Did I miss anything?

[Ryantology]

So for you, your grandmother is your off spring. Something/someone you created???
(Because that is what is being discussed)
Well, for the rest of us grandmothers are points of origins, and not generally created by the rest of us.

So, I can't neglect and abuse my ancestors, but it's okay if it's my descendant?

If someone gave you something you did not want would you fight to keep it?

I don't get your point.

strawman. Where was ownership of another human being as chatted ever suggested?

Discussing the idea of being allowed to destroy a creation is discussing property rights.

Not anymore, at least. Where I live, people are not allowed to destroy an airplane full of passengers, or a traffic-heavy bridge or an occupied building or a synthetic heart beating in someone's chest, even if they personally created these things.

Looks like your argument just died a quick death for some reason.

what are you talking about?!?!?
I asked can one own a dolphin, or orangutan. These animals are considered sentient. Yet they are own by people and companies. This was to refute the idea that a sentient being could not be owned.

I'm not talking about the right to own a being as property, specifically, but the right to abuse and destroy your property, and/or something you create. That is, after all, the justification for God abusing and destroying humans. Unless it's a lot simpler than that, and God being more powerful is all the justification he needs. In which case, you and Waldorf have some theological sparring to do.

hilarious:
So, if when a company spends millions of dollars if not billions of dollars developing an AI.. It is your professional opinion that said company would not have ownership of said AI?

If that AI becomes independently sentient and has the equivalent of our own free will, then it is its own being and deserves rights and independence, to the limit which is safe for itself and for us.

Business man are you?

Nope.

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. What do you base any of this on? Right now it seems like your whole Arguement is based on a general lack of understanding.

It's not an assessment. It's a question and you just dodged it.

Based on what?

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees are mentioned as an example of putting too much effort into following the letter and not the spirit of the law. What makes you think that people like you, who follow only the laws that are easy and convenient, are more righteous than they are?