If in your view I cannot be correct because you feel I have a logical problem, that is an ad hominem.
Do you remember that thing about saying someone "you are stupid" on the internets being not necessarily an ad hominem? I mean, sometimes you will realize that the other speaker is unable to follow the conversation.
My goal is not to contravene any irrelevancy you raise but to correct it in the overall discussion context, thereby keeping us all on track. The question is about the results. Not about the methods. Dodging this error on your part is not going to fly with me again.
It is a useless question. Moron rapture will not happen. Your megaüberconsequentilist question about the results is as useless as a magical IQ-raising fairy dust proposal. Nothing useful follows from it after a yes or no.
It's even unclear as a thought provoking question. A better formulation is: are you're willing to kill the under 120s, if that means an improvement for the world? But that barely tells a little bit about the personal psychological or ideological motivations. You being "cruel" and calling us Jesus lovers, it's a badly articulated reaction to this ("you are not willing to kill because you are afraid"), but you know, it means nothing ... it won't convince anyone with brains about doing genocide, because it is not the right question
to produce a logical train of outcomes, plans, solutions, etc... (see below).
It's that, or a false dillema when you get the piranhas, the wood-chippers and other childish stuff into your Y/N question.The right question
is veery simple: which is the best way to raise the IQ of the world population? Damn it, and then you could even try to defend your genocide thing, that's not the problem. But your question is defective.