Japanese Internment vs. Ignoring the AIDs Crisis (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2024, 11:39:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Japanese Internment vs. Ignoring the AIDs Crisis (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Whichh was more immoral?
#1
Internment of the Japanese
 
#2
Ignoring the AIDs Crisis
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 33

Author Topic: Japanese Internment vs. Ignoring the AIDs Crisis  (Read 1049 times)
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« on: August 10, 2017, 04:30:26 PM »

I don't see how Japanese internment wasn't immoral; it literally criminalized existence - the existence of being of an American with Japanese descent. That's a fundamental, immora misapplication of government power.
But it prevented spies!!!

"We may have lost our humanity, but at least we won the war."
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2017, 07:40:16 PM »

Just a reminder that Roosevelt could easily have ordered the death of all Japanese-Americans, and over fifty percent of the country supported wiping out everyone of Japanese blood.

At least Reagan's reaction to such a threat wasn't: "Jail all the gays!!!"
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2017, 09:49:33 PM »

Just a reminder that Roosevelt could easily have ordered the death of all Japanese-Americans, and over fifty percent of the country supported wiping out everyone of Japanese blood.

At least Reagan's reaction to such a threat wasn't: "Jail all the gays!!!"

Even accepting your first paragraph as true (doubtful, even with the Korematsu decision there's no way the Supreme Court would've upheld an order for an actual genocide), your logic is as follows:

1-FDR could've done a lot worse than what he actually did.
2-Reagan didn't do the absolute worse possible response he could've given.
3-Therefore, Reagan was not as bad.

Huh

Yes, because the Supreme Court would have acted fast enough to stop a military order.

Please, someone read Higgins's post.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 14 queries.