Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
How young do you have to be these days to assume that no one's heard of Alan Turing or his brilliant contributions and persecution?
How about having the British apologize to everyone who was wronged by their hateful policies in the past?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
n/t
Bluntly? Screw it.
Screw an apology and a pardon, screw knighthood and whatnot. That man had no small impact on the outcome of the breaking of German codes and thus the outcome of the war. And the thanks was to prosecute him 'cause he was gay.
If that happened to me, I'd have wanted to kill myself for helping those hypocrites. Well, maybe he did. I couldn't care less about a half-assed apology half a century after driving him to suicide (or killing him altogether, depending on your point of view).
It's a bit like the history of Joan of Arc. Very popular and welcome in times of dire straits but quickly dumped once no longer useful and deemed a "security risk".
No thanks. I know what Turing did. For himself, for science, for "us" geeks. Whether you care about him, whether you apologize, frankly, it doesn't matter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Excuse me, but WHY would his pardon be unlikely? He was convicted of something that is totally legal today! Shouldn't they be pardoning EVERYONE convicted under these acts? He was convicted for having sex with a man in the privacy of his own home! These idiots shunned one of the most brilliant members of their society because of who he wanted to have sex with! If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Why not a general to all people who have been victims of unfair discrimination?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ok this opinion might be unpopular here, but the British Government has nothing to apologize about when talking of persecution of Alan Turing. The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time. The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law. The British government could have put him in jail, instead they mandated that he takes hormones (which, of course have caused him to grow breasts...and lead to his depression)
NOW: What British government should apologize for, is persecution of all gays in the UK and the rest of the (now) commonwealth, which includes Alan Turing. The persecution in itself was wrong, not a treatment of the particular individual.
Just... Wow. I'd heard of Turing's contribution to computer science of course but the notion of a state that will castrate you for being Homosexual is nightmarish... and 1952 isn't all that long ago. I suppose it's a good thing that such an act can be considered so outlandish and horrific today.
I was just at Bletchley Park last week on vacation, it is a truly amazing sight to see how a few brilliant people in a few old huts invented modern computing. Then those early "computers" were immediately dismantled following the end of WWII. As those brilliant people largely had to keep quiet after the war, their colleagues were becoming rich, claiming patents etc. (that said, they did help the war effort immensely). It's a shame that the world didn't get to see Turing live to an old age as he was the genius behind this and god knows what he was going to do next, and yet we could have if the British Government didn't pump chemicals into him...
If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!! You want to get angry, you want to get fired up, you want to actually do some good and maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years ago.
Why can't non-uk people join this motion - I would.
If you're visiting Manchester in the north-west of England, don't forget to visit the statue of Alan Turing: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.476722,-2.236028&spn=0.01,0.01&t=m&q=53.476722,-2.236028.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
There is no reason why the current UK govt. wouldn't do this - after all, it's apologizing for something that a completely different set of leaders is guilty of. They will do it for no other reason but because it makes sheer political sense. No, not because it's the right thing to do.
Likewise, the Lockerbie bomber wasn't released because it's the right thing to do, but because Gaddafi all but publicly promised natural gas and oil at favourable prices, in return.
In other words: fuck it all.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
... I want big $$$ compensation for what the Tories did to my Colonial ancestors! Cold hard cash in 100 Euro bills would be nice, but I'll settle for Paypal and lose that 2.9 percent if that's how it has to happen.
Look, Turing's been dead for 50 years. The politicians that made the laws he was convicted under are all dead. The judge who sentenced him is dead. The police and the lawyers and everyone else involved are most likely dead.
A corporate body cannot take responsibility, only an individual can, and our major moral problem is that we keep deluding ourselves into thinking that "corporate morals" means something. It doesn't. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO, and "just taking orders" is never an excuse. Just as a bureaucracy cannot take the fault for a heinous act, it can no more offer real contrition, nor can it offer a real apology.
