The level of confrontation and its trend is what's new.
I rather do think that political inclinations are religions in the US, however, but the wars are largely phony and forced - hence McGuffin. I'm sorry it upset you.
People who take the time to correct others (particularly when it's off-topic) are generally motivated by the desire to genuinely help the discussion or by mean-spirited nitpicking. If the former, they're also interested in learning about how discussions tend to behave on the forum in which they're participating, which is why I chimed it. If I assumed the latter, I would refrain from commenting at all.
Correcting a commonly abused saying, and thereby slightly reducing the volume of bullshit if only imperceptibly. I have to wonder why you seem so interested in commenting mostly on the comments of others.
Would you mind sharing with me how you would have written my initial comment, (given what you know of my intention) that would have had the most positive effect on you? I'll take my answer off the air. Thanks again for your time and attention here. It's a rare opportunity and I do appreciate it.
In general, though, I feel that the more precisely we use language, the more expressive it can be. Begging the question is different from raising the question. If we allow that conflation, it then becomes more difficult or requires more words to express what "begging the question" really is.
By analogy with Huffman coding, the meanings that are used less often should require more words to express than the more commonly-used meanings. And if you really want to express the meaning "assuming the premise", then you could just say "assuming the premise", instead of insisting on the "precision" of using a 16th-century mistranslation of petitio principii.