I shoot color film and then scan it because I can generally get better quality of colors and can make edits to the film that would not otherwise be possible without a computer. It's also a lot cheaper to shoot color film, scan it, and print it on an inkjet than it is to print it via RA4. And in some cases, I can get BETTER quality with a scanned photo than with traditional methods. I can scan negatives at such a level as to resolve the grain (may require stitching). Then, I can use software to blow up the image beyond what is possible in RA4 wet prints, without grain becoming an issue, by using interpolation algorithms which can make an educated guess at filling in the missing information. And with large format cameras and film, I can get higher resolution, and have access to movements that aren't readily available on digital cameras within my budget. Plus there's not really a good way to print E6 film by traditional methods anymore. Scanning and printing is really the only viable option. That, and shooting film instead of digital gives me options later on. I can print a negative on an inkjet printer or under my enlarger pretty easily. Shooting with a digital camera limits my printing options.
I still use my digital cameras all of the time. They have their place, and they're often the best tool for the job. But I also like to shoot film sometimes because I enjoy the process more. They're different tools for different jobs. Just because you like your hammer better than your screwdriver doesn't mean it's a good idea to try to hammer in a screw.
Sometimes I make wet prints in the darkroom. Sometimes I do alternative process printing. Sometimes I project slides. Sometimes I make inkjet prints. Sometimes I just post a photo to social media and never see it again. Most of the time, I never revisit the photo after first glance when I realize it wasn't all that good of a shot. I don't view one method as superior or inferior, in totality, to any other. They each have their pros and cons.