(Which is, incidentally, one of the major reasons our society is so screwed up. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis from an intro to one or the other edition of Screwtape Letters, the great evil done today is not done by thieves and criminals in the dens of crime Dickens loved to paint, but by well-dressed men in offices, acting behind the shield of a bureaucracy.)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
What about Oscar Wilde, then?
Doh.
It's not a literal apology to Turing. This wouldn't make sense, he's dead. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. It goes toward making sure it never happens again. This apology is for living people. It's the UK government saying "Don't persecute gays, because they might be awesome and invent computers."
Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
Just about every muslim country practiced slavery until 1960. The vast majority to 1970. And between 3 and 5 still practice it today. And everybody considers it laughable to demand an apology. ALL of them still consider any sexual deviance (and tons of quite normal acts) criminal offences, and the large majority applies the death penalty, and regularly execute homosexuals.
It goes further than that. Slavery was imposed on large parts of Africa by "the caliphate", the center of the muslim religion, and it's highest moral authority. Really the apology should come from islam itself, or it's politcal representation, and since the last caliph apostated, not from the caliphate, but from muslim religious institutions. Talk about a laughable suggestion.
Of course these people use violence against anyone who complains to loudly ... and guess what ... all "moral fighters" of the left shut up. They actually defend the people persecuting their compatriots. Being a liberal in Iran or any muslim country is of course not a job with the most huge of life expectancies.
One can only conclude that this is an issue pushed by cowards, and for the sole purpose of acquiring power.
Not disagreeing with you on the British policies of the past and the damage they've done. But while they're about it, they could do with saying sorry for the current damaging policies.
And while we're about that, how about all the other nations of the world do the same - I don't think any of the major players in world politics have a history that's free from disgusting episodes and damaging policies. I don't think any of the major players in world politics lack *current* policies that aren't doing harm for self-interested reasons. And I can't imagine the nations we don't hear about are any better.
Simple test: Can a politician can deliver a heart felt apology for mistakes made by the British Government and convince someone hearing it that its actually sincere.
In 50 years nobody has passed the test, I won't hold be holding my breath for this one.
Have every government apologize for all cases of discrimination, murder, destruction, theft, pollution, pillage and enslavement that they have done in the past, and have them pledge to not do so in the future.
But that would be utopian, when the fact of the matter is that the electorate of all western nations in some form or degree wants the above. (Yes, that most likely includes you, the reader, as well.)
> writings in the Bible show us it is evil and wrong.
Just like weaving two kinds of cloth. You evil blends you!
#!/bin/csh cat $0
I bet, if he was still alive, an apology... would make... Turing complete. Terribly sorry.
SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
You're right, we should be fair: ALL social conservatives are evil, because they seek to preserve the evils within society and government that progressives wish to remove. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian or otherwise, social conservatism is a pernicious force. It's usually worse when backed up by religious dogma, though, because religious people will always trump reason with what they call "faith."
I piss off bigots.
Do people confuse the term prejudice with bigotry and/or moral judgment?
It seems to me that a strict definition of "prejudice" would be the drawing of a conclusion before sufficient evidence had been considered. If someone had a problem with Turing's homosexuality per se, and he really was a homosexual, then their judgment of him wouldn't be hasty.
On the other hand, if what they really dislike is effeminate behavior, for example, and they merely assumed that Turing was effeminate simply because he was gay, that would strike me as an overly hasty conclusion, and thus be "prejudice".
But if the complaint is that Turing's detractors disliked him simply because he was gay, that strikes me as a case of bigotry, or of a moral judgment that's unpopular by current norms.
Yeah, Alan Turing was really important to computer science. And he suffered because of a law that we currently find injust. But what's the point of this posthumous apology? The guy is dead. He's not going to feel any better if someone says they're sorry.
Is the point to get his name out there? To increase his fame? To get him the recognition he deserves? Why? Yeah, he's a big deal to computer scientists... But the world doesn't revolve around us. Why is it so necessary for the world to recognize his contribution specifically?
