humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article aa2e85256deb@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, cbell97@bellsouth.net
says...
> On Feb 29, 10:23 pm, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > No, it simply relies on the plain meaning of "negative obligation" - if
> > there were no negative obligations associated with rights, rights would
> > be pointless.
>
> Wrong. Either argue your point from some line of reasoning or don't
> bother. I don't accept unsupported assertions that you are so fond
> of.

My reasoning is, as I said, the plain meaning of "negative obligation".
I have explained what that meaning is, while you have given only a
bollixed bit of nonsense. I will let English speakers decide for
themselves which of us has it right.
...
> > When you say "obligations of a negative kind" you are drawing an
> > implicit contrast with "obligations of a positive kind".  What else
> > could the prepositional phrase be doing?
>
>
> It is not doing that. She never once used "obligations of a positive
> kind" for you also to take out of context.

You did not answer the question: what else could it be doing? Again, I
will let English speakers decide for themselves. When your only
recourse to defend your theory is to turn the English language upside
down, it's time to call it a day.

> In order to support your
> notion that Rand is saying what you are ripping her words out of
> context to say, you need to provide textual evidence FROM A SOURCE,
> NOT THE WORDS THEMSELVES.

Her words *are* the text. I am using her words. You are shifting and
twisting to avoid those words.

--
Gordon