In a recent thread elsewhere we were attempting to define “person” and were in heavy conflict. One person on the thread said that a person can only be a human because that is the law and it took him about a page and a half to prove and reprove his point.

And in the sprit of philosophy, I came back with this and my belief that the law doesn’t define me, I do. I am offering this because my argument is in part about how ownership come to be today.

RE: Imo you have only offered opinions and labeled them as factual in the end. This is supported by a style of reasoning that is designed to emulate factual authority through a style of pier pressure, but by my own sensibilities are simply factoids presented through a need to conquer and rule. but don't get me wrong a very acceptable style indeed.

Factoid:- something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

I am reading much of the language you offered as based on paternal and Anglican style of assigning values that have, through the centuries, won the world away from other styles of belief, thought and language. In other words governance and freedom, but it never did really defeat them from existence.

Those exiled hold the defining characteristics for the word person that I would defend because I have first hand experience in living and believing through some of them and along with many other persons and people in this world despite your assertion to the laws claim to systematic supremacy over human thought.

Now that the question is asked to define the word, whose language as offered will seek ownership in authorizing our language, and whose will seek to simply be included as one of the authoritarian’s in texts? I would leave that distinction as my finest point in my larger context. One seeks to divide and conquer and one seeks a holistic and harmonious existence.

And please, look to the history books and how they are vivid in their criminally influenced natures the farther and back you look in authorship and to a direct reflection of the nature I am speaking to.

I know of a great number of Native Americans and other aboriginal peoples across the globe that would disagree with these factoids as you have offered. After all are they no more than simply heirlooms of supremacy as dictated through the victors of countless conquered lands of people and now amalgamated into our current state of processing what we still need and seek? Lets just call it supreme authority for the sake of my argument.

We seek it though all modes these days and as so, we see our past and the pasts of others as conquered as nothing diverse to our own righteous verse of possibility, authorizing us to debunk and disbelieve in any possibilities that say there ever was anything more natural than the law we have now.

I would point to the social origins of these precedents as presented here in your text. I would point to the conquering states and religions which are simply belief systems of the most tenacious peoples that reign over popular thought today and whose authorities were born simply by the nature of their willful force and animalistic need to dominate others rather than anything that would be offered as noble or a righteousness in spirit.

One of the styles of thought that we hold dear today and at great consequence to those opposing it, is the premise of ownership and over the living.

For many of the people silenced in the authoring of our world as we recognize it officially, this is a crime against nature and insult to our sensibilities. These are now reflected in our choice to call all living things persons.

These sensibilities are reborn again and again in new generations of people, without political pressures, because there is no need for a contravisional precedent to author them like in those views opposing them; they are of a more natural law that our current state of affairs has no place for recognizing.

For the people defending the precedence of innate supremacy over those opposing it, we have language that states that possession is 9/10ths of the law and this is worn into our psyches.

We have natural law superseded by contrived and political law that divvies up nature for satisfying a need of dominance through ownership of the living, and over everything that can be conquered to the affect. Every law written to this affect is by men and sets a precedent to seek ownership over the people’s thoughts through the conquering of their lands and bodies and then through the use of factoids, their minds.

Factoid:- something fictitious or unsubstantiated that is presented as fact, devised especially to gain publicity and accepted because of constant repetition.

Forgive me If I am miss-guided in offering my characterizations and considerations, I am willing to be shown my faults if the attempts can rise above the use of force, ridicule, one-sided or unnatural precedents and un-accounting denials. The only fault I am sure will be brought up is that one side appears to have won, but only denies the other still exists which means the deciding is not over yet.

Iam