Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 15th Dec 2012 19:11 UTC
In the News "Peers and scientists including Professor Stephen Hawking are once again pushing for an official pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing. Turing's death from cyanide poisoning in 1954 was ruled a suicide, coming after his conviction for gross indecency at a time when homosexuality was illegal." The fact that he still hasn't been pardoned is an utter disgrace.
Order by: Score:
Provided...
by Kochise on Sat 15th Dec 2012 19:48 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

...decency and morality are kept as safe as the Queen, the world might collapse.

Kochise

Reply Score: 1

Why pardoned?
by phti on Sat 15th Dec 2012 20:17 UTC
phti
Member since:
2012-06-02

It's the UK that must ask pardon to Turing's relatives, if any.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Why pardoned?
by puenktchen on Sun 16th Dec 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "Why pardoned?"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

+1

You can only be pardoned if you are guilty of something which has to be pardoned. A pardon is an act of grace, not something which is you right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why pardoned?
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Why pardoned?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's legal issue to restore honour to his name.

Reply Score: 2

fat lot of good
by TechGeek on Sat 15th Dec 2012 21:26 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

A fat lot of good a pardon will do at this point. The man is dead. Even if pardoned, it doesn't change the fact that he was persecuted for being gay.

Reply Score: 6

RE: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 13:04 UTC in reply to "fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

A fat lot of good a pardon will do at this point. The man is dead. Even if pardoned, it doesn't change the fact that he was persecuted for being gay.


It's just people in the scientific and IT industries wanting to stick of for their peers. And while the intentions are honourable, most people on here seem to have missed the side effects of such an action.

These are my views; I'm British and very open minded about peoples sexuality and yet against this proposal.

Regardless of whether the law was unjust, it was the law and Turing was guilty. I genuinely wish the circumstances were different, but they weren't. So if we set a precedence that historic figures are now considered innocent then where the hell do you draw the line? It would make current laws infinitely more difficult to maintain because any future change to the law could potentially see guilty people freed from jail on technicalities, or even innocent people sent to jail because of actions they did in their past.

What's more, you open up scope for countless liable cases. People descended from those that are now pardoned will have a genuine case to sue the government. And given the huge numbers of people involved, it could be massively expensive (which would do the us much more damage given we're trying to fight off a recession).

The problem is, as noble as this gesture might be, it's such a dangerous presidence to set. The only positive outcome is entirely perceived as we can't change the past. But such a gesture would have massively unpredictable repercussions in the future.

So while I really do have the greatest sympathy for Turing and everyone else affected by that retarded piece of legislation, a pardon is the wrong way to offer up an apology. (and quite honestly, I'm surprised Hawkins backed this idea; I would have thought a British genius like himself would have realised the dangers of such a proposal).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 16th Dec 2012 13:09 UTC in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Regardless of whether the law was unjust, it was the law and Turing was guilty. I genuinely wish the circumstances were different, but they weren't. So if we set a precedence that historic figures are now considered innocent then where the hell do you draw the line? It would make current laws infinitely more difficult to maintain because any future change to the law could potentially see guilty people freed from jail on technicalities, or even innocent people sent to jail because of actions they did in their past.


So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank? I mean, she clearly violated the laws of the time so, fcuk her, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank? I mean, she clearly violated the laws of the time so, fcuk her, right?

Did you even read my post? I wasn't saying we shouldn't honour Turing. I was saying we shouldn't pardon him because doing so would set a very dangerous legal precedence. There's a huge gulf of difference between the two.

I'm all for the government donating to related charities, opening up museums honouring his life or even having a Turing national holiday to remember him. Or any other way of remembering and honouring the guy that seems fit. However we should not undermine our legal system in the process, and that's a real risk if we pardon him.

Given how much law-related content you post on here, I thought you of all people would have grasped the implications of such a ruling.



...Anne Frank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[edit]

Also, I'm loving how you don't seem to give a rats arse about any of the other British homosexuals who were persecuted over that dumb law. To single Turing out like Anne Frank and say we should honour them specifically is just impassionate against the thousands of others who fell foul to unjust laws like this.

But who cares about the 'little' people just so long as your personal heroes are celebrated?

Edited 2012-12-16 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: fat lot of good
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 16th Dec 2012 15:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fat lot of good"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

qAlso, I'm loving how you don't seem to give a rats arse about any of the other British homosexuals who were persecuted over that dumb law. To single Turing out like Anne Frank and say we should honour them specifically is just impassionate against the thousands of others who fell foul to unjust laws like this.

But who cares about the 'little' people just so long as your personal heroes are celebrated?


Movements have always had figureheads. A part representing the whole. Like William the Silent, the personification of the Dutch struggle against Spanish oppression, the Founding Fathers, Anne Frank, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Martin Luther King, and loads of others, on both grand and smaller scales.

Caring about MLK was caring about the fate of African-Americans. Giving Aung San Suu Kyi the Nobel Peace Prize was acknowledging all the people in Myanmar, and honouring Anne Frank is, yes, honouring all those innocent people who shared a similar gruesome fate during the holocaust.

It even goes beyond people - Sniper Alley (Snajperska aleja) has, for me, become a "figure head" for the siege of Sarajevo, and the name alone makes me think of the countless innocent lives that were lost during that horrible war.

In the same way, honouring Turing would mean honouring all gay people both in and outside of the UK who shared similar fates - and, who are, in large parts of the world, still sharing the same fate. Heck, even in Europe, most countries' laws still consider gay people inferior - yes, in the UK too.

None of the above means you don't care about the other people behind the figure heads. I've never heard such a ridiculous thing in my entire life. In fact, it's grossly insulting.

Edited 2012-12-16 15:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


In the same way, honouring Turing would mean honouring all gay people both in and outside of the UK who shared similar fates - and, who are, in large parts of the world, still sharing the same fate. Heck, even in Europe, most countries' laws still consider gay people inferior - yes, in the UK too.

Turing has already been given a formal apology from the government and a law is being passed to remove these incidents from gay peoples criminal records (essentially doing what the pardon does, but using established legal presidence and against every individual what was persecuted by said law).

Honouring Turing like this doesn't help gay people country wide.

Here's a little more information from those points from someone who actively leads gay equality pertitions:
http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html

None of the above means you don't care about the other people behind the figure heads. I've never heard such a ridiculous thing in my entire life. In fact, it's grossly insulting.

It's no more insulting than the judgement you made against me in your previous post. So I guess we are both misunderstanding each other

Edited 2012-12-16 16:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: fat lot of good
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fat lot of good"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I wasn't saying we shouldn't honour Turing. I was saying we shouldn't pardon him because doing so would set a very dangerous legal precedence.


Pardons aren't an issue of a precedent. They don't set legal precedents. They are by definition extraordinary cases.
And there are a lot of precedents where people have been pardoned after being found unequivocally guilty.

