Dispatches from the Creation Wars

The Power of Rationalization

As the body count for American soldiers hits 4000 (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis, but for some reason most Americans don’t seem to think they count on the balance sheet, and not to mention the tens of thousands of wounded Americans, many of whom have had their entire life shattered), some on the right are reaching for the most ridiculous rationalizations for it. The latest meme: “Only 4000? But many more have been killed in totally unrelated ways throughout history.” How this might justify those deaths is left unspoken, of course; no one is going to actually try to make a coherent argument for that conclusion. Here’s what one conservative rationalizes away those deaths:

Below are a list of deaths from both war and regimes.

1. Under Mao Se Tung from 1949 to 1975 an estimated 27 to 72 million perished.

2. Under Hitler from 1933 to 1945, 15-25 million.

3. Under Japan from 1930 to 1945, approximately 30 million.

4. Under the Arab slave trade 6-21 million from the 3rd to the 21st Century.

5. During WWII, 30-60 million.

6. Vietnam between 1954 and 1975, 2-5 million.

7. Abortions since Roe v. Wade, approximately 35 million babies.

The above deaths were due in part or whole to socialist, communistic or pure leftist ideology.

Stunning, isn’t it? An absolutely idiotic position. He could have made an actual argument to justify this particular war and those deaths. He could have tried to argue that there was a geo-strategic goal at stake that justifies those deaths. He could have argued that rescuing the Iraqi people from a brutal thug like Hussein justifies those deaths. Hell, I would even be inclined to accept that premise; sometimes blood must be spilled to end injustice.

But he didn’t do that. All he did was list other completely unrelated events in which far more people were killed. By that “logic” one could just decide to go to MacRanger’s home town and kill everyone there and when he demanded a justification for it, we could just show him his list. Far more people died in other events in history, that’s the same argument he’s making. Somehow I doubt he would apply his own “reasoning” in other circumstances. Only a lunatic would.

Then he makes this bizarre statement:

Since 2003, 6 million Americans died from various causes, unknown how many were liberals, but being that science has connected a negative pessimistic attitude to premature death I would say it’s in the majority.

If anyone has the first fucking clue what this dolt is raving about here, please explain it. That looks a lot like word salad. And does it need to be pointed out that the STACLU crowd thinks he’s on to something?


  1. #1 Martin
    March 27, 2008

    I think the most salient and on-point reply to King of Ireland is to point out that the atrocities of Stalin and Mao and all those guys weren’t done expressly “in the name of atheism.” To my knowledge none of them ever produced any writings attributing all of their political actions and violent atrocities to atheism. None of them have ever been quoted by a credible historical source saying things like “I am doing these things because I am an atheist.”

    When Mao stated that “religion is poison,” it was, apart from being just bluntly true, his way of dismissing religion as a credible agent for social change, or at least, the kind of social changes he wanted. To bring about his “glorious revolution,” all the old ways had to be swept into the sea, including religion. I’ve always had the idea that Mao’s attitude towards religion was that of something to be dismissed with a hand wave as irrelevant, not as some threatening institution to be stamped out because of some virulent hateful brand of atheism. Then again, I’ll leave it to people with more study and expertise on the period to correct me where necessary.

New comments have been disabled.