On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This one bugs me. The rule doesn't say that a biological organism that >> only communicates in a non-English human language is *not* a person. > > "An entity is > a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with > power 2 or greater." > > I don't believe any rule of power 2 or greater defines biological > organisms that aren't capable of communicating in English as persons, > so they're not.
What would be particularly interesting is if tusho's Spanish friend claimed R101 rights by raising a CFJ on eir personhood. E is clearly a person by standard definitions and world standards of human rights, etc., can the Rule 2150 definition, empowered to define by R754, limit, abridge, etc. the R101 rights of an entity who is by all common or human-based definitions a person? To see where this is going, if we allowed this to work, then a power-2 definition robbing someone of personhood would rob them of their rights. Forget EXILE, let's declare someone a NON-PERSON. Would any reasonable player say that doing so wouldn't violate R101 rights? Clearly R2150 and R754 *do* stop entities without clear and recognized personhood, such as external corporations under current U.S. law interpretation, from claiming Agoran rights. -Goethe
