Thursday, April 30, 2015

First of the Killaries ~ Updated

This one had the misfortune of deciding to re-Warren/re-Bill/re-Barack another lesser evil, so the result is getting stuck here for posterity. This century's preferred media topic is apparently something called "lgbtq," with the Boneyard conveniently forgotten. Yawn--you already know what this is. Just stretching.

Suppose that there is a president, and his name is Bill Clinton, and he bombs Eastern Europe, resulting in the deaths of 4,000 civilians, he bombs Iraq, resulting in the deaths of 20,000 civilians, and he imposes food and medicine sanctions on Iraq, causing over a million deaths by starvation and cheaply-preventable illness.

That's a very conservative estimate of 1,024,000 dead people. Let's assume 1/4 people are lgbtq on average, so that's 256,000 lgbtq deaths.

Then, presume there's a President Bush, and he bombs and invades Afghanistan and Iraq, producing a conservative 900,000 deaths, or 225,000 lgbtq deaths.

After that, there's a President Obama, and he bombs Iraq and Afghanistan, producing a conservative 30,000 deaths, and he funds a Syrian rebel insurgency that causes a conservative 500,000 deaths across the Middle East and Africa, resulting in roughly 530,000 deaths, or 132,500 lgbtq deaths.

Presume also that, during each President's time in office, a Congress composed of different political factions--some pertaining to said President, some not--passed or rejected different series' of laws which were either favorable or unfavorable to the current domestic preferences of those lgbtq people portrayed by the corporate media who happened to be living on a portion of the North American landmass at the time.

Given all that, please answer the following questions:

1) Which of these presidents did good things for lgbtq people?

2) Which of these presidents improved the world sociocultural perspective toward lgbtq people?

3) Do any of these presidents belong to a political tradition which is likely to produce another president who will slaughter hundreds of thousands of lgbtq people?

4) How many domestic niceties are worth the cost of one innocent heterosexual child's life?

5) How many domestic niceties are worth the cost of one innocent homosexual child's life?

6) How many domestic niceties are worth the cost of one innocent transsexual child's life?

7) Is there any total number of dead lgbtq people that would be "too much" to justify any domestic nicety, no matter how nice? For example, if Hillary provides a guaranteed minimum income of $100,000 for life for every single lgbtq person in America, and she peacefully and through logic alone convinces every single person in the U.S. to view homosexuality in a positive light, thereby ending lgbtq-related discrimination forever, but she has to kill another million Arabs to do so, is it worth it?

How about six million?


8) If Hillary drone-executed a mere 10,000 American people in order to accomplish the above pro-lgbtq goals, would that be worth it?

How about only one thousand? Or a hundred?


8) Would it matter if Hillary genuinely, deeply, and passionately believed that any Americans killed were, like Middle Easterners, collateral damage, and necessary to protect her ability to promote positive domestic lgbtq change?

9) What could Hillary say to you to convince you that it was okay to kill only two hundred thousand Americans in order to achieve her domestic lgbtq goals? Would it help if she asked you to remember the Maine? Would it help if she asked Colin Powell to wave a vial of sugar cubes at you?

10) What makes the lives of people born on a certain section of the North American landmass intrinsically more valuable than those of people born in certain portions of the Middle East?

11) How many people would any given leader have to kill before that leader would no longer be a lesser evil? For example, say Stalin killed 50 million people and Hitler killed 10 million. Is it right to vote for Hitler, or is his body count too high, even though Stalin's might be higher?

12) Posit that two political factions have been engaging in constant warfare for over a decade by claiming to be less violent than the other faction. How long would they have to engage in such behavior before you would conclude that they were never going to stop? Two decades? Fifty years? A century? A millennium?

Updated 05/01/2015: Dr. Carrico didn't answer any of the questions; instead he offered a lecture about the pragmatic realism of accepting mass murder. (I know, I know.) Logging response here, and Rob, thanks for the FAIR cite, which blended well with Carrico:

Oh, and in case mere mass murder is not evocative enough, let's also consider the issue of how many child rapes it is acceptable to condone in exchange for favorable domestic social policies.

Token child rape article you already know about.

How many? Being really conservative, assume that Hillary maintains the imperial network of 800+ military bases worldwide, continues to occupy Africa and the Middle East, and during her presidency, she racks up the following statistics:

200,000 people killed

10,000 people raped in the context of armed conflict

1,000 people raped in the context of armed occupation

You're okay with that, but what if she goes farther? Say, she attacks Syria or Iran? How high can those numbers go before you say, "Too much"?

No comments:

Post a Comment