> People with IQs below 91 walk among us. I feel like you're misrepresenting what the article is about. I'm pretty sure it's not the people whose IQ is a bit b

> People with IQs below 91 walk among us. I feel like you're misrepresenting what the article is about. I'm pretty sure it's not the people whose IQ is a bit below 91 we're really talking about here. As the article states (emphasis mine): > These men all had IQs below 91, and nearly half had IQs below 71. What people find inhumane about this policy isn't "the army recruited a guy with an IQ of 87 from our town", but "the army recruited a guy with an IQ of 68 who can't read or write and has never heard of Vietnam from our town". An IQ below 71 is typically labelled as a cognitive impairment, not only now, but then as well. These are people who are often considered unable to function independently in normal civilian life. The idea that, even with modern tech, a war environment is much simpler to navigate than civilian life, seems so obviously absurd to me that I have trouble even articulating an argument against it. > Is it more moral for the inevitable sacrifices of warfare to be solely among a society's higher IQ individuals? I object to your use of the term "inevitable". Sacrifices are inevitable during war, but the war itself wasn't inevitable. The moral thing would have been to end the war, rather than prolong a war that leadership knew damn well they were losing at this point.