[jas3]

Please bear with me as I try to restate your position---

If someone can prove to you that a blastosphere has a soul, you will agree that it should be protected.

But you do not demand that "persons" should have souls, in order to be protected.

And you recognize that plovers are protected, even though they don't have souls.

Am I "hearing" you correctly?

No you are not. You correctly stated that my position is that plovers are protected even though they have no souls. You correctly stated that I believe that if blastospheres have souls, then they should be protected. You incorrectly stated that I do not demand that persons should have souls to be protected.

jas3 jas3

[syriacus]

You incorrectly stated that I do not demand that persons should have souls to be protected.

I know I won't word the following question correctly, but I'll take a stab at it.

Can you explain your position that persons do not need souls in order to deserve protection, but blastospheres do?

I noticed you are an informatician. Here's a little bit of history about Tom Van Vleck's early days in computers

Cool. Huh?