Yes, exactly, #2 is why I said the bail system was broken, above. That’s what I was taking about. Very good.

Great. So the statement:

The reason why the system seems broken, rather than merely flawed, is because cash bail is serving as an effective means to deny - or grant! - bail based on means, rather than risk.

...isn't about #1 at all. That is nowhere to be found there. Instead, this is just you talking about #2 and setting that as the baseline at #2.

Then you take it a step beyond that by saying:

Unless of course, you see that as its actual purpose.

That still clearly isn't referring to #1. That makes it pretty clear that the original discussion wasn't between #1 and #2. It was between #2 and something a step beyond than #2 (call it #3). You dishonestly tried to accuse/suggest I believe in #3.

When confronted about trying to accuse/suggest I believe in #3, you dishonestly pretend the question was about #1 and #2, despite #1 very very clearly not being part of your original framing.