That is not for you to decide. That is for the reader to decide.
Well, I do know a bit about reading comprehension and the use of the English language. I spent my professional career reading, understanding, making use of, and apply quite a bit of complex and often difficult material. After all, the primary tools with which a lawyer plies his trade are words.
Effective writing is more than just stringing together words, the meanings of which are known. The words must be used in ways that convey coherent and meaningful thoughts.
One can certainly understand the meanings of the words you tossed about in post 44. But do they all mean when something when taken together? And how do they express thoughts germane to the subject under discussion?
So while each word of your post 44 can be understood, when assembled into something structurally resembling a paragraph they are merely bunches of unconnected, unsupported conclusions and non-sequitur.
So let's look at the first four sentences:
Now --
- Looking at the first sentence we might be willing to accept it as self-evident that despotism depends on terror, but the notion that liberty depends on decency and courage warrants some explanation and support. It certainly isn't something that people should be expected to simply accept as stated.
Furthermore, what is the purpose of setting out that distinction? What does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
- And then your assertion that unreasoning fear is a threat to liberty is a fundamental truth can not be a forgone conclusion. Is that really true; is the truth fundamental; and what does fundamental mean in that context are all questions left begging for answers.
Furthermore, how does that follow from your first sentence? In the context of your paragraph, it's a non-sequitur.
And anyway, what does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
- And now how does your third sentence tie with the first two? (No, please don't try to tell us.)
- And the fourth sentence: such a collection of multisyllabic and emotionally charged words "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." And it's yet another non-sequitur unrelated to the topic of this thread and non-responsive to my comments in post 43.