Then by definition, you're a 'complete and absolute moron', too. At your IQ level, you are smarter than roughly 99.8% of the population.
Even amongst people smarter than you, you consider 95% of them 'complete and absolute morons'.
Your logic is only partially sound. Whilst your argument relies on only currently relevant statistics, the population as according to what is likely only a countrywide study, mine is based on the entire trajectory of human thought and reasoning surveyed as a whole, which is the entirety of all people born in all places since the first birth of a human occurred.
You also don't seem to grasp how insignificant 99.99% is in that case. The scope of what that affects is 9999 out of every 10000 people, leaving one person unaffected per 10000. Taking only the current population (not counting the 3 or 4 deaths by natural cause every second, or extreme cases of omitted population due to disasters or genocide), you have 7.2 billion, which amounts to 720000 unaffected persons, which, equally distributed among countries, is 3750 unaffected cases per country.
Most notable unaffected cases fall in the period of around 1850 to present, which is the span of the significant growth portion of the J-curve of population growth all species experience. However, drawing an upper bound of 300 generations averaging 20-30 years for the entirety of human growth, you then have to consider that the amount of births over that near six millenia gap from human genesis to the start of the significant build of the exponential function of approximately y = e^x would likely surpass the sample size for 1850-present, making the previous era better in terms of raw statistics, but poorer in terms of evidentiary corroboration of theory.
Overall, considering all the factors, you likely are looking at around 1.5-2 billion unaffected cases, which seems more than fair, considering vast historical ignorance to the majority of what is now known, logically unsound perpetuated tradition and ritual, emotional bias in lieu of logical reasoning, pursuit of logically unsound philosophies and scientific theories (theories being the operative word), incorrect postulations and claims adhered to by uneducated public, current and historical fallibility and inefficacy of the majority of education (if even present), among many other things.
Even further is the inefficacy of both IQ and EQ as means of explaining intellect. A good example would be me, who, despite numerous tests, hasn't had results that testers have deemed appropriate representation of the actual IQ I happen to possess. I only use the number because it is a manner in which I can relate to neurotypicals in a quantifiable manner. It also doesn't help that standard deviations are used as a "one size fits all" answer, as such would imply every 241th person or so would have an IQ of 140. And, considering how people's brains are addled heavily by the hypothalamus and a average of a rather sad excuse for a frontal lobe, I sincerely doubt that is the case. Standard deviation also employs the Ludic fallacy, in which non-regulated random occurrences are wrongfully thought to be invariably consistent with a statistic.
Anything you'd like to add?
Topic: Why Don't People Like Classical Music Anymore?