OSNews

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.

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.



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"?

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