This is making a bunch of assumptions about what cursive is and what it means to write it that mostly just aren't true. Just to set the stage here there is a small but real division of history focused on the study of scripts over time so you don't need to just make stuff up starting from now.
There is a balance between speed of writing and legibility, and scripts in a single language tend to just go back and forth on those two over time. Cursive is fairly balanced between them but being moderately biased towards speed. It isn't easier to read for most people, anyway, though not much harder than our other scripts either.
People also love to, and always have, attribute various intellectual or moral virtues to specific scripts! That impulse is similar to dialect, where it has a lot more to do with who uses different scripts, who they are associated with at a given time. In a society dominated by church-educated aristocrats for example, a literate merchant class will attribute sophistication to the ecclesial script and eventually switch to it, etc. It's not hard to extrapolate this pattern to our current time, I don't think.
And then finally users of non-cursive scripts still think and write in terms of units of words, and making this error in your reasoning indicates you probably have the nature of language flipped on its head. The "true" language is the spoken one! Writing systems are just that, systems used to write it down, and the scripts used to make them are even less a part of the language system a person uses to think.
And finally finally our non-cursive script is very close to carolingian miniscule and predates cursive by like centuries. There's not even historical authenticity to cursive superiority. It's fine that you like it more but don't make it an issue of intelligence or virtue because it is neither.
There is a balance between speed of writing and legibility, and scripts in a single language tend to just go back and forth on those two over time. Cursive is fairly balanced between them but being moderately biased towards speed. It isn't easier to read for most people, anyway, though not much harder than our other scripts either.
People also love to, and always have, attribute various intellectual or moral virtues to specific scripts! That impulse is similar to dialect, where it has a lot more to do with who uses different scripts, who they are associated with at a given time. In a society dominated by church-educated aristocrats for example, a literate merchant class will attribute sophistication to the ecclesial script and eventually switch to it, etc. It's not hard to extrapolate this pattern to our current time, I don't think.
And then finally users of non-cursive scripts still think and write in terms of units of words, and making this error in your reasoning indicates you probably have the nature of language flipped on its head. The "true" language is the spoken one! Writing systems are just that, systems used to write it down, and the scripts used to make them are even less a part of the language system a person uses to think.
And finally finally our non-cursive script is very close to carolingian miniscule and predates cursive by like centuries. There's not even historical authenticity to cursive superiority. It's fine that you like it more but don't make it an issue of intelligence or virtue because it is neither.