I sense a troll. But I could be wrong.
In any case, there have been innumerable threads listing the major advantages and disadvantages of a rangefinder camera vis-a-vis an SLR. As has been mentioned, not many here are willing to insist that the rangefinder is always the appropriate choice, or vice-versa. They are tools, they do different, but often overlapping, jobs.
The rangefinder does not possess DOF preview because with a rangefinder, you do not look through the taking lens. A rangefinder also has the negative attribute of parallax, which means that since you are not viewing your subject through the taking lens, there is always a discrepancy (although often corrected by mechanical or optical means) between the frame you see and the frame the camera will record through the taking lens. The closer you are to your subject, the more pronounced the error will be. In addition, a rangefinder camera is generally not available with long telephoto lenses, because the 'focal base' of the mathematical triangle a rangefinder uses to calculate focus distance is insufficient for very long distances (and often for very short distances as well). Generally, one finds rangefinder lenses in the range of 28mm to 90mm, with some very wide and some fairly long lenses to either side, but less common.
All of these drawbacks make the rangefinder less than ideal for certain types of photography.
However, the rangefinder is quite good at other things, which you may not have considered.
The rangefinder shutter is quite often quieter than the SLR shutter+mirror combination. This can make the camera a better 'street camera' as it attracts less attention when fired.
The lack of an SLR mirror can also mean less camera 'shake', which means you may be able to select slower shutter speeds using a rangefinder than you can with an SLR.
The rangefinder camera can support a relatively large stack of filters, which will not affect your composition or framing because you do not look through the taking lens. An equivalent SLR might become too dark to see / focus through with enough filters on it, or in a dark enough environment.
The rangefinder camera is generally smaller and less obtrusive than an SLR, and the smallest excellent rangefinders can easily fit into a pocket. Again, this can be an advantage in street or candid photography.
The rangefinder viewfinder is the same brightness no matter what lens you have on it, or what the f-stop is set to. This means it may be possible to properly focus the camera in situation where an autofocus SLR or a manual focus SLR with a relatively slow lens might fail.
I try to use the appropriate tool for the job, although sometimes I use a specific camera just because I enjoy the experience of using it, regardless of how well or poorly-suited to the job it might be.
If you feel that a rangefinder camera is not something you'd enjoy, then by all means, do not use one.
I might add that some of us here will be shaking our heads at your statement that you like to shoot everything at f/1.4 for maximum out-of-focus effect. With respect, that's a very unusual thing to do. Very few lenses are as sharp at f/1.4 as they are at say, f/5.6 or f/8. There are other ways to obtain interesting out-of-focus effects in the background than using a fast lens wide-open, and the parts that are in focus will be sharper. There are times, yes, to use f/1.4 (or faster). But those situations always have tradeoffs. If it is your intent, then that's fine. If that's all you do because you 'like it', some may suggest that you have limited scope in your photography. Like eating only frosting off a cake.
