Rule 2150/6 seems contradictory Personhood A person is an entity defined as such by rules with power of at least 2. A person CAN generally be the subject of rights and obligations under the rules.
Any biological organism that is generally capable of communicating by email in English (including via a translation service) is a person. A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class. The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person. In my understanding of it, because it says "Any biological organism ... is a person." and goes on to say "A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class." there can be no second class persons. Does Rule 2240 apply? I have a few interesting ideas that could come out of this, but I just need to understand this a bit more. I may be lacking some history to know why it is phrased that way.