2 doesn't follow from 1, 3 doesn't follow from 2, etc...

Money is information.

Content is communication.

If I relay a transaction I am informing the network about a transaction that is happening. If I relay content I am not informing the network of content that is being transmitted, I'm literally communicating that content, it's my voice, my responsibility. Most is innocuous, especially below a data threshold, but I can't check all of the messages I'm transmitting so the system is supposed inhibit spam on my behalf or I become responsible, morally. That's not neutral money anymore, and not something that most people would be comfortable doing.

Running a node, or even mining bitcoin, has to be something most people would feel comfortable doing, even theoretically, or its not universal.

Not relaying is an abdication of responsibility to ensure that bitcoin is money.

Now, get back to the real issue at hand: why are you ignoring the earlier problem that facilitated inscriptions, namely making the size of a taproot script unlimited - why was that done? It wasn't an accident that was exploited, it was a deliberate design decision. With an "envelope" like OP_FALSE/OP_IF/OP_ENDIF arbitrary data can be placed inside that script. So why are we not talking about that problem? OP_RETURN is only one part of the problem. Core are saying the phrase "already possible" quite a lot - ah, yes because they MADE it possible with this unlimited taproot script size.

Maybe stop fucking around with complex systems when there is something called the law of unintended consequences, and Chesterton's gates.