The source of this contreps is the print. How it is made.
People like Jorge G. (I don't want to mangle the spelling of your name) rightfully are proud of the immense amount of hand work put into making an individual print -One result is that no two prints are exactly the same. And do not like the technical / mechanical separation between the maker's hands and the final product. they also decry the production line making of identical prints once you have the 'digital negative tuned the way you want it to appear. I think that this principled stand is well ground in traditional artisanal craft. there is also the fact that you can always hold the original image -- negative or transparency --in your hands. This too has great intellectual as well as emotional weight. And you always are aware that a person is completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at.
Those who like digital work often base their claim on the finer degree of control over the process -- the ability to tune small areas in the image that will be printed in ways that 'wet darkroom' advocates cannot. They see it as a logical end of "Zone System" type thinking about getting the image printed in a way that blends the emotional and intellectual impulse of the photographer with a high degree of technological control. my belief is that these people more strongly value the content of the image over how he final print is made.
In the end both camps are right -- but have chosen different paths.
perhaps the ultimate in photographic imaging and print making will be a type of enlarger that allows the photographer to work from a digital image yet print it using traditional methods of enlarger, maybe dodging and burning tools and chemical developers on silver halide or platinum-palladium papers.