Everything else is just a response to you asking for more context and examples, as well as explanations for why your arguments are so unconvincing, which you then misunderstand as further claims that they are not (e.g. I do not claim that either Zig or Rust yields more correct programs than C/C++). In fact, I do not claim that any language yields more correct programs than any others (not that I don't think that could be true, I'm just hesitant to make such claims). All I did was explain why such an argument would be more convincing than the argument you're making for Rust vs. Zig.
Seems like we're stuck in a circle where you can't understand what I'm saying and I can't understand what you're saying.
In any event, we've gone full meta. Like I said, if you think I am the problem, that can be easily tested. Put your argument in a paper so that it can be properly critiqued. This way you'd at least know if it's me who doesn't want to understand or that your arguments are just not very convincing. If most software correctness people find it convincing -- yay for you; if not, you'll learn how to make your argument more convincing, so also yay for you.
You're talking about rigor but you keep making these laughably strong claims. This one is an extraordinary one, and it's most likely also false just because I'm pretty convinced that copy/move constructors can make some (rare) patterns much simpler and as such avoid bugs in practice. It's not clear if copy/move constructors are a net win, and the overall effect is almost certainly minimal anyway, but that's enough to refute the domination claim.
> I don't understand.
That's the key. And you don't want to understand, I'm afraid.