You may be against, but a precedent this would not set. Not would this be the first time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Mon 17th Dec 2012 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Pardons aren't an issue of a precedent. They don't set legal precedents. They are by definition extraordinary cases.
And there are a lot of precedents where people have been pardoned after being found unequivocally guilty.


The link I posted addresses those points ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by allanregistos on Tue 18th Dec 2012 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10


So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank? I mean, she clearly violated the laws of the time so, fcuk her, right?


Thom, you are talking as though the morality of Sexual indecency is equivalent to a crime committed by the Nazis in the 40s. Its different, homosexuals' behaviors are not accepted generally in conservative countries like ours, and so we behave as much as the Nazis? And WHO ARE YOU to dictate that it is morally acceptable to just have same sex relationships in a society? Do you really have that evidence(by experimenting it yourself) that society remains healthy even if homosexuals practices are rampant?
It is still open to debate, while murder is murder from the very beginning.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: fat lot of good
by zima on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fat lot of good"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They are very much present also in your society, just kinda hidden.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So, we shouldn't honour Anne Frank?


I'm sure you're aware that honoring and pardoning are two very different things.
No-one has said we shouldn't honor Turing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by BluenoseJake on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Your logic is horribly, horribly wrong. Those types of laws are bad, and people suffered under them. Those cases must be heard, and people must be compensated. If the British government can't handle the cost of repairing the damage, then too bad for them, they were oppressing their own people, for no good reason.

Your logic belittles the struggles that marginalized groups have been fighting for hundreds of years, be it homosexuals, or blacks, or women's rights(or countless others). All of those groups had to break bad laws as part of the fight for equality. Christ, the US wouldn't even exist if it was not for people breaking bad laws.

People persecuted under oppressive laws should be compensated and recognized for their struggle, no matter how hard it is on the governments of today. At the very least, it might show them that institutionalized oppression is too costly to maintain in the long run.

Turing was just being himself, and that should never be against any law.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Tell you what, when America compensates each and every persecuted coloured, homosexual and non-Christian citizen, then I'll consider taking your opinions seriously.

Until then, I think you have little place to tell me how my country should be run.



Turing was just being himself, and that should never be against any law.

I agree. But the issue is now bigger than whether the law was just. Which is my whole point and an issue you just ignored.

This is like the "think of the children" arguments where dangerously generalised laws are set.

Edited 2012-12-16 15:04 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: fat lot of good
by BluenoseJake on Sun 16th Dec 2012 15:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fat lot of good"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm not American, but your point is still asinine. Oh, if the Americans don't show remorse for their civil rights abuses then no one has too?

I'm Canadian, and we have our own shameful laws to deal with, and I totally support compensation for those affected by them. Japanese Canadians deserve compensation for internments in the 1940s. Natives deserve recognition and compensation for persecution in the 1950s, and so on, for ever, it seems.

Your Queen is my Queen, and I am ashamed of both our governments for their actions taken in the past.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I'm not American, but your point is still asinine. Oh, if the Americans don't show remorse for their civil rights abuses then no one has too?

You're twisting my argument. I'm fully in support of showing remorse. In fact I've said that about a dozen times now; so I don't appreciate your childish rebuttals. I'm was illustrating the hypocrisy of your judgements.


I'm Canadian, and we have our own shameful laws to deal with, and I totally support compensation for those affected by them. Japanese Canadians deserve compensation for internments in the 1940s. Natives deserve recognition and compensation for persecution in the 1950s, and so on, for ever, it seems.

Your Queen is my Queen, and I am ashamed of both our governments for their actions taken in the past.

I guess we at least agree on something ;)

The British government (and monarchy) has committed a lot of wrong doings - none of them excusable. So I'm genuinely not trying shrug them off. I just think there are better ways to honour the victims than this.

edit: and I'm not alone. Even some gay activists share this view: http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html

Edited 2012-12-16 16:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: fat lot of good
by kwan_e on Mon 17th Dec 2012 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: fat lot of good"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18



Sorry, but that article still trots out that "but it was law back then". It is never a legitimate argument.

That attitude sets an even more dangerous precedent by allowing people to think of present laws as "oh well, it will get changed in the future, so let's not bother about it now".

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Mon 17th Dec 2012 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Sorry, but that article still trots out that "but it was law back then". It is never a legitimate argument.

That attitude sets an even more dangerous precedent by allowing people to think of present laws as "oh well, it will get changed in the future, so let's not bother about it now".

I think you're pulling your own interpretation from that article. It isn't saying let's not bother now, it's saying let's get the law changed now and improve the state of equality for everyone instead of trying to appease the one notable figure who is already dead.

If we really want to show our support for gay men and women, then I'd rather see campaigns to see gay marriages legalised (etc).

so lets be honest, as much as many of you would like to say that you're all for equal rights, this specific movement is more about doing what you think is right for your heroes rather than doing what's right for gay and bi citizens nationwide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: fat lot of good
by tylerdurden on Mon 17th Dec 2012 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE: fat lot of good"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So basically, that term "open minded" does not mean what you want it to mean.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Laurence on Mon 17th Dec 2012 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

So basically, that term "open minded" does not mean what you want it to mean.

This really isn't the time nor place for mindless trolling, and I resent the personal accusations.

I'm not going into details of my personal life, because quite frankly, I'd rather not discuss them so openly on here. However I assure you I'm anything but closed minded nor homophobic. And if you bothered to read the point's I've raised, you'd see that I'm actually pushing for changes that will have a real effect for gay and bi, men and women, living and dead, rather than moves which are essentially just gestures to one specific individual (albeit one who I do have a great deal of respect for).

This is the problem with discussions like these, a small minority like yourself are too immature / insecure to hold an intelligent debate and thus resort to childish accusations.

Edited 2012-12-17 09:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: fat lot of good
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fat lot of good"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

On the internet "open minded" commonly seem to mean "people I agree with".

Reply Score: 3

Comment by M.Onty
by M.Onty on Sat 15th Dec 2012 21:42 UTC
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

The fact that such a law was on the statute books, and was being actively used to prosecute people, is a disgrace. But what about pardons for all the other gay men who fell foul of it? What about pardons for gay men who were prosecuted for having sex with 17 year olds immediately before the age of consent was made the same for hetro- and homosexual acts?

Pardoning Turing would make everyone feel better, but the law is supposed to be about more than that. What he did was against the law at the time, and pardons indicate that no law was broken, not that statute itself was misguided. For that we have official apologies, and I'm pretty sure one has already been issued in this case; by the Prime Minister, no less.

Having said that, if Parliament did fancy creating a new precedent, as is its constitutional right, by pardoning all people prosecuted under now-redundant homophobic Acts of Parliament, then all power to them.

