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

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#81

Post by robotresearcher »

eeky wrote: post #68
beagle12 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have registered an account on HN simply to respond to you. You are a despicable piece of worthless trash. Thank you.

These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...

By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#82

Post by jlgreco »

MMXII wrote: post #65
eeky wrote: post #10

Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage. But what the British government did with chemical castration to Alan Turing and others is absolutely reprehensible - and they should pardon all of them. Let's not conflate these issues please.

Why does it matter what the majority of people think?

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.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#83

Post by dllthomas »

eeky wrote: post #71
jackmaney wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better to attack bigots who stand against marriage equality than to stand with them.

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.

> I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays.

Tolerance isn't determined by whether you say you're tolerant.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#84

Post by stickydink »

corin_ wrote: post #38
mindstab wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they plan to, and that is what is being debated, they are just using Alan Turing as the most famous example of an deceased person that should be pardoned.

Why not do it all in a single bill? They could still make him a figure head, even name the bill after him and include a specific point about pardoning him, but include everyone else too. If this ends up getting through all the stages and they then want to do the same for everyone else, at the very least it's a waste of time going through the stages again (if there's no more debate), or if there is still debate then e…

That's exactly what they're doing.

A bill that would pardon 75,000 men, including 16,000 who are still alive. It would be named the "Alan Turing Bill".

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#85

Post by corin_ »

stickydink wrote: post #84
corin_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not do it all in a single bill? They could still make him a figure head, even name the bill after him and include a specific point about pardoning him, but include everyone else too. If this ends up getting through all the stages and they then want to do the same for everyone else, at the very least it's a waste of time going through the stages again (if there's no more debate), or if there is still debate then e…

That's exactly what they're doing. A bill that would pardon 75,000 men, including 16,000 who are still alive. It would be named the "Alan Turing Bill".

It's not what they're doing yet, the current bill is specific to one person.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#86

Post by benatkin »

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 bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation.

This statement is vague about how many people are looking to governments and religions and how many people you think should be looking to governments and religions. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect nobody to be looking to them, as there are millions of people and thus there are going to be varied interests. There are also some people who I expect to be looking to them, and those are people who are currently, or were formerly, actively involved with a religion or a government.

> If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now.

Pure hyperbole.

You bring up an interesting topic, but I think the issue needs to be framed differently.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#88

Post by thejsjunky »

eeky wrote: post #29
lysol wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, let's. If homosexuals should be allowed to experience their sexuality than why not permit them to fulfill their emotional, romantic, and other needs? It's such an artificial line to draw and we certainly can discuss both gay marriage and the legality of homosexuality in the same discussion.

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 we were talking about polygamy that would be a much stronger case.

Society encourages and allows marriages for a variety of reasons - involving tradition, encouraging general stability, families, etc. It also has a certain understanding of marriage - a partnership between two people. Homosexual marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage is the same in all these respects in practical terms.

To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce (in general)...but there are differences in how heterosexual marriages reproduce too. The supposed fundamental "differences" in gay couples are already tolerated (or entirely unproblematic) in the hetero population so banning gay marriages as a means to discourage them is not a valid argument. It's an artificial distinction.

Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics. Hey, that's fine - we're all entitled to our beliefs ...but let's be explicit and honest about it instead of kidding ourselves and each other.

If you really do want to stick to this farce, then at least be consistent and start demanding people must pass fertility and mental health exams before they can be married - to prove that they can produce children and raise them in a healthy environment.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#90

Post by [deleted] »

nostromo wrote: post #69
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…

Nobody is asking for permission. We are asking for equal protection under the law. There are dozens of boring issues that are bundled with this issue. For me, repeal of DOMA means that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, my husband would be able to continue to live in our home and not have to sell it to pay taxes on his "windfall".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN