Terminal inputs seems like coding. Back in the day you can mess with everything by coding. Having to spend time on forums and searching Google to fix problems that are Terminal inputs only is not something people want to do and what people are passionate about a thing or it is their hobby do.

Most people use what is in front of them, works, and what they are use too. I don’t have time to fix the wifi issue on my 10 year old linux laptop I just plugged it in. Other option is to reinstall windows every 6 months

Build more housing, build different kinds of housing, build housing that has built-in social worker and nursing help, make it government owned and non for profit

Probably bought a house and the industry he works in doesn’t have much competition or his skills doesn’t transfer. Also change is hard and they could be starting over. 20 years ago the dream was still in people’s eyes and they had pensions still

And they aren’t really hiring.

Weirdly the Bible in original verse only condemns Adultery. Which is sex with others if you are married. There is a few verses about the immoral but doesn’t define it. Occasionally mentioning lying about being a virgin but that is just decietfulness. Then you get to the new testament when Paul goes all purity culture on everyone. Jesus is all like sex workers are cool and it is fine. But Paul is like sancity of marriage and how sex within marriage is the most pure and beautiful thing using metaphors about how it is llike God and the church. Paul is really a questionable fellow

Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy. Nazis end game has been seen. They murder people. I don’t hear Nazis saying we can coexist. You murder murderers. You silence people who want to permanently silence others. Idealistically silence them until they change their mind. Punching a Nazi might fix their brain damage at least make them think twice before they try to publicly express themselves

A slippery slope fallacy (SSF), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a fallacious argument in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.[1] The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific decision under debate is likely to result in unintended consequences. The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect. This is quantified in terms of what is known as the warrant (in this case, a demonstration of the process that leads to the significant effect). This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fearmongering in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. Black and white cartoon of a tall woman in a dress reaching her knees and a shorter man holding a bouquet. Both are in front of a robed figure. Each of the marrying couples has a couple of their same-sex and similar attire behind.

The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In this sense, it constitutes an informal fallacy. Other idioms for the slippery slope fallacy are the thin end/edge of the wedge, the camel’s nose in the tent, or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope