Your inconsistency is more straightforward than that: you started by writing "it isn't clear that a coffee table isn't intelligent on some level", but it is if the "few would regard..." form of argument is acceptable. You are also demanding proof from allenz while presenting a "few would regard.." argument for your own position.

I agree that intelligence is largely mysterious at this point, but I think you are pushing it too far in the unknown-and-unknowable direction. A debate in which the intelligence of coffee tables is an issue is not likely to provide much enlightenment about intelligence.

> You are also demanding proof from allenz while presenting a "few would regard.." argument for your own position.

"few would regard" isn't my argument though. It is an assumption of the other poster's position. I suppose I could have phrased it as "I would assume you wouldn't regard...". This was done to point out the inconsistency in their reasoning (which is admittedly assumed, if they had responded otherwise then we probably wouldn't actually be disagreeing).

>but I think you are pushing it too far in the unknown-and-unknowable direction

Actually where I'm going with this is that intelligence isn't actually what we care about re: morality, it's just a metric sometimes used because people haven't thought it through.

When one "point[s] out the inconsistency in [someone's] reasoning", one is making an argument.

Your concern with morality seems to have entered the thread rather late and tangentially, and it is not clear to me what you are trying to say about it - in fact, it feels as if you are arguing against a position that no-one here has taken.