How is it false equivalence? It's the exact same level of "lazy writing" to me.
You're equating the walls existence with people traveling around faster than they should be able to.
The wall was established as part of the setting from the very beginning for one. Then we got more and more info on it over time and we found out that there was more magic around back in the day that the wall was built. We also find out that the wall is intended as protection against a clearly supernatural enemy. Now, we have a structure of a scale that we wouldn't be able to build with normal means. But, as people mentioned, it was, as later revealed, intended to defend against something magic. In a time when magic was around, using magic to help build your magical protection against other magic makes logical sense. That you can circumvent the limitations of mundane architecture by way of - already established - magical assistance also makes logical sense. That it continues to hold up because its magic still works neatly explains how it's still standing.
That's one side.
The other side you're equating this with is people using mundane means of travel, on foot, on horseback, on ships, etc. (Not just dragons [which also might not just be able to fly arbitrarily fast because you'd end up needing some as yet unexplained protective magic for Daenerys clinging onto their back]). However, these people are traveling distances in a timeframe that doesn't work out for their means of travel. "The established magic of the setting is used to explain this (under mundane circumstances) impossibility" doesn't apply here, because there's no magic in use for these events. There's nothing
explaining how people get to places faster than they should. There's no setting-internal logic why
this impossibility happens.
So what you're doing is equating something normally impossible, that has explicit explanations to explain its existence in a manner that's consistent with the established world-building, to something normally impossible that has no ex- or implicit explanation in the show that would explain how it works when it logically shouldn't. And I should note, that the creators themselves have admitted they're getting increasingly fuzzy about.
Link to article. They admit that they're straining plausibility and are hoping the show's momentum carries it for the watchers. And it clearly does for some. It clearly doesn't for others. For some it doesn't work but they still enjoy it. And that difference in opinion is okay.
But that doesn't mean that when people complain about something without in-setting explanation, which the directors admit might be a bit hard to take on good faith, that it's equivalent to ignoring the logically consistent information about when and why the wall was built (in a time of magic, to guard against powerful magic things).