Is the point to make the British government apologize for treating people badly in the past? Again - why? They don't do that anymore, do they? Homosexuality isn't currently on the books as a crime, is it? Isn't that enough then? And if it isn't, where do you stop apologizing? Are you going to ask for a formal apology to every single person who was convicted of a crime that we now disagree with?
The past is the past. Bad things happened, innocent people suffered, but it is over now. Time to move on.
I'm not suggesting that we sweep all this nastiness under the rug, hide it, or forget about it... By all means, let's learn from our mistakes... But apologizing to dead people just doesn't get you very far.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
the apology is for us. if you have a conscience, you feel bad about something done wrong, and you try to make amends for it. it doesn't matter if you are the perp, or some other guy is, or its something wrong that happened 1000 years ago
its a simple, healthy, normal, human instinct
why the retarded antagonism to a simple human impulse?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Turing was gay? Wow, surprised I haven't heard of that yet. Though, now when someone is homophobic, I can ask them if they like using computers and if so, tell them they have a gay man to thank for a lot of the theory behind them as well as the allies winning WWII. That should shut them the hell up.
-SaNo
hold your bladder until we change the law, or its your fault your pants get wet
sound absurd? that's what you are saying
"The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law."
acting on your sexual orientation is not only your essential human right, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to act on it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What happened to Turing is abhorrent, but is there a single person *currently* working in the government or the judiciary that forced him to undergo persecution and treatment? The only people who should apologise are those who had direct decision-making power about his particular case, or the people who created the laws used against Turing.
People are not guilty for the sins of their fathers.
The problem with this attitude is that we don't acknowledge that something was done wrong. Sometimes an apology is all that is needed to mend ties to some wronged group, and then healing can begin. The Mongols and the roman empire are poor examples. No one has memory of the emotional impact of the Mongols and the Roman empire. But there is still plenty of emotions over the european impact over Africa, the middle east, and southeast asia. Hell, a lot of what's going on in those areas, mostly bad things, are a direct result of the actions that were taken by those imperial powers. And yet most governments go along like "Oh really we did something wrong? Well that wasn't my fault that was someone else. I'd never do that to you." Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
I like the idea that someone else posted that apologies should be given to the entire community, and not just to Alan Turing. Alan in this case is a good poster child.
Western Countries still have plenty of people with lots of illogical hatred. I think that if Britain were to do this it would go a long way to further showing how backward the US is in it's own hatreds. If you tried this in the US there would actually be a huge political backlash. And an apology doesn't have to mean you are weak, an apology just has to mean you were too cruel in the past, and that the government by the people and for the people will try to do better to preserve your basic human rights.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Roast kid in mother goat's milk for tea tonight !
Squirrel!
he was responsible for cracking enigma. hes not just some wanker off the street that the government decided to fuck with. he gave everything he had to save his country and the entire of civilization from nazi terror... they repayment? forced injection of hormones until he killed himself.
idiot.
Cuz I have yet to hear of one ever working in the US...
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
An apology costs nothing, and serves to remind the citizens that governments are works in progress.
In general, the good governments of the world are the ones that admit they were wrong, not just by changing their ways, but by openly acknowleging past wrongs. The lousy ones are the ones that pretend they were perfect all along.
The location of the statue is very close to the gay village in Manchester.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
they are turing over a new leaf with this.
Yeah, but cotton-polyester isn't marxist ;-)
-josh
To what purpose?
The purpose is to admit that what they (as a government) did was wrong. It means the new individuals running the government are committing to not repeat previous mistakes.
Alan Turing's biography is a fascinating read - ISBN 0099116413
Most people know Turing for his contributions to computer science, but
his role in ending the war was monumentally important.
Turing helped crack the German encrypted communications allowing
interception of critical commands. So difficult was this work that the
Germans never suspected it as a possibility.
Without Turing the war would have certainly gone on longer.
