General-purpose hash functions should be as efficient as possible. That's why they shouldn't be used for password hashing directly. There are special hash functions (slow, memory-intensive, hard to parallelize) for storing password hashes: https://password-hashing.net/
BLAKE wasn't specified as being general purpose and was compared against SHA-3 as being "better" because it's faster. Since SHA-3 does support cryptographic functions, my comment is a reasonable response stating that performance isn't the only metric when choosing a hashing function.
I didn't make that assumption. I exampled one use of cryptographic hashes as being for password hashing. An example is not the same as saying two things are the same.
For a fast hash, being fast is always better. You were not pointing out that there are other metrics, you were directly contradicting a true statement, that BLAKE being faster makes it better.
There is no use case where you want your super-fast hash to be 50% slower.
With a hash this fast you need to get thousands or more times slower to have any benefits in those specialized use cases.
