What? The legal notion of "legal personhood" and actual personhood are not comparable, not even legally, and especially not in the context of the discussion at hand.

So, to recap, legally being a person and being a person aren't, legally, the same.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

"This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law allows them to act as persons for certain limited purposes..." Emphasis mine.

This stuff isn't even on topic, but when people insist on insulting my intelligence with snide pseudo-logical comments, I will insist on correcting them.

In other words, you like feeding the trolls?

The comment was a jab at the court's decision to move in the direction they have. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you.

Beyond that, I find it incredibly silly that you find your intelligence so easily insulted. Perhaps it's time to take a chill pill.

parent is referring to this: http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/analysis-the-personhood-of...

which was generally interpreted to mean the SCOTUS decided corporations are people.