Edited 2012-12-15 21:44 UTC

Reply Score: 11

No
by Carewolf on Sat 15th Dec 2012 22:43 UTC
Carewolf
Member since:
2005-09-08

The treatment Alan Turing received was a disgrace, but it was the unfortunate law at the time. A lot of people have been convicted of laws that have later been changed. The fact that they were wrongly convicted is recognized by the fact the laws have been changed.

Stop wasting time of symbolic gestures for celebreties. Lots of people have been hurt by bad laws, and dead celebrities does not need pointless gestures more than anyone else.

Reply Score: 13

RE: No
by WereCatf on Sat 15th Dec 2012 23:54 UTC in reply to "No"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Stop wasting time of symbolic gestures for celebreties. Lots of people have been hurt by bad laws, and dead celebrities does not need pointless gestures more than anyone else.


This is what bothers me so much about these kinds of deals: Stephen Hawking and his ilk just want Alan Turing pardoned because he is famous, not for any other reason. I am somewhat disappointed in mr. Hawking as this just goes to display that even he believes being famous or rich makes one more important than the other people and the rich/famous should therefore be treated better than the rest -- I heartily disagree with such a view of the world. Either call for pardoning for all the people prosecuted under the homosexuality-is-illegal law or none.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: No
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Stephen Hawking and his ilk just want Alan Turing pardoned because he is famous, not for any other reason.


But what is Alan Turing famous for? He wasn't famous for being a Z-list celebrity who appeared on Celebrity Big Brother.

His work probably saved millions of lives.

People should stop using the word "famous" or "celebrity" as though Turing didn't deserve it.

We can all choose words which makes it looks like our arguments has more depth than it really has, so no, calling Turing "famous" or "celebrity" is not a legitimate argument.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: No
by earksiinni on Sun 16th Dec 2012 06:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

People should stop using the word "famous" or "celebrity" as though Turing didn't deserve it.


Yet she wasn't using "famous" or "celebrity" as though Turing didn't deserve it. You just misread her comment/didn't understand her point.

We can all choose words which makes it looks like our arguments has more depth than it really has, so no, calling Turing "famous" or "celebrity" is not a legitimate argument.


Her argument isn't deep at all, quite the contrary, it's a very simple point that she's trying to make: no one should be given special privileges by the law. The fact that Turing deserves his fame and so much good came from his work only underscores the argument.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: No
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"People should stop using the word "famous" or "celebrity" as though Turing didn't deserve it.


Yet she wasn't using "famous" or "celebrity" as though Turing didn't deserve it. You just misread her comment/didn't understand her point.

We can all choose words which makes it looks like our arguments has more depth than it really has, so no, calling Turing "famous" or "celebrity" is not a legitimate argument.


Her argument isn't deep at all, quite the contrary, it's a very simple point that she's trying to make: no one should be given special privileges by the law. The fact that Turing deserves his fame and so much good came from his work only underscores the argument.
"

I didn't miss the point. You and her and the others miss the wider point. The wider point being is that this symbolic gesture somehow steals the attention from other people who suffered.

There is nothing about that attitude that makes sense.

Here's the wider point: all-or-nothing rhetoric tends towards the latter.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: No
by earksiinni on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

I didn't miss the point.


You claim this, but I gave a cogent exposition of how you had misread WereCatf's comment and you've now responded by shifting the focus to a different issue, which is whether or not I have understood what you claim to be your argument. These are two separate things and you still haven't addressed my comments. Until you show me where I misunderstood your response, I will continue to believe that you misunderstood the point.

You and her and the others miss the wider point. The wider point being is that this symbolic gesture somehow steals the attention from other people who suffered.

There is nothing about that attitude that makes sense.

Here's the wider point: all-or-nothing rhetoric tends towards the latter.


Case-in-point: you think that WereCatf was making an "all-or-nothing" argument. She was not. She was arguing that everyone must be treated equally before the law. You are arguing on the assumption that she was trying to say something about the ethics of the legal persecution and protection of homosexuals; meanwhile, she was actually saying something about the importance of the rule of law. See the difference? You're comparing apples and oranges.

You've also assumed that I agree with WereCatf without actually bothering to ask my opinion. Here's what I think: the real danger in this move is that it gives the impression that the government is no longer the cause of discrimination or responsible for its past crimes. If the pardon were granted, the probability of boneheaded conversations like the following would increase: "Discrimination against gays? Nonsense! Even the government just gave a pardon to Turing, didn't you hear? If anything they've got it easy!" Cf. affirmative action laws in the United States.

There may also be some important legal ramifications. If the government pardons Turing, does this mean that crime is annulled or expunged from his record? If so, then can Turing's family sue the government anymore? (Can the family bring suit against the government presently?) Why doesn't the government instead officially apologize? Because apologies can also be used as evidence of an admission of culpability. So how sincere is the government's "symbolic gesture"?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: No
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"I didn't miss the point.


You claim this, but I gave a cogent exposition of how you had misread WereCatf's comment and you've now responded by shifting the focus to a different issue, which is whether or not I have understood what you claim to be your argument. These are two separate things and you still haven't addressed my comments. Until you show me where I misunderstood your response, I will continue to believe that you misunderstood the point.
"

You miss the point that I don't have to address the points you and WereCatf's points in their entirety because THOSE points miss the wider point from the outset any my posts were pointing to the wider picture.

Both of you could be right about each of your individual points but still be wrong in your entirety, given the social context of this action.

"You and her and the others miss the wider point. The wider point being is that this symbolic gesture somehow steals the attention from other people who suffered.

There is nothing about that attitude that makes sense.

Here's the wider point: all-or-nothing rhetoric tends towards the latter.


Case-in-point: you think that WereCatf was making an "all-or-nothing" argument. She was not. She was arguing that everyone must be treated equally before the law. You are arguing on the assumption that she was trying to say something about the ethics of the legal persecution and protection of homosexuals; meanwhile, she was actually saying something about the importance of the rule of law. See the difference? You're comparing apples and oranges.
"

If she was saying something about the importance of the rule of law then she is wrong because the law was obviously not perfect.

So even if you're right you're still wrong.

You've also assumed that I agree with WereCatf without actually bothering to ask my opinion. Here's what I think: the real danger in this move is that it gives the impression that the government is no longer the cause of discrimination or responsible for its past crimes. If the pardon were granted, the probability of boneheaded conversations like the following would increase: "Discrimination against gays? Nonsense! Even the government just gave a pardon to Turing, didn't you hear? If anything they've got it easy!" Cf. affirmative action laws in the United States.

There may also be some important legal ramifications. If the government pardons Turing, does this mean that crime is annulled or expunged from his record? If so, then can Turing's family sue the government anymore? (Can the family bring suit against the government presently?) Why doesn't the government instead officially apologize? Because apologies can also be used as evidence of an admission of culpability. So how sincere is the government's "symbolic gesture"?


Sorry, but this is just paranoia and a much less likely scenario than the one I proposed of Turing being made the figurehead of a movement to improve the standing of homosexuals in the law and in society.

