Most of the guys in my CS classes were ugly...
Problem isn't that they are sexist, the problem is that they are smart/engaged enough to notice and not socially "adjusted" enough to no longer say the truth. On the other side I would agree that in my observations most woman prefer the happy lie to the truth so they tend not to fit in with logical pursuits...
Er, so your trying to take the right to vote away from those pregnant? I think you would need a very compelling argument for anyone to agree with you.
Just because someone says something is a rhetorical question doesn't mean it shouldn't be answered. The labeling it as rhetorical question just shows that their mind is closed and they are trying to avoid debate, isn't that your intent? Oh don't bother responding that was a rhetorical question as the answer is obvious...
In this case you have a postulate hiding inside a rhetorical question. They do this, as you have so clearly shown, in order to try and keep people from remarking on the postulate itself. In order to be nice, as I try not to be a raving jack
Why?
I mean other than calling a corporation a "person" is a shorthand for a long and involved set of rulings that that don't make it a person but instead say that inherits some of the rights of those who own it?
Even if it really meant that a corporation was a real "person" why would a chimp be a better candidate? From a biological perspective a corporation is made up of member people so it is way closer to a human than a chimp can ever be. From an intellectual perspective a corporation is, usually, made up of relatively intelligent adults while a chimp is at best in the 3-4 year old category. From a law, or understanding of it at least, perspective most corporations far exceed even human standards, think of all the compliance, accountants and HR drones.
Ah, but like most rhetorical questions the answer is easy.
To put it in simple terms...
Just because some people decide to deal together as a group does not magically take away their rights so some rights of the individuals are exercisable by the corporation. Just because a chimp can recognize an apple does not mean that it can understand and enter into our social contract.
I would suggest this article if you are interested in the concept of the social contract: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Presuming the US here is a article on Locke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
And just to be complete here is one about how the social contract is wrong (which I would disagree with): http://www.animalethics.org.uk/contractarianism.html
I would suggest this article if you actually care what "personhood" they are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
"Generally speaking, corporations may invoke rights that groups of individual may invoke, such as the right to petition, to speech, to enter into contracts and to hold property, to sue and to be sued. However, they may not exercise rights which are exclusive to individuals and cannot be exercised by other associations of individuals, including the right to vote and the right against self incrimination." - above link
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
