>>257550631>You're wrong. It really is that simple. You are not correct.
Not an argument>IQ is, in fact, an ambiguous measure, and morality is, in fact, straightforward.
It's quite the opposite: IQ is a well established metric used by psychologists and psychometricians in the academic field, whereas morality is a deep philosophical topic with no clear answers. Or do you profess holding the answer to morality? Please share your genius!>You're advocating for depopulation with specific standards while agreeing that would oppose those standards if you didn't meet them. This is hypocrisy.
No it is not, just as advocating throwing criminals into jail, while not wanting to be thrown into jail myself, is not hypocritical. I know you're feeble minded but make the effort to understand.>The solution is not high IQ people, the solution is a morally rich society.
A direct consequence of increasing IQ would be an increase in morality, as countless studies show that higher IQ people are usually more moral in the standard measurable sense (i.e. commit less crime, tend to lie less, feel more remorse for bad actions, etc.)>If anything, high IQ mal intentioned individuals are infinitely more dangerous than petty thieves
Of course, a low IQ nigger muggin people on the subway at night is ultimately less dangerous than a politician who signs a law allowing for mass immigration from the third world, but I do not think this makes a convincing argument for preserving the nigger.