by John Galt » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:36 am
yes, of course it's informed by reality. and reality is, they (neanderthals) are different species. and reality is, people (there i go... i'm talking about humans) refer to "humans" as "people". sure this is just because we're the only ones around, but even if we were not, that's what it would mean. slugs from outer space, to most humans, are not "people". neither are bonobos.
a person is an individual human. people are a group of persons (who are individual humans). i'm saying that i think most people (read: human beings) on this planet would not take an inclusive view. they would take the speciest view, and exclude other species. and i'm saying (where the original question came from, a post by Wizard, supra) that we would need to modify our laws as appropriate because if we didn't someone like PoS would act like how he posts.
still, there is the precedent of non-humans being referred to as persons in the court of law, namely, corporations. but no one thinks they are actual people
also, perhaps we should be using the term sapient instead, as i think that's what we all mean (this would preclude bonobos)
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.