let's consider the possibility that people might disagree with you for reasons other than being dishonest. for example, i disagree with you because you're completely wrong on the facts, as i explained in my grandparent comment. unlike you, i'm not going to accuse you of dishonesty; possibly you are just ignorant (and aggressive) rather than mendacious
worse, though, you're using your ignorance to promote a vile ideology: the ideology of disempowering users in the name of ease of use. what you're advocating here is the strawman that people sometimes use to criticize guis: not powerful guis like excel, blender, solidworks, godot, photoshop, and autocad which empower users in ways that transcend the limitations of character-cell terminals, but glorified menu systems like mainstream android apps, which reduce users to passive consumers or machine operators
being a machine operator, manually telling a machine what to do over and over again, can be enjoyable and rewarding, as in riding a bicycle, driving a sports car, or your example of piloting a concorde (although you don't actually know any concorde pilots or you'd be aware there haven't been any concorde pilots in 20 years; interpreting you with extreme charity, perhaps you only meant this as a metaphorical explanation of what text-mode uis look like to you). but it must be voluntary, because it's an economically low-productivity activity; when you condemn people to be machine operators, you are condemning them to material poverty. bicycle messengers and taxi drivers do not have easy lives
computers permit people to automate machine operation, which enormously increases economic productivity. that's what we need. things like bash facilitate that, and things like android actively prevent it. good guis like godot's are in the first category, not the second