If the pardon were granted, it would be because We The People wanted to grant the pardon, making it clear that the people will not stand for government granted oppression, because we don't forget. At least that's the theory.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: No
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I just noticed this:

Case-in-point: you think that WereCatf was making an "all-or-nothing" argument. She was not.


Direct quotes from WereCatf herself:

Either call for pardoning for all the people prosecuted under the homosexuality-is-illegal law or none.


Either seek for pardon for them all and fail at that, or don't seek pardon for any of them.


Forget Turing, I think I deserve an apology. Or am I not famous enough for you?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: No
by Alfman on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"I didn't miss the point. You and her and the others miss the wider point. The wider point being is that this symbolic gesture somehow steals the attention from other people who suffered. There is nothing about that attitude that makes sense."

I think everyone here gets everyone else's point.

The thing is, when one individual is given recognition above others, it *does* steal attention from others. But it still might be for the greater good if people can rally around specific icons to draw greater overall awareness. It's easier to make an emotional connection to specific individuals than a group.

I realise what your saying is intended to give respect the whole group, but if a major event happened and a celebrity happened to have been involved, would you be annoyed that the media inevitably focuses on the celebrity over everyone else? Because that's kind of how things play out in the world.

I think he should be pardoned symbolically, but I'm also well aware that the main motivation for pardoning him individually is his fame, most persecutions will not be high profile enough to garner much attention and may even be forgotten as individuals.

Edited 2012-12-16 08:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: No
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I realise what your saying is intended to give respect the whole group, but if a major event happened and a celebrity happened to have been involved, would you be annoyed that the media inevitably focuses on the celebrity over everyone else? Because that's kind of how things play out in the world.

I think he should be pardoned symbolically, but I'm also well aware that the main motivation for pardoning him individually is his fame, most similar cases will not be high profile enough to garner much attention and may even be forgotten.


Yes, that's why we should use this as an opportunity to get attention to those who suffered like Turing. The way to go is not to chuck a sour-grapes tantrum and deny this motion because we don't get what we want - which is what several people have actually said.

The main motivation is what the people make it, not just the spokesperson's motivation. But Alan Turing is still a good figurehead because of his achievements.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: No
by Alfman on Sun 16th Dec 2012 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: No"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

I hear that loud and clear, but I'm not even sure I'm in favour of using figureheads to drive a movement in principal. People should believe in a cause because it is important in and of itself, not because a VIP is involved.


I know that's an overly cynical view for something with innocent intentions, but I honestly ask myself if Turing's fame is a driver for this movement rather than the persecution itself.

These are just my thoughts, I'm not claiming it's the right way to see things.

Edit: It doesn't affect my opinion that he ought to be pardoned in one way or another.

Edited 2012-12-16 09:49 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: No
by WereCatf on Sun 16th Dec 2012 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: No"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Yes, that's why we should use this as an opportunity to get attention to those who suffered like Turing. The way to go is not to chuck a sour-grapes tantrum and deny this motion because we don't get what we want - which is what several people have actually said.


You're acting like this was some sort of a larger political movement that needs a figure head. I just do not see it that way: this move does not directly benefit or help anyone as the law doesn't exist any longer, the effects would be secondary, and pardoning Turing or pardoning them all doesn't change the fact that it would still all be symbolic. However, a request for pardoning them ALL sends a completely different kind of a symbolic message than requesting for the pardoning of a single person, and that is the whole point of why I am against this: make a big ruckus about it, get it on the papers, show all the everyday heroes and their lives destroyed, and make the general populace actually get an emotional connection instead of just focusing on a single person whom they don't know and whom they can't relate to -- if you want to send a symbolic message which one method would actually reach the audience better? The point with my "all or nothing" comment is that it doesn't matter if the government itself makes some sort of a public announcement about this, it's the fight itself that should be the focus; by making the fight about everyone, by making it about these everyday heroes and your average man you're giving people a strong connection to relate to and failing or not failing at getting a public apology from the government will still leave a much longer-lasting impression in their minds, hopefully provoking some deeper insight into their motivations.

I assume you're still going to disagree and that's fine, but atleast I have explained my view on this and I am not changing my stance.

The main motivation is what the people make it, not just the spokesperson's motivation. But Alan Turing is still a good figurehead because of his achievements.


The motivation is about sending a message, apparently, but the message itself is the part I don't agree with.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No
by Hypnos on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

You're right this is purely symbolic. No, that doesn't make it less worthwhile. This would highlight the fact that an injustice against gay people was done even though the victim in this case made an invaluable wartime contribution, and that the UK is acknowledging both the rights of gay people and Turing's work.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: No
by tylerdurden on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Stephen Hawking and his ilk...


Nature is funny; it gave Stephen Hawking a working brain inside a non-working body, while it bestows upon others working bodies outside non-working brains.

Edited 2012-12-17 01:02 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I am somewhat disappointed in mr. Hawking as this just goes to display that even he believes being famous or rich makes one more important than the other people and the rich/famous should therefore be treated better than the rest -- I heartily disagree with such a view of the world.

No... This shows that people that have great deeds behind their names are worthy. And yes, people that save other people, people that do something highly admirable do actually deserve to be treated better than most of us. The deserved it by doing sh*t, not sitting and writing comments on the internet. Some of them might have actually created the internet.

Turing wasn't famous or rich, by the way.


You are mixing amnesty and pardon. A pardon is granted to a person guilty of a crime to clear his name in extraordinary cases. Amnesties are mass pardons. Passing an amnesty is hard. They want to just legally clear Turing's name, nothing else.

Edited 2012-12-17 01:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No
by zima on Fri 21st Dec 2012 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I am somewhat disappointed in mr. Hawking as this just goes to display that even he believes being famous or rich makes one more important than the other people

IIRC (from the stories when he was looking for a new assistant), Hawking isn't that nice in person. :p

But then, with his accomplishments, he doesn't have to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No
by MacTO on Sun 16th Dec 2012 00:47 UTC in reply to "No"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

Such a pardon is more than symbolic: it acknowledges that there were grave injustices at the time. It will not erase the past, but hopefully it will raise awareness of what can happen if we fail to resist homophobia in the future.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: No
by Soulbender on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It would be more symbolic if EVERYONE that has suffered that injustice would be pardoned. If it's only Turing that's pardoned it basically says "yea, you know, it was bad and all but it's ok that all these other people who aren't Turing suffered".

Edited 2012-12-16 02:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: No
by MacTO on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No"
MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

In an ideal world, everyone would be pardoned for these convictions. In the real world, it probably isn't going to happen. It would involve reviewing convictions to simply find out who had been caught in these laws, which would be extraordinarily difficult since it is unlikely that those records have been digitized (at least in a useful form). There are also bound to be deeper legal implications for blanket pardons.

