Maggie's Farm

No he didn't.

Loathe as I am to reply to the chronic dishonesty inherent to your habitual framing - which is a severe bias, a form of lying itself - the answer to that question lies first in how dishonest it is itself.

Allow me to demonstrate.

"How much of Chicago is devoted to political violence?"

In this question we have a number of obvious problems. The first is that while many folks recognize and even approve of this framing insofar that it tacitly refers to the abject failure of the ruling political class to cause justice and not interfere with sound personal defense, the question is still loaded by that same framing. One cannot technically toss off such a question and expect, as you obviously have, that it rightly impugns a particular but loosely associated rationale, culture, theology, people, or intent. Such may eventually peripherally apply, but the formulation does not, at least yet, allow for them.

You, being Zachriel, made no such distinction because you, Zachriel, have an obvious agenda the use of objective fact would constitute a threat to.

Continuing, one can also not assume questions not specified, such as, who in Chicago is devoted (your word) to political violence. That's because this is a begged question, and begged questions are fallacies.

We cannot even rightly ask, what is the intent of political violence in Chicago because this too is a begged question that presumes to establish political violence as the particular sort of violence in the formulation we'd use to our rhetorical advantage wrongly when no such evidence, as yet, exists.

The best we can expect is that should "political" violence exist in Chicago - violence as the result of politics - we may be able to extrapolate a sequence of causes and events from a body of related facts that allow us, eventually, to chalk it up to politics. We might also, as you ably demonstrate, be able to shorthand our way to our preferred inference and an implication. After all, Chicago violence has an evident root and it doesn't exclude politics and if we short-circuit the entire intervening but needed factual discussion and jump to conclusions, they'd wash in company that could connect those dots in a fairly rational way.

But that doesn't apply to historical records passed on through time and by translation for which there is no direct correlation and no obvious intent. It especially applies when the association bias would like to create cannot actually be made.

In ancient texts we'd have to establish identical causes, implications, intents, and the like, and we'd have to include the added complexities of interpretation and ascribed intent. Then we'd have to draw physical parallels and connections with and to Judiasm or Christianity or whatever vague implied body I assume you'd like to tacitly associate with "Hebrew Bible", requiring a deeply complex definition through history in its own right, and finally we'd have to re-identify contemporary Christian thought and practice to parse from this loose grouping some meaningful present context because just as we're instructed Islam is never monolithic, neither may be Christianity up through the present, and that's even before we get into nebulous regions like defining the intent of a biblical G-d or His/Her/Its purported revelations and intentions as acquired by imperfect minds (if at all) in texts and scriptures.

So basically your smart little question is mostly moot. It's moot because it's question-begging. And it just took ten minutes of my time to reply to a bit of characteristic bullshit frame-bait from your team of jeenyuses it took your algorithm nine seconds to publish. This we find annoying, which explains your general reception around here. You're annoying because you exist to frame and bait.

And now we wait for either dead air or another diversionary bullshitting.

Ah, so diversionary bull it is, then.

After all, your crack team evidently determined that the article's point, as you now put it, was to enable flippant, question-begging, implied determinations aimed squarely at strongly implied, presumed historical pathology, a bias that once exposed in your crack team as I had here, then predictably resorted to the Z-program's command line that issues the standard Z-Team reframing and a helping of Squirrel!

Or bull, as we call it over here in meatspace.

And the funny thing - if that's the right word - is that I spared you the heavy lifting pursuant ancient Hebrews being always hunted to death, the inevitable ensuing existentialism, and somehow painting parallels - or denying them, ironically - in our times to any contemporary cultural uh, aberration such as a present one I'm reasonably thinking you'd consider defending probably right up to your own demise or that of other innocents by its hand.

At least you haven't condemned it so far, in and among all this other Z-Bull, it being indistinguishable from your own presumed faith. If machinery has faith.

And about this ancient Hebrew political violence, I wonder if the legacy of wanton, needless, sworn, holy slaughters in many places today hearkens back to a time of unavoidable existential stress in its victims sufficient that it prompted fathers and sons and brothers to invoke a G-d and wage stands against such a persistent aggressor and whatnot. I mean, if they're entitled; if they may be permitted, what with the enormous benefit of our benevolent, historical hindsight. An existential stress concerning daughters and sisters and a whole people being hacked to bits for no reason by 80 IQ freaks that if one hasn't experienced it one probably hasn't a f*cking leg to stand on concerning it.

Heaven forbid you'd ever fall on your face and invoke your G-d against such murderers, so to put it.

"Did I shoot that spitball at little Sally?", he repeated back to the teacher, stalling for time until he could come up with a plausible lie.