his existent thoughts (most of which are not even remotely determined by language). The effect of language on thought is an illusion, it is actually his/his culture's other thoughts giving rise to the language which seem to then independently have an effect on his thought.

The phenomenon of language influencing thought, is more helpfully thought of as thought influencing thought.