Reply Score: 3

And justice for some...
by cjcox on Sun 16th Dec 2012 01:15 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Gotta love it. Grandfather the past to meet current law. This is just stupid. Just when I thought Hawking was smart. Time to move on. Sheesh...

For those that don't think this is stupid, let's just say I can safely tie up our courts and magistrates for the next 1,000 years with these types of adjustments for historical injustice, etc.

What Dr. Hawking is saying is that there are CERTAIN people that are BETTER than others and that ONLY those people deserve these special rewrites...

Goodnight Dr. Hawking... I think you need to sleep on it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: And justice for some...
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:25 UTC in reply to "And justice for some..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

This is just stupid. Just when I thought Hawking was smart.


Good point. I recalled reading a paper about black hole evaporation. It was probably written by you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And justice for some...
by WereCatf on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: And justice for some..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"This is just stupid. Just when I thought Hawking was smart.


Good point. I recalled reading a paper about black hole evaporation. It was probably written by you.
"

Even smart people can experience brain farts.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: And justice for some...
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And justice for some..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]This is just stupid. Just when I thought Hawking was smart.


Good point. I recalled reading a paper about black hole evaporation. It was probably written by you.
"

Even smart people can experience brain farts. [/q]

But his comment was not saying Hawking had a brain fart. His comment called into question his intelligence in general for having a brain fart (which is debatable, see above).

Reply Score: 2

RE: And justice for some...
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:40 UTC in reply to "And justice for some..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And you consider yourself to be an equal of Turing or Hawking?

I wonder.. If you were in a lifeboat that had one seat left and the last two people on board of the ship were Turing(knowing his contributions) and a random bloke. Would you actually give a thought about condemning Turing to death?

If you chose Turing, which would be chosen by any sane thinking man, then you are no better than the person you are decrying.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And justice for some...
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Dec 2012 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE: And justice for some..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Would you actually give a thought about condemning Turing to death?


I would give a thought about condemning either man to death. If they couldn't come to an agreement I'd roll the dice, so to speak.
If this is an easy choice for you I'm afraid I have bad news: you're an asshole.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: And justice for some...
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And justice for some..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I would give a thought about condemning either man to death.

Yeah... right.


If this is an easy choice for you I'm afraid I have bad news: you're an asshole.


It's not easy, but it is simple. It's not a choice between two equals.

But yes, having a very dehumanised sense of logic does make me an "asshole". Doesn't mean it's a bad thing(in the grand scheme of things). You know... people that build great companies and give millions of people jobs are total cold hearted assholes, because they can count.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: And justice for some...
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Dec 2012 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And justice for some..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's not easy, but it is simple. It's not a choice between two equals.


I remember being told "all men are equals" but I guess that was bullshit, eh?. it's interesting to note that at some point in time some would have made the same argument ("they're not equals") when choosing between a white man and a black man or, hey, a straight man and a gay man. I bet Turing himself would have been less than happy with your argument.

Also, you don't know what that other guy could accomplish later in life if you let him in the boat.

You know... people that build great companies and give millions of people jobs are total cold hearted assholes, because they can count.


That's because they're quite often sociopaths.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: And justice for some...
by kwan_e on Mon 17th Dec 2012 11:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And justice for some..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Selecting Turing as a person to rally behind is not in anyway saying others aren't deserving.

Get it through your fucking skull.

We are not talking about a limited resource here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: And justice for some...
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And justice for some..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I remember being told "all men are equals" but I guess that was bullshit, eh?

It actually is total BS. Not all men are equal. Even égalité in French "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" doesn't mean that all men are equal. It means that all men should be treated as equally as possible...

it's interesting to note that at some point in time some would have made the same argument ("they're not equals") when choosing between a white man and a black man or, hey, a straight man and a gay man.

Yes. That is a problem where colour of the skin, nationality or sexuality override achievements and contributions to society.

I bet Turing himself would have been less than happy with your argument.

Only if he was a humble man.

you don't know what that other guy could accomplish later in life if you let him in the boat.

What about the "track record"? Try applying for a job with that attitude. Bring an empty CV stating "you don't know what I can accomplish later in life". Or maybe by the same logic you should take a cut in your salary/wage be be treated the same way as a person without a track record. You know... being paid a higher salary/wage is also a way of treating you unequally(Even though I implore you to not do that, because I believe strongly that discriminating based on lack of achievement is perfectly reasonable).

So in short, I doubt that you live up or even want to live up to your own ideals. Though I'm perfectly fine when being treated with less attention compared to people that are smarter/faster/stronger than me. Even if it means I'll be left on that sinking boat...

That's because they're quite often sociopaths.

That research only targeted CEOs, not founders and creators.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: And justice for some...
by Alfman on Tue 18th Dec 2012 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: And justice for some..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JAlexoid,

"Or maybe by the same logic you should take a cut in your salary/wage be be treated the same way as a person without a track record. You know... being paid a higher salary/wage is also a way of treating you unequally(Even though I implore you to not do that, because I believe strongly that discriminating based on lack of achievement is perfectly reasonable)."

Of course I understand what your saying, but we need to be extremely careful not to go too far down that line and assume that all wage discrimination is justified. Wage/Promotion gaps can be the CAUSE of achievement discrepancies as much as they might be the effect of them.

There was an eddie murphy movie where some wealthy guys made this very bet and swapped places with some poor bum. In the end the rich guys became impoverished and the poor one adopted quickly to high society. Of course this is just a fictional comedy from the 80s or so, but I think there is still some truth to it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: And justice for some...
by zima on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: And justice for some..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Wage/Promotion gaps can be the CAUSE of achievement discrepancies as much as they might be the effect of them.

Reminds me about one TED talk...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y (or an animated variant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc )

...this wage/promotion thing, as the cause, can work in unexpected direction ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: And justice for some...
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: And justice for some..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That is a problem where colour of the skin, nationality or sexuality override achievements and contributions to society.


In both cases you arbitrarily assign more value to a person, be it because of color, sexual preference or past achievements,
How about when achievements and contributions override compassion?

What about the "track record"? Try applying for a job with that attitude.


Wow. Because dying at sea and not getting a job are comparable. Totally.

Or maybe by the same logic you should take a cut in your salary/wage be be treated the same way as a person without a track record.

Or hey, maybe that person could get paid the same amount as me if we're doing the same job? Or maybe I'm better at my job.
Neither has any bearing on leaving someone to die at sea.

So in short, I doubt that you live up or even want to live up to your own ideals


Because trying is bad. We should stop that and all be selfish. Besides, I'm pretty sure I would have favored neither Turing nor the other man in the situation we're talking about.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: And justice for some...
by JAlexoid on Thu 20th Dec 2012 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: And justice for some..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

In both cases you arbitrarily assign more value to a person, be it because of color, sexual preference or past achievements

Past achievements aren't arbitrary in most cases.

