zeckalpha wrote: > 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.
See Rule 754 (section 2). As others have noted, "A biological organism ... is a person" does not imply "A person is a biological organism ..."
