Can love prove God? What's wrong with this argument?

[Rhythmcs]

That a legal person is not necessarily a biological human.  That not every biological human is a legal person.  That animals are neither biological humans nor legal persons.  So, yes..people can in fact believe that humans are biological animals and that other biological animals can have a rich inner life and any number of other biological similarities but that this doesn't satisfy basis for legal personhood, and in fact has nothing to do with legal personhood.... as corporations have no biological similarities with any living thing and no inner life whatsoever.

Words.  How do they work?

Slight problem, what's considered "legal", isn't universal.

Who's problem?  Not mine, and certainly not evolutionary biology's.  Yet another problem in your doomed appeals to negative consequences, sure.

You didn't understand how words worked. Fine - I believe you. Problem solved, yes?

[Paleophyte]

[TheGentlemanBastard]

What the hell does Huggy even contribute to this forum?

Absolutely fucking nothing! He's not even a good chew toy any longer.

[Paleophyte]

Our board has a troll-spawn named Huggy
His reason utterly buggy
"Antecedents affirm!"
Crows this waste of sperm
With the wits of a meth-addled druggy

[SYZ]

...Slight problem, what's considered "legal", isn't universal.

I think this is a weak response; you're now just
playing the semantics game.

The definition of legal—regardless of jurisdiction—is
that of having a formal status derived from law, often
without a basis in actual fact, or of being titular.  For
example, a corporation is a legal entity, but not a real
person.

[Deesse23]

Trolly Bear