On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I DISMISS CFJ 1614. The status of Zefram being an avocado -- indeed,
of any player being any type of foodstuff -- is not relevant to the
Rules.
This judgement is a judicial admission that personhood is not
restricted to members of Homo sapiens, but extends at least as far as
Persea americana. Taking the obiter dictum any type of foodstuff
at face value suggests that natural personhood is available to (but
not
necessarily automatic for) all members of the kingdoms Plantae, Fungi,
Animalia, and possibly Protista.
I only follow this argument if it includes a premiss that Zefram
(you!) is a player but not a person.
Further, the phrase any type of foodstuff does not necessarily
suggest that personhood is available to non-foodstuff items, just
that the attribute foodstuff as applied to an entity of class
player is not relevant to the rules.
While this is good for the principle of non-discrimination, it is
disappointing that it preemptively resolves the question of whether
Goethe
can remain a player after having been rendered legally a banana by one
interpretation of proposal 4904, and thus renders 4904 ineffective in
determining the behaviour of legal fictions.
-zefram
That is, in part, the idea. Saying Zefram is an avocado -- or
passing a proposal establishing Goethe is a banana -- or
transferring elements of a Rules-defined private property to France
-- does not automatically make it so.
There's an old quote about Agora having issues with I say I do,
therefore I do. I'm sure someone will be along soon with the full
quote and attribution; do we have a citation for *when* the quote
dates to?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
