>In the civilized world we all agree on the personhood of humans.

You seem to have put a second tautology in to your tautology.

All right thinking people think rhat the things that qualify qualify.

If they didn't they wouldn't qualify, or be right thinking. But that's ok because we know the things that don't qualify don't qualify if we didn't know that we wouldn't be right thinking.

>How did you make such a big leap from consciousness to personhood anyway?

Once you start unilaterally making decisions about the unproven, you can decide all of the unprovables. History shows that personhood rolls into the firing range fairly quickly when people start doing that.

I'm more than comfortable saying you can't do that before someone openly declares that they are doing it.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your first part. Give it to me in plain English, doc.

>Once you start unilaterally making decisions about the unproven, you can decide all of the unprovables.

You mean that if I say your dumbass chatbot isn't conscious, it's like a slippery slope and next thing you know you're not a person anymore, and you're in a concentration camp? Really, man?