Comment: In context

(See in situ)

In context

“Ownership means the right to control something.”

If I am to know what Griffin means. If I am to know what you mean. If you are to know what I mean, there has to be 3 viewpoints where 1 viewpoint is known at any point in time and place.

I contend with the sentence in English. It won't covey accurate meaning, not without extensive work done to discuss the meaning of the words and that negotiated process of finding agreement could proceed along on a path that intends to reach that goal.

What is a reasonable step to take if someone were to take a step in the direction of understanding what is meant by that sentence?

I can't ask Griffin. You offered me the link to Griffin. I have not proceeded past that sentence offered by Griffin, due to what I see as a very false, divisive, and destructive, divide and conquer routine of parroting or employing lies as if lies were true.

So, yes, but not "right" so much as control. I can get past the "right" part and I can agree (the goal) to allow the concept of God (Jesus) giving, so generously, this right for this or that or anything. So right, in that context, is now a constant, unless you tell me otherwise.

I have the right.

You have the right.

No exceptions since we are all human beings, we all have the right, as far as that goes, since, unless told otherwise, BY GOD, we all have the same right.

Going past that, and then no longer needing to repeat that again, and again, leaves either/or or both ownership and control over air.

Air we covered some.

Chairs I covered some. Cover chairs some.

Then water.

Then paper.

Then Food.

Eventually we get to Land, which can become contentious among the humans, not at all contentious for God or Jesus, but humans have covered ownership or control of land, right or wrong?