Comment: Fact or fiction?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I'll admit (see in situ)

Fact or fiction?

"Is this even close?"

Your interpretation of my world communicated to you in English, changing my words into words that you understand, sounds right to me, as in: it (meaning your version of my words) sounds close (as in not my words but your words instead, but close to my words, in meaning) to me.

There are accurate ways to find out exactly why your words are not conveying the same meaning as my words, so as to find out why there is a gap, or why the meanings are not the same.

"Either way, thanks for taking the time to discuss."

I read that as: don't call me (and I won't call you), or, there isn't any interest on my part in trying to compare the differences in our viewpoints, so as to find out which viewpoint is in any way better or worse than the other viewpoint.

I have that interest, and therefore I persist.

"because that is how you show respect in my opinion."

I show respect by giving credit where credit is due, and so far as I can see there is much in the way of credit earned by someone who walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.

I think you have a premise in this phrase: "if we do not produce more power than the power we consume, then human life ends."

I think that there are accurate ways to measure the perception offered, competitively, as to the validity, or accuracy, of the perspective offered competitively, such as:

Stop breathing and see if the absence of that power ends life in that individual case.

I think that I don't "have" any such thing as a premise, what I did, in actual reality, is offer a competitive perspective that can be scientifically measured as an accurate perspective. In other words, in an effort to bridge the gap in meaning, if I did "have" that, and if that was a premise, as you say, then that premise offered competitively to you, is not something that you now "have", since you merely label it, and you have no use for it - apparently.

"I think that you are saying that liberty produces more power and crime takes power away from the people."

I said no such thing, as I know that Liberty is a condition of life, and Liberty cannot produce anything, because actual people have to actually produce things, or actual people have to find things that actually produce things, or actual people have to invent, produce, and maintain things that produce things.

Liberty is a process, it is a measurable process, and the process can be accurately measured, and one of the accurate ways to measure Liberty is the rate of production as people produce things in Liberty compared to how much production people are capable of producing when criminals take away Liberty in each individual case.

"I think that you are saying that liberty produces more power and crime takes power away from the people."

If crime has a human name, and if crime lives on Earth, walking the earth, and crime commits an individual crime upon an innocent victim, or two, or three, all at once, or individually, then that human being defines exactly what is crime when that criminal perpetrates crime, but "crime" so named cannot do anything.

"And this is a logical way for you to think about why liberty is superior to other paradigms."

Excusing me, taking me out of the equation, which I prefer to do in these types of discussions, to avert the often resort to personal attacks, and whatnot, there remains, even if I do not participate, people producing a lot of good things in Liberty, and there remains, still without my ever having anything to do with it, people perpetrating crimes whereby good things produced are thereby consumed criminally.

That, respectfully, or not, depending upon what anyone might consider to be respectful, is closer, if closer is the goal.

If closer isn't the goal, then what is?

I am inspired to quote from the Original Topic Text:

"When people disagree, one thing I always try to do is figure out what is the fundamental disagreement."

Or not?