Your objections to Saffire's points.
Well, I didn't want to expand because I have no desire to argue with her. She's the kind of person who isn't even willing to hear anything other than herself and every time I prove my point she tells me I've misunderstood her.
First of all, the concept of intelligence isn't very scientifically sound. It's very controversial, and many have argued that it's environmental rather than genetic -- at least to a large degree. People are more "intelligent" because they live in families, societies, etc. that encourage and foster education, and obviously because they have the right tools to expand their minds.
Using the intelligence argument is a classical way of privileged people to deny their privilege. They use biology to explain their privilege away, as if the only thing that distinguishes them from less well off people is biological and therefore they can't do anything about it. Which of course is not true. Even if some people were more intelligent than others, does that mean they have a right to be better off socioeconomically because of it? That seems as arbitrary as saying people have a right to be better off because they're born white. If there were people who were truly less intelligent, it just means we as a society need to spend more resources on them to get them on an equal footing with the more intelligent people.
Second, we all, especially privileged people, trample on other people. We live in an oppressive, globalized society, and whether we like it or not, most things we buy and consume in one way or another oppressed and exploited someone somewhere around the world in the process. The least you can do as a privileged person is admit that.
Third, she thinks underprivileged people have as much responsibility as privileged people to help others. Yet it is we, the privileged, who consume most of the products and as such are responsible for most of the oppression. And let's not forget that privileged people are more capable of helping than underprivileged people. Not only do they have more to spend, but even when it comes to non-financial means, they have more security and stability. Some people barely have time to make enough to put food on the table. Others don't even have that.
Fourth, she said she's not even interested in "capitalism, the system, etc.", which really proves my point (even though I didn't quote it) that she's not even willing to open her mind and consider that her actions affect other people -- and that's the worst kind of privilege possible.
Topic: World Atheist Convention 2012