Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are people so upset by Trump's immigration policies? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elastichedgehog)
    Because it basically segregates an entire race?
    No it doesn't.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    No it doesn't.
    I was worried that was the improper use of the word but after looking at the definition I think it works:

    "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others"

    How does Trump's policy not do this?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    just to be clear the majority of terrorists in the usa are not nasty redical muslims plotting an Islamic state of trumpton. its their own grown wackos. just look at their problems with mass shootings most and I really mean most are white nutcases killing innocents because they hate society. the schools shootings

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States
    their society is sick. just look at that list. mostly white teens to mid 20s.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elastichedgehog)
    I was worried that was the improper use of the word but after looking at the definition I think it works:

    "the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others"

    How does Trump's policy not do this?
    My issue wasn't with the word segregate (there's a plastic tub in my fridge that segregates the butter inside of it from the floor) but with "an entire race". There's still something like 100,000,000 Muslims still entitled to go to America. Even ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Belgium. And they're not one homogeneous racial group.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    True, but we wouldn't drop atom bombs on a country which didn't possess them.

    You may say that is a good thing, a moral thing, which sounds plausible.

    Except dropping those two bombs ended the war at a stroke. Without them the Japanese would never have given up, they would have fought to the death, island by island, all the way up the mainland. Iwo Jima demonstrated that.

    More lives were saved, certainly more allied lives, but more lives in toto, by that act.

    Which would be inconceivable under modern standards of morality. A morality which our enemies don't share today, and didn't in the 40's either.
    japan was seeking to surrender pre bomb dropping.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    My issue wasn't with the word segregate (there's a plastic tub in my fridge that segregates the butter inside of it from the floor) but with "an entire race". There's still something like 100,000,000 Muslims still entitled to go to America. Even ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Belgium. And they're not one homogeneous racial group.
    Ah I see, perhaps the scope of my generalization was a little wide, my bad. I still don't support his policies for the same reasons I stated. I can understand the thinking behind his approach and even why people would support it, but surely there's a better way to insure America's safety that doesn't result in needless increased racial tension. Muslims that are from nations still entitled to enter the USA may still potentially be treated with the same attitudes taken towards those from countries under the ban.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulbarlow)
    japan was seeking to surrender pre bomb dropping.
    The Japanese had never lost a war. Their leaders were deluded. It's common knowledge that they weren't going to surrender.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    incorrect. they attempted to use the Ussr to broker a peace deal that would prevent unconditional surrender. this would have resulted in peace. no need for allied troops to land and suffer the horrific expected injuries. it would also have stopped Russia's land grab and the usa use of weapons of mass destruction. it was politically expedient for the allies and Russia to want to ignore the peace deal that was offered. re them not losing a conflict not quite correct. have a read.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paulbarlow)
    incorrect. they attempted to use the Ussr to broker a peace deal that would prevent unconditional surrender. this would have resulted in peace. no need for allied troops to land and suffer the horrific expected injuries. it would also have stopped Russia's land grab and the usa use of weapons of mass destruction. it was politically expedient for the allies and Russia to want to ignore the peace deal that was offered. re them not losing a conflict not quite correct. have a read.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakumatsu
    This took place before the consolidation of Japan under the Meiji Constitution. The contact with the USSR was to defend them against what they believed would be land invasion by US forces. And this was after Hiroshima anyway, so it still wouldn't have stopped that explosion even if it had been an appeal for surrender.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.