How about when achievements and contributions override compassion?

History would be totally different.

Wow. Because dying at sea and not getting a job are comparable. Totally.

Actually, in a lot of cases it is. But my leaving to die at sea was a hyperbole, subsequent reply was not using that hyperbole. Too bad you stuck to that point and blew it's significance out of proportion.

Or hey, maybe that person could get paid the same amount as me if we're doing the same job? Or maybe I'm better at my job.

Ah... See? Even there you put in discrimination based on "same job". Why should a cleaner be paid less than you?
I'm sure you are better at your job. That is why I said I don't want you to go all "no discrimination based on achievement". Your past achievement is what sets your salary. Your contributions to society are valued more then the contributions of a cleaner.

The same reason why Turing is the spearhead into making these pardons a simple political decision. His contributions and achievements are much bigger than any of the other people who were convicted.

Because trying is bad. We should stop that and all be selfish.

You do realize that you started complaining that Hawking throwing his support for individual pardon(which is politically easier). That is that "trying".
And so far, you've held the line that no one should be pardoned unless everyone is pardoned.

Besides, I'm pretty sure I would have favored neither Turing nor the other man in the situation we're talking about.

The described situation is a hyperbole and we are talking about discrimination.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And justice for some...
by allanregistos on Mon 17th Dec 2012 04:54 UTC in reply to "And justice for some..."
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Gotta love it. Grandfather the past to meet current law. This is just stupid. Just when I thought Hawking was smart. Time to move on. Sheesh...

What? Is Hawking a Moral Law giver? Is he a lawyer or something? Scientists aren't necessarily smart in everything.

Reply Score: 1

Symbolic gesture
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:33 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

To all those who say this is stupid for various reasons, all of which are nonsensical:

If we can't even get a "celebrity" like Turing pardoned, then what hope is here to get official recognition that those other unfortunates were wronged?

Like it or not, homosexuals are still given limited rights today. To not pardon Turing is for the government (and its supporters of the policy) to say "okay, we made a mistake, but gays are still yucky and we still should keep them separate but not make it look like we want them dead."

Beware of people who can't even make a SYMBOLIC apology to be really apologetic for their past or future actions.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Symbolic gesture
by WereCatf on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:39 UTC in reply to "Symbolic gesture"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

To all those who say this is stupid for various reasons, all of which are nonsensical:

If we can't even get a "celebrity" like Turing pardoned, then what hope is here to get official recognition that those other unfortunates were wronged?


Most likely nil, but that doesn't change the fact that this is just playing the "he's famous, let's give him special treatment" - card. Yes, he was a hero, but no more or less than the policemen, firefighters, soldiers, even loving fathers that were prosecuted under the law, and they do not deserve half-measures. Either seek for pardon for them all and fail at that, or don't seek pardon for any of them.

I will never accept riches or fame as a substitute for equality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Symbolic gesture
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 02:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Symbolic gesture"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"To all those who say this is stupid for various reasons, all of which are nonsensical:

If we can't even get a "celebrity" like Turing pardoned, then what hope is here to get official recognition that those other unfortunates were wronged?


Most likely nil, but that doesn't change the fact that this is just playing the "he's famous, let's give him special treatment" - card. Yes, he was a hero, but no more or less than the policemen, firefighters, soldiers, even loving fathers that were prosecuted under the law, and they do not deserve half-measures. Either seek for pardon for them all and fail at that, or don't seek pardon for any of them.

I will never accept riches or fame as a substitute for equality.
"

You see it as "half measure". I see it as "the beginning".

Why are people treating this as though it's a limited resource? Pardons aren't some rare mineral that you have to destroy the environment to dig up. I don't recall seeing pardon blocks in Minecraft.

Outside of the tech sphere, most people still don't know what Alan Turing did for the war. If this were even more public, with a figurehead who deserved his celebrity, then maybe we can get large swathes of the public to call for pardons for the rest of those who suffered.

It disappoints me to think that people here don't have a strategic bone in their body. This "all or nothing" rhetoric is fine, but "all or nothing" strategies tend to do nothing for anyone.

* And yes, I think we can safely say that Alan Turing did more for the war than most other people, and that makes him a very suitable figurehead.

Edited 2012-12-16 02:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Symbolic gesture
by Soulbender on Sun 16th Dec 2012 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Symbolic gesture"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You see it as "half measure". I see it as "the beginning".


But then why is the petition not "Pardon Turing and everyone else" (like, I dunno, Oscar Wilde?)? Like it or not, this gives the impression that Turing is the only one who deserves a pardon.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Symbolic gesture
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Symbolic gesture"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You see it as "half measure". I see it as "the beginning".


But then why is the petition not "Pardon Turing and everyone else" (like, I dunno, Oscar Wilde?)? Like it or not, this gives the impression that Turing is the only one who deserves a pardon.
"

Because it's "the beginning".

Read my previous comment about "all or nothing" rhetoric. It may give you a certain impression, but it doesn't give me that impression at all.

Turing saved more lives than Wilde, so as a public relations thing, the anti-gay movement cannot really oppose pardoning a war hero.

Once Turing gets in the door, then the increased spotlight on the irrational hatred of gays will make it easier to get those other pardoned.

All or nothing approaches tend towards the latter. Let's be more pragmatic about this.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Symbolic gesture
by Alfman on Sun 16th Dec 2012 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Symbolic gesture"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

I think both sides of this debate are right. ;)

The state should step up and officially admit its wrongdoings, but celebrities will inevitably get more attention even to the point of detracting from others deserving equal attention. That's reality; most individuals can never be recognised.

Some will be ok allowing a celebrity to represent the others, while others will feel slighted by that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Symbolic gesture
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Symbolic gesture"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yes, he was a hero, but no more or less than the policemen, firefighters, soldiers, even loving fathers that were prosecuted under the law, and they do not deserve half-measures.

Actually there are levels of heroism and contribution, hence the different levels of awards(knighthoods, orders, medals and such). Turing's is pretty f***g high on the contribution scale.


Either seek for pardon for them all and fail at that, or don't seek pardon for any of them.

LGBT groups are. And the same people support that initiative. They however asked a fast track for Turing... You know. To break the ice.

I will never accept riches or fame as a substitute for equality.

Neither of those people, including Turing, were rich or famous. The reason lies solely in his contributions and his tragedy.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Symbolic gesture
by earksiinni on Sun 16th Dec 2012 06:53 UTC in reply to "Symbolic gesture"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

You claim that this would be a "symbolic gesture". What does it symbolize?

Reply Score: 2

The Rosa Parks Principle
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 05:12 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Here's yet another angle on this:

Rosa Parks was not the first person to publicly oppose the segregation culture. There had been a few before her. So why is her name in the history books and not the others?

Because community leaders who wanted to organize a mass protest recognized the need for a person with a good public image. They would not have gotten as far if they had used the pregnant teenager who did the same before her.

