And you have the brass to accuse me of being intentionally obtuse? Alright, I'll walk you through it, since it's so very difficult to understand. Here's the line I quoted:
"It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility."
Now, the first phrase is "It is proper". What Mill means by that is that he feels that it is appropriate to perform some action. What action? Well, let's look at the next two words - "to state". Mill is saying here - and try to stay with me on this, because it's kind of complicated - Mill is saying that he feels that it is appropriate "to state" something. By "state", he means "to say" or "to communicate" or to generally convey an idea to his non-blockheaded readers.
But what idea? What could Mill be trying to tell us? Let's look at the very next set of words to find out - "that I forego". What does that mean? Hmmmmm, let's think really hard - "forego" as in "to abstain from" "to relinquish", "to reject". "It is proper to state that I forego" - meaning, and I'm sorry that I can't do this monosyllabically in deference to your limited parsing skills, "It is appropriate to say that I reject"...something. But what? What is Mill rejecting? Oh, can you feel the tension? Isn't this exciting? Mill is rejecting something, but what could it be?
Ah, for that, we have to let our eyes just slide right over to the next set of words - "any advantage". What on earth does that mean, "any advantage"? Well, an "advantage" is a "favorable position" or any generally "beneficial factor" that works in one's favor. So Mill is rejecting a favorable position - all favorable positions? No. Okay, which favorable position? Ahhh, let's not jump ahead yet. The next part is "which could be derived to". What a strange construct, with such unfamiliar new words, eh? Never fear, I'm here to explain them to you - by "which could be derived to", Mill means "that might be gained by"...by what? Why, "my argument", of course! Mill feels that it is appropriate to tell you that he rejects a favorable position that might be gained by his argument!
E-lec-trifying! Amazing! Who would have thought that we could parse out words in order to discover their meaning? But wait - we're not done yet! There's more! Now we finally get to discover which favorable position Mill is rejecting - the favorable position gained "from the idea of abstract right". Oh, now that is a tough nut. What does he mean? Well, by "abstract right", Mill is talking about some variety of non-concrete proposition, such as those generally labeled "rights", which are generally considered to be true in all places and at all times regardless of the observer - making them universally and objectively true. So where does that leave us? Mill feels that it is appropriate to say that he rejects any favorable position that might be gained by appealing to non-concrete universally, objectively true propositions such as those labeled "rights".
So, you're probably saying to yourself, what's the big picture? Well, Mill, in his argument, rejects the use of appeals to abstract objective truth in making his case. He's not going to do so, and if you care to read on a bit further on your own, you can discover for yourself why that is - I trust I've given you a taste of a method that you can use all by yourself when reading things, and if you do it when nobody's looking, nobody will see you moving your lips when you read...