Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#121

Post by jlgreco »

salgernon wrote: post #106
eeky wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reacti…

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups. I've nev…

When "in" members of the Phelps family attend universities, by all accounts I have heard they present themselves as regular people. Sure they don't party, but for the most part they pretend to be regular well adjusted people.

Bigots hide what they are when it is advantageous.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#122

Post by Karunamon »

eeky wrote: post #117
salgernon wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups. I've nev…

>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups. This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth -…

>Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate.

Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now!

You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.

What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#123

Post by ilyagr »

pinchyfingers wrote: post #62

The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead. Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crime…

The position of government on various issues is far from meaningless. It is as close as we can get to a tangible representation of the common (majority) opinion and common will of the mass of people that makes up a country (see below for a caveat). While you shouldn't base your own opinions on what everybody else thinks, it's ridiculous to think that everybody else's opinions will never affect your life.

So, I think it's unsettling that the question whether Britain still thinks what they did to Turing is OK is even an open question. UPDATE: `notahacker` pointed out that this last sentence is an oversimplification. I think this only strengthens the point that it is important that the government clearly state its position through actions such as pardons.

-----

Caveat: Really, government's representation of the common opinion of the masses of people is not direct, and always a bit out of date. However, the government very directly represents what the masses people are going to do with the common resources they share. For example, whether they will use these common resources to persecute gay people.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#124

Post by jlgreco »

jackmaney wrote: post #107
eeky wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reacti…

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

Where do Nuns come from if they don't have babies?!?! /s

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#125

Post by eeky »

thejsjunky wrote: post #88
eeky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs. But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy. I do support civil unions (but not gay adoption), and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay),…

> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. This premise is debatable, but assuming it is true it's still not a particularly strong argument. The law was designed to be flexible and evolve with society's needs and desires. Allowing gay marriage is a minor adjustment of what we in the US currently understand marriage to be - not a "changing of the very definition". If w…

You arguments are good but not airtight. I'll pick out the ones I disagree with.

> To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

>Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics.

I agree that most people oppose gay marriage because of religion, but religion may have underlying logical reasoning for it. I don't think ignorance/personal aesthetics is a reason, because if someone is intuitively disgusted by two males sodomizing, there may be a biological reason for it. Ignorance is better than false beliefs.

The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change, and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them. That's it. These are good reasons in my opinion.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#126

Post by jlgreco »

eeky wrote: post #105
jlgreco wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't believe they deserve equal protection under the law? Oh yeah, so tolerant . Congratulation on your unprecedented tolerance.

A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married. That's equal protection under the law. What you want to do is change the definition of marriage, which I think is like missing a soccer goal but arguing to move the goal posts to make you win. Make a new word for gay marriage if you want - but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.

"Everyone can marry within their own race! See, no discrimination!"

It stuns me how often you people straight up plagiarize the arguments of opponents to interracial marriage.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#127

Post by VladRussian2 »

beachstartup wrote: post #72
pinchyfingers wrote: post #62

The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead. Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crime…

well this is certainly a new one. complete and utter denial of government's existence and influence. not sure where this one falls on the left/right spectrum.

it is another dimension - "anarchy is the mother of order".

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#128

Post by [deleted] »

chaostheory wrote: post #111
pinchyfingers wrote: post #62

The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead. Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crime…

> My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission". I'm straight, but this is really easy to say when you've never had the experience of not being able to see a significant other in the hospital because you aren't classified as either family or a spouse. Legality affects many other parts of life as well.

[deleted]

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#129

Post by dragonwriter »

eeky wrote: post #112
Karunamon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before. >Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriag…

>"tolerance means accepting intolerance" That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant. >Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples. I agree it's not relevant. I was…

> But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception.

Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners.

Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#130

Post by notahacker »

ilyagr wrote: post #123
pinchyfingers wrote: post #62

The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead. Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crime…

The position of government on various issues is far from meaningless. It is as close as we can get to a tangible representation of the common (majority) opinion and common will of the mass of people that makes up a country (see below for a caveat). While you shouldn't base your own opinions on what everybody else thinks, it's ridiculous to think that everybody else's opinions will never affect your life. So, I think…

It's interesting to observe how public attitudes do seem to have changed in response to relatively minor and symbolic changes.

One only has to look at how the UK political landscape has shifted from the massive campaigns around the abolition of an offensive but essentially toothless piece of legislation preventing "the promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" to being broadly accepting of the logic of gay marriage in less than a decade (interestingly that shift of opinion includes the British Prime Minister). Perhaps it's the benefit of hindsight making the dire warnings of the Right look ridiculous, perhaps the change would have happened regardless of decisions the legislature took in 2003, but either way it's difficult to dismiss the effect of legislative changes that don't make the sky fall in on people's attitudes.

I don't think many people in the UK think "what they did to Turing is OK"; the wider issue is whether a specific pardon is the appropriate response, not least because a pardon implies the recipient is exceptional in deserving it.

Post reply on HN