As a result of this, Rosa Parks had a disproportionate amount of credit and special treatment, for those cynics and I-hate-political-correctness-types amongst us.

Would the people here say that they'd rather not have racial equality if it meant two people, Rosa Parks and MLK, got more recognition than the others? Like it or not, this is the same attitude being applied to Turing. You'd rather have nothing happen that try to START something.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The Rosa Parks Principle
by Soulbender on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:03 UTC in reply to "The Rosa Parks Principle"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This comparison is just so wrong.

They would not have gotten as far if they had used the pregnant teenager who did the same before her.


As I can recall, the argument wasn't that Rosa Parks, and she alone, should be excluded from the segregation laws. There was no "lets exclude this one person as a first step" argument.

Really, I understand your point but this is just not a good comparison.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: The Rosa Parks Principle"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

This comparison is just so wrong.

"They would not have gotten as far if they had used the pregnant teenager who did the same before her.


As I can recall, the argument wasn't that Rosa Parks, and she alone, should be excluded from the segregation laws. There was no "lets exclude this one person as a first step" argument.

Really, I understand your point but this is just not a good comparison.
"

It's actually a very good comparison, because no one is arguing that Alan Turing and Alan Turing alone should receive a pardon. No, that is the fantasy dreamt up by all the naysayers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by Soulbender on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's actually a very good comparison, because no one is arguing that Alan Turing and Alan Turing alone should receive a pardon.


Uh, that is exactly what it says. Rosa Parks action, and the support by the community, said "no-one should be subject to segregation".
I don't hear Mr Hawking etc saying "Everyone who was unjustly treated because they where gay should be pardoned". I only hear "We should pardon Alan Turing" with no mention of anyone else.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"It's actually a very good comparison, because no one is arguing that Alan Turing and Alan Turing alone should receive a pardon.


Uh, that is exactly what it says. Rosa Parks action, and the support by the community, said "no-one should be subject to segregation".
I don't hear Mr Hawking etc saying "Everyone who was unjustly treated because they where gay should be pardoned". I only hear "We should pardon Alan Turing" with no mention of anyone else.
"

I think all of you have a problem with comprehension and logic.

"We should pardon Alan Turing" does NOT equal "we shouldn't pardon anyone else".

Just because you "hear" one positive statement and don't hear another does not imply the negative statement. Not mentioning others does not imply, in any way, mentioning the others in a negative way.

I can't remember the logical fallacy, but this one of yours is a very big one.

---

Stephen Hawking and the others may have one particular motive. That doesn't mean other people can't also jump aboard this with their own motives.

Let's say Stephen Hawking et al, by saying "We should pardon Alan Turing" really does mean "we should not pardon anyone else", that does not stop others from supporting the motion in the hopes of opening the doors to a greater effort to pardon more people.

1) Stephen Hawking wants to pardon Alan Turing.
2) Stephen Hawking doesn't want to pardon others.
3) Therefore, we should not pardon Alan Turing.

You and the others are fundamentally engaging in an ad hominem fallacy, it this is what you really believe.

So this is another failure of logic.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by Soulbender on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But we are not talking about what other people may, or may not, be doing or hoping. We're talking about what Hawking et al are actually saying and what message it is sending to the public and the government.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 09:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

But we are not talking about what other people may, or may not, be doing or hoping. We're talking about what Hawking et al are actually saying and what message it is sending to the public and the government.


Then you simply were making an ad hominem argument: Hawking says X, his motives deny X.

As I also pointed out, what Hawking is saying does not mean he also supports the opposite of what he is not saying.

Or do you really want to argue that the statement "We should pardon Alan Turing" is logically EQUIVALENT to the statement "We should not pardon anyone else". This is what you have in fact argued and I wonder if you are recanting or not.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by rr7.num7 on Mon 17th Dec 2012 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
rr7.num7 Member since:
2010-04-30

But we are not talking about what other people may, or may not, be doing or hoping. We're talking about what Hawking et al are actually saying and what message it is sending to the public and the government.

Oh, really? I thought you were talking about what you think he meant. Is there an interview I'm not aware of? Because all I know is that he co-signed a letter. Nothing less, nothing more. And if I was in his place I would have signed the letter too. If someone asked me: "Why did you sign it? What about the rest?", I would probably say: "It's not that I don't care, it's just that... I was asked to sign a letter about Alan Turing (duh!). Write those other letters and I'll sign them too". And, almost without a doubt, I would never hear from them again. They'd just keep talking trash of me on the internet, because that's so much easier.

Edited 2012-12-17 06:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by M.Onty on Sun 16th Dec 2012 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


Just because you "hear" one positive statement and don't hear another does not imply the negative statement. Not mentioning others does not imply, in any way, mentioning the others in a negative way.

I can't remember the logical fallacy, but this one of yours is a very big one.

---

Stephen Hawking and the others may have one particular motive. That doesn't mean other people can't also jump aboard this with their own motives.

Let's say Stephen Hawking et al, by saying "We should pardon Alan Turing" really does mean "we should not pardon anyone else", that does not stop others from supporting the motion in the hopes of opening the doors to a greater effort to pardon more people.

1) Stephen Hawking wants to pardon Alan Turing.
2) Stephen Hawking doesn't want to pardon others.
3) Therefore, we should not pardon Alan Turing.

You and the others are fundamentally engaging in an ad hominem fallacy, it this is what you really believe.

So this is another failure of logic.


He wasn't making an ad hominem argument, and I wish people on comment threads and forums were a little less inclined to throw 'logical fallacy' and other 6th Form level technicalities around at the drop of a hat. Demolishing opposing views one itty bitty sentence at a time does not make for reasoned debate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by kwan_e on Sun 16th Dec 2012 07:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Rosa Parks action, and the support by the community, said "no-one should be subject to segregation".


You also miss the point that they needed something to give the Montgomery Bus Boycott political legitimacy, and the trial of Rosa Parks, someone with good social standing, was that occasion.

Alan Turing is the person for this occasion, no matter the intent of Stephen Hawking (refer to my explanation of your logical fallacy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: The Rosa Parks Principle
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The Rosa Parks Principle"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Uh, that is exactly what it says. Rosa Parks action, and the support by the community, said "no-one should be subject to segregation".
I don't hear Mr Hawking etc saying "Everyone who was unjustly treated because they where gay should be pardoned". I only hear "We should pardon Alan Turing" with no mention of anyone else.


Because you don't listen?(not being LGB or T excuses you from actually knowing that) They have their names behind that proposal for quite some time now. But it's stalled.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 16th Dec 2012 12:48 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

- Nobody does anything
- One person says: let's right a wrong from the past
- Everybody says: what about all the other wrongs, you selfish bastard!
- Nothing happens

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Carewolf on Sun 16th Dec 2012 15:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

You can not right the wrong since it is already done, and you DO NOT want to try to right every wrong in history.

