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

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#111

Post by chaostheory »

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.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#112

Post by eeky »

Karunamon wrote: post #104
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 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 responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. 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. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#113

Post by thejsjunky »

estel wrote: post #99
thejsjunky wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon Reasoning I find confusing. A pardon is by definition something given to people convicted of breaking the law. It can be and is sometimes used as a relief for people who have been -wrongly- convicted if there is no other mechanism (or just because it's easier), but that's not implied or required. Is this some difference between US and UK law?

The argument would be that he wasn't wrongly convicted. By modern standards it's obviously a stupid, unjust and immoral law that he was convicted under; but if he was correctly found guilty under the laws of the time, then it was a sound conviction.

Pardons are a general tool to forgive (in several senses) a crime. If you look at the history of pardons in the US for example, you'll find examples ranging from people who were wrongly convicted, to people who got one as a reward for cooperating in investigations, to people who simply had powerful friends.

Which is why I find that reasoning confusing - when you pardon someone, you just do it... and if you care to give a reason you can.

Perhaps it's different in the UK? Is this some limitation on the powers of the House of Lords?

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#114

Post by jlgreco »

eeky wrote: post #91
jlgreco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, though he is not even right. Bigots like him are thankfully a dying breed ( literally , if you are a fan of Max Planck) in this country.

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…

I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks.

If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper:

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible.

On second thought...

> "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."

Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married.

...to a person of the opposite sex.

> That's equal protection under the law.

This is pretty much the exact argument which was made, and ultimately rejected -- see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) -- regarding anti-miscegenation laws, where it was argued that, under those laws, blacks and whites had the same rights, because they could each get married...to a person of the same race.

(Although in the restriction to opposite-sex marriage, the inequality is even more clear: anti-miscegenation laws could at least be argued to deny both blacks and whites the freedom to marry the person of their choice, and so to restrict the freedom of both races in the same way; you can't even make the parallel argument with the opposite-sex restriction.)

> What you want to do is change the definition of marriage

The definition of marriage changes all the time.

> Make a new word for gay marriage if you want

We didn't make a new word for mixed-race marriages when we threw out anti-miscegenation laws. We didn't make a new word for marriages where the woman could own property independent of the man when we threw out the rules prohibiting that. We didn't create new words for marriage each time the prohibited degree of kinship changed.

There's no need to change it when we throw out the restriction on the allowed combinations of genders, either.

> but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.

To the extent there are laws that need updated in the face of same sex marriage, they need updated to accommodate it equally if it a separate marriage-like institution with a different name is adopted.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#116

Post by jorgeortiz85 »

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…

This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality.

As much as you dislike the government, you can't just ignore how incredibly powerful it is in people's daily lives. The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples. No amount of saying "fuck off" to the government is going to change whether you're family members will be allowed to live in the same country as you.

In the case of Alan Turing, no amount of him saying "fuck off" to the government could prevent them from criminalizing his relationship and chemically castrating him. The UK government issuing a pardon is a overdue recognition that they instituted a campaign on suffering on many people, one of whom hand a significant part in saving the country from the Nazis.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#117

Post by eeky »

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…

>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 - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.

So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#118

Post by jlgreco »

dllthomas wrote: post #96
jlgreco wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were convicted of both 'homosexual acts' and robbing a bank at the same time, then just pardon them of the 'homosexual acts'. Unrelated crimes are unrelated .

That's conviction for two separate acts, which is a different thing than, say, acts which are homosexual and also forcible or pedophillic or something. Note that I most explicitly don't mean to imply that these attributes are any more common of homosexual behavior than heterosexual, just that they can be attributes of the same act, and may even have been punished under the same statute.

So you are hypothesizing that they neglected to prosecute child molesters of child molestation, and instead prosecuted them merely for 'homosexual acts'?

That may be the case, but I find it unlikely. Are there any specific examples?

Frankly though, as plainly unfortunate as those situations may be, those people should still be pardoned. When the prosecution fucks up, bad people can be declared not guilty. Same principle here. It is a risk we accept in the system.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Karunamon wrote: post #104
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 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…

[deleted]

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#120

Post by Karunamon »

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…

>I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views..

>But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman.

Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you.

I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.

Post reply on HN