What do you mean exactly? I agree in the sense that it is the right and responsibility of the DM (and players) to use the rules in a way that works for them. If that means ignoring something that doesn't work for you, then that is absolutely a "valid" thing to do.
On the other hand, the words in the rules say something. English is ambiguous, so often the same words can be interpreted in different, but valid ways. But not all ways are "valid" in that sense. Claiming that "The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0" has the same English meaning as "The target dies if this effect has reduced its hit point maximum to 0" is, IMO, wrong, and disputing that is a matter of grammar not interpretation.
Yes that is rules lawyering, and if you don't care about that kind of argument, the right response is "whatever, I don't care." But if you tell a rules lawyer "No, you're wrong," well duh they are going to argue with you about it.