Pthagnar: So yeah, demanding that you must treat objects which are not demonstrably sapient as if they are, whether or not you buy that there's a good chance they might be sapient, seems like inconsistency to me. Applying the same standards, I could show these people they'd have to do a lot of things they won't like, including (if they are against eating sapients) stop eating, because anything might be sapient. (Maybe ducks are not sapient, but roast ducks are.)

(That comment about consistency was intended in a very general sense, somewhat independent of how you defined your terms. I only used words like "nonpersons" to be accommodating, in case you wanted an illiberal crack. No offense intended. (More questions later. Though most of my responses are questions framed as objections.))

Nortaneous: Am I wrong? I thought I'd pull out quotes on everything, but if you need citations for any particular claims, I'll go look for them. (Also, I am more of an actual liberal than a social democrat.)