Stephen Hawking pushes for pardon for Alan Turing
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.
E-mail Print r 5   107 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kja
Thread beginning with comment 545362
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 3

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 Parent Score: 2

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 Parent Score: 1