It'd be propaganda if it wasn't true. It'd be nonsense if it were illogical. No one says 2 + 2 = 4 is propaganda.
The same is true when I say something like "rights, in order to be true rights, require the elements of being specific to the individual, defined, and infinitely available."
Examples:
Life is a right because you can exercise it without taking life from someone else, it is specific to the individual, and you can easily define it for practical purposes.
Health Care cannot be a right because it is a service, one that often requires specific products to be procured, and almost always by other individuals.
Even "access to health care" cannot be a right because you still run into the problem of requiring another person to procure it.
Marriage cannot be a right because it is a relationship, and therefore cannot be specific to an individual.
You can have a "right to marry" because it is individual, but such a right really is more a subset to the right to free association, and associations that are public are subject to a publicly debatable conception of their definition and parameters.
In conclusion: I'd say Scarfwynaut you might look at the text, but you don't do anything an intelligent person would define as "reading." Reading requires comprehension - so if you "dk" about anything I'm saying, you've just admitted your error. The first step to intellectual honesty is admitting you have a problem. Congratulations!
*Like This*