Monkeys should be considered persons

what i meant from the beginning of this debate was that humans and persons are the same thing. however, you do have a valid point. The definition that i had for humans was the same as people, but now i will make sure to change my premises to say "persons" instead of "humans". On the other hand, i agree with your definition of a person, which is someone who has legal rights, and is able to make legal, rational decisions for themselves, and can be held accountable for their action. However, my point is that even in the world we live in some people who are conisdered a living creature do not follow this definition of persons, just like some animals do not. We live in a world where even some people can not pay their own taxes or for rent, or be part of the community by not being able to vote and some are not even mental stable enough to be held accountable of their own actions. This should clear your confusion of what i was trying to say before, and some changes of the actual premises will be changed in the final statement. 1. what i mean when i say that pain is an emotion has nothing to do with what kind of pain i am talking about. What i mean is that pain is something a person feels that may or may not be inflicted. I defined that something by say an emotion, just like other emotions that we feel like fear and happiness. However, to make everything more clear when i say pain i mean all different kinds of pain no matter what form it is expressed in because pain is pain no matter where or how it occurs. 4. the changes that i made for the definiton of ethics and morality should give up both a clean point on what i meant by moralirty to begin with. 5/6. I will explain what i mean in here further; however, i do not agree with what you say about everyone being vegetrarian. Animals just happen to live a different live than people do, however they pretty much performe most of the tasks that we do on a dailt bases. There are people all around the world that do not believe in killing animals or eating their meat. Take Indians for example, they do not eat meat simply because their culture does not allow them to. This is the same for animals, not all animals feed off of other animals meat or skin, some animals just eat grass- just like how some people do not eat meat. Additionally, we can go in depth more for why some people eat the way they eat but that would require us to debate on something that is not really relavent to this case. the difference between the two premises (5 and 6) is that premise 6 mostly points to animals having same rights as people in general, but mostly in terms of pain and harm. to make my premises more clear i will change them to the following: 5: Non-human mammals (any animal) have essentially the same right not to feel pain or be harmed. 6: Animals have the same rights as people, especially in terms of not feeling pain and being harmed. In premsie 9, there is no way to determine the value of a person because everyone should have the same value no matter what because we are all considered people and we all should have the same rights, just like animals as well. for premises 10 and 11 i explain the confusion about the vegetarian aspect in the previous explanation( refer to above).