Seriously. Trying to right wrongs on the European continent would be a blood bath. Just in the last life time millions of people have been forcible displaced, had their livelyhoods destroyed and homes taken from them. We have peace now though, but trying to right those wrongs that happened just after WW2 is not going to make the world a better place, only much much worse.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 16th Dec 2012 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I also think we can't right every wrong, but we can do some and this one's quite easy.

While it only features one person he is symbolic for a far larger group of individuals.

Also he's an important historic figure who can be an inspiration for our current and the generations that follow. Giving him a pardon not only sets his record straight, but also might restore some confidence in politics and perhaps that history isn't just something that tends to repeat itself, but also can be corrected.

Besides, for the people in the know Alan Turing is already a respected person.

Reply Score: 3

Pardon?
by Luke McCarthy on Sun 16th Dec 2012 14:57 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought Gordon Brown pardoned him a few years ago? Or was that something different?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pardon?
by MOS6510 on Sun 16th Dec 2012 15:43 UTC in reply to "Pardon?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

He issued an apology, but Turning wasn't pardoned:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/feb/07/alan-turing...

Reply Score: 3

by the way
by dvhh on Sun 16th Dec 2012 16:25 UTC
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

I still don't remember if Galileo was pardoned by the inquisition/church.

I prefer Turing to be pardoned not necessarily because he was an homosexual living in a bad time, but because he greatly contributed to the allied victory during the second world war, and that without his work computer would surely not be as advanced as they are today.

Reply Score: 2

Maybe he was a pervert?
by jefro on Sun 16th Dec 2012 16:46 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Many times the court and police don't fully document the issues. Maybe he was a pervert.

Reply Score: 0

"Legal precedence" bollocks
by kwan_e on Mon 17th Dec 2012 00:19 UTC
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

The "legal precedence" argument that a few people have brought up are complete bollocks and just an excuse for moral cowardice.

The Australian government formally apologized to the indigenous people for the "Stolen Generation". There were similar fears about compensation and other such crap. HAS NOT HAPPENED.

The German government apologized and paid (paying) up. It hasn't been some compensation free-for-all that you guys are behaving like headless chickens about.

Of course, we can't say the same for Japan, but if they hadn't retracted their apology in the first place...

Edited 2012-12-17 00:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: "Legal precedence" bollocks
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:42 UTC in reply to ""Legal precedence" bollocks"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The Australian government formally apologized to the indigenous people for the "Stolen Generation".


An apology is not the same as a pardon and the U.K governmenmt has also apologized for their treatment of Turing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: "Legal precedence" bollocks
by JAlexoid on Mon 17th Dec 2012 01:57 UTC in reply to "RE: "Legal precedence" bollocks"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Do all of the "Stolen Generation" representatives have a "convicted of X crime" attached to their name as well?
Pardoning Turing will remove that from his name.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do all of the "Stolen Generation" representatives have a "convicted of X crime" attached to their name as well?


All? No but for sure a good portion of them was tried and convicted unjustly simply because of their race. Just like it happened with black slaves, american Indians and a boatload of people throughout history.
In fact, it is STILL happening and that is much bigger and more important issue than Turing's injustice.

Pardoning Turing will remove that from his name.


Oh wait, I thought this was about justice for everyone "wrongly" convicted as gay and not just Turing and his name?

Edited 2012-12-17 02:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

In that case why bother with women's rights at all? At the time of the woman's suffrage movement, they didn't argue for equal rights for blacks, or LGBT.

How selfish of women to fight for their rights and no one else's? Merely by not mentioning other oppressed groups to your satisfaction obviously meant they were all against black rights.

Fuck, we should roll back the clock and remove women's and black's rights until we get rights for everybody all at once.

No one should get rights and it will be a better story to fail than to get any sort of small victories!

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Right, because that's what I said.

Please tell me again how blacks and women championed their rights by arguing that a single famous person, and only that person, should be given rights as a first step.
Yeah, didn't happen like that.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You don't get to complain about people twisting your words, when you just did it with my factually correct statement.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

What facts?

Reply Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Right, because that's what I said.

Please tell me again how blacks and women championed their rights by arguing that a single famous person, and only that person, should be given rights as a first step.
Yeah, didn't happen like that.


So you're saying the Rosa Parks trial was a class action lawsuit?

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

All? No but for sure a good portion of them was tried and convicted unjustly simply because of their race. Just like it happened with black slaves, american Indians and a boatload of people throughout history.
In fact, it is STILL happening and that is much bigger and more important issue than Turing's injustice.

Well all convicted under the same law as Turing have that. And it's not wrongfully convicted. Convicting an innocent human being of crimes he did not commit is a different debate.

Let alone this is only about UK.

Oh wait, I thought this was about justice for everyone "wrongly" convicted as gay and not just Turing and his name?

A) You got this snarky question from a factually correct statement?
B) Posthumous pardoning is all about that - clearing the name.
C) Not a single person convicted by that law will get their justice.
PS) If you want to play the word twisting game, then... So you are saying that Turing shouldn't have his name cleared because he was gay? Bravo on the tolerance front, my "friend".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: "Legal precedence" bollocks
by kwan_e on Mon 17th Dec 2012 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE: "Legal precedence" bollocks"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"The Australian government formally apologized to the indigenous people for the "Stolen Generation".


An apology is not the same as a pardon and the U.K governmenmt has also apologized for their treatment of Turing.
"

It doesn't matter. In Stolen Generation case, the same fearmongering about massive lawsuits against the government simply did not eventuate.

Reply Score: 2

Read based on time
by jefro on Tue 18th Dec 2012 17:50 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

You are missing the issue and history of this deal. No simple gay person had such punishment only because they admitted it in front of a police officer. There is much more to this. The issue would more likely be child molestation. The children and public would have been spared the facts in any written document in those times.


I have always found that open minded means very closed minded or hate you if you disagree.

Edited 2012-12-18 17:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

To What Effect?
by johjeff on Wed 19th Dec 2012 03:26 UTC
johjeff
Member since:
2007-11-06

It is sad that he was persecuted, prosecuted and killed himself for being homosexual, but what good is a pardon? He is dead. He won't know he's pardoned. Maybe to make his descendents happy?

Reply Score: 1

RE: To What Effect?
by Alfman on Wed 19th Dec 2012 16:31 UTC in reply to "To What Effect?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

johjeff,

"It is sad that he was persecuted, prosecuted and killed himself for being homosexual, but what good is a pardon? He is dead. He won't know he's pardoned. Maybe to make his descendents happy?"

It's symbolic more than anything else. We do things all the time to give respect the deceased, I think it's because it gives the living more confidence that wrongs will be righted and they will be respected even after their deaths.

After reading the discussion here on OSnews, I think a principled blanket pardon would go over much better than an Alan Turing specific pardon.

Reply Score: 2