Relative to motor vehicles cyclists cause zero damage to roads. All pay taxes. Motorists are therefore subsidized by cyclists.

This is not at all in dispute.

Melbourne's bike network is extensive and goes through many areas of the city. Not just to million dollar homes.

I don't agree with this. The inner suburbs have good bike lanes, places like pakenham or cragieburn do not. I admit the million dollar number was a bad way of phrasing what I actually mean (and distracts because it's a wrong claim), which is unaffordable. Yes you can safely ride from like glenroy which is well connected with bike lanes, but family homes in glenroy exceed $800k which is ludicrous for a low income family.

Many people ride bikes because they can't afford cars.

Absolutely. Many others drive cars because they can't afford to live close enough to the city for riding to be safe and practical. Different housing needs drive different outcomes here.

Suburbia is further subsidized by cities and North American suburbs should never have existed in the way that they do.

Absolutely agree. However they do and a conscious, deliberate effort is needed over time to correct this.

Everything about your logic is backwards and focused on car drivers and suburbanites experiencing no discomfort during a transition to sustainability while all discomfort is placed on others.

A lot of your points I unreservedly agree with, so if you feel they have anything to do with my logic then your contradicting yourself. In your whole.paragraph there's only a single point that I don't agree with.