it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are?
Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid.
Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude!
I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
you are engaging in semantics and sophistry. It can be objectively determined that cows are significantly less intelligent than humans, or even african grey parrots, or dolphins. I do not want to eat species that, as a species, exhibit intelligence level that is similar to human intelligence. The reason i wouldn't eat a dumb human is because I don't want to perform an intelligence test on every parrot or every human. Aggregate knowledge about the species is enough knowledge. You may say this is arbitrary, but to tell me I shouldn't eat a cow is even more arbitrary.
Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
If it is ok to eat less intelligent things then if you know for certain that a particular human doesn't meet the criteria (infants, for instance), why are they exempt? No testing need be performed. We know that the category of "infant humans" is going to have an IQ under your stated limit.
You are not making rational logical arguments. You have started with your preferred conclusion and are employing rationalization to justify it. Every time I show you that your philosophy allows for things you find uncomfortable, you move the goalposts.
Case in point:
>Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
This is a copout that means "I am afraid of what my philosophy actually means, so let's just ignore it". You could easily acquire and consume an infant if you wanted. There'd be severe consequences for doing so, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. People do do it. None of that is relevant to the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to do so, now is it?
But you, you're not interested in making sense. You're uncomfortable, so you rationalize. Oh, it's not ok to eat infants even though they're well below my IQ threshold, even though it's completely possible, because they aren't sold in the grocery store!
Infants are exempt because they are not less intelligent. They are humans with human potential. For example, it could be the next Einstein we are talking about or Elon Musk. It is yoi who is not making sense. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I don't want to eat other humans for the same rational reason I don't want to mass murder humans - I enjoy being part of a functioning human society. To equate this with eating a cow just makes no sense at all.
