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.
