On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Ben Caplan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Under your style of parsing, a sentence like
>> Points are a currency. (R2179)
>> would be interpreted as "'Points' is defined to mean a currency."
>
> No, this sentence is more analogous:
>
> A point is an entity that is a currency.
>
> If this sentence were in effect, it would be absolutely reasonable to
> conclude that any currency is a point.
On the other hand, the following are all true:
My cup is an entity that has water in it.
My bowl is an entity that has water in it.
My cup is not my bowl.
Either is reasonable based on pure grammar, so we must look to context.
The fact is, we have a preamble setting out some general properties of persons
("generally subject to..."), followed by the specific: what makes a person a
person is that an entity is a person *if and only if* it is defined by the
rules as a person, and that argues for *explicit* definitions of the type
"this entity is a person" and not allowing the indirect and backwards
"persons are this sort of entity".
Also, did you notice that we've got a circular reference: persons are the
subject of rights, and rights are defined as things that apply to persons.
Not paradoxical but it means that this circle adds nothing to tell us
what a person is.
-Goethe