-paul
My wife, bless her heart, didn't know how many states there are. She thought there were 52 states. She's 56 and she's finally wanting to learn about the world. She wouldn't have a clue about Alan Turing or any of the details of WWII, despite the fact that her father served in combat. The upside? She now gets a lot of history by watching television. In fact, I know about the persecution of Alan Turing because of a Television show.
Best regards.
I realise that my view will be unpopular but, I don't think he should recieve a pardon or an appoligy, according to the law at the time he committed a crime and was punished as such. He broke the law knowing and there for has no excuse.
Ok now for my rationale, If we excuse him then perhaps we should apologise to the Spanish for sinking their armada or to all the countries that we conquered when Britain ruled the majority of the know world. Should we also apologise to the descendants of those who were forced into marriage aged 13 in the 1800s when it was legal and accepted to be married to and having sex with 13 year olds?
Yes society has moved on and realised that those laws were perhaps not in the best taste but still those that broke those laws should not be excused. No matter how "wrong" the laws were. Otherwise as I mention above where do we stop excusing people and how far back do we go?
We apologise for the prosecution of the homosexual Alan Turing. Those responsible have been sacked.
(further persecution ensues)
We apologise again for the the prosecution of the homosexual Alan Turing. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.
This guy...his shop isn't on Fleet Street, is it?
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
> maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years >ago.
In 50 years time, the Sharia will be in full effect in England.
The demographic numbers dont lie and even the most 'moderate' groups in the UK have as a goal, the creation of an islamic state.
In other countries, they are even more ahead in the changing of the face of a nation. Within 20 years, half of the population under 18 will be muslim.
Let me know how it all turns out but if past and present history are indications, it wont be good.
he broke enigma, and gave his all for his country and to preserve civilization in the face of nazi terror. for his reward, he was forced injection of female hormones until he committed suicide.
[quote]I don't think any of the major players in world politics lack *current* policies that aren't doing harm for self-interested reasons. And I can't imagine the nations we don't hear about are any better.[/quote] .... It's this defensive attitude that being average or just better than other people is a good thing to strive for. It's an unspoken attitude like the following: "You think you are too good for us with all your trying to better yourself".
Why is it always a race to the bottom with you people? It's like when i go home to my family. There are always excuses for not trying to become better. At least i'm not as fat as
Why is bettering oneself a bad thing?
You cracked Enigma.
Turing desserves an apology because any security lookup done during wartime certainly had already uncovered this aspect of his personality, but the brits were more than happy to turn a blind eye on it in spite of the already existing laws.
The later prosecution was application of a double standard in this regard.
I agree that apologizing for something that you didn't to to people who are no longer alive doesn't make much sense. I think that John's first suggestion of knighting him is a great idea. It's not an apology; it is honoring him for his tremendous contributions to the country, in spite of the horrible way he was treated.
It has much of the same social benefit that apologizing to him would. He should have been knighted while he was alive, and the only reason he wasn't was because he was gay. Choosing to do so now recognizes this fact and states that we will no longer overlook someone because of their sexuality.
If you want to apologize, apologize to the people who are still living that were put though this garbage. For Turing in particular the important thing is to remember what he accomplished and what he was put through, and officially honoring him is an excellent way to do this.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Ya know, if RMS would actually finish "GNU Hurd", you wouldn't have to keep writing these posts...
"We apologise for the inconvenience"
Okay, Is this hereditary guilt though?
Hereditary guilt inflicts harm on the descendants. What harm is being perpetuated if the 1952 decision was overturned? If any argument for the perpetuation of harm is to made, how about to Alan Turing's estate or what's left of it?
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
Eh? Which "people" race to the bottom?
Bettering yourself is great. I just suggested that basically all the nations in the world have things to be sorry for, not just the ones who are widely known or widely disliked.
I can see why you might have thought I was offering this as justification but I'm really just saying "Why focus only on Britain's wrongs when there are so many other countries who are equally guilty?"
Thank you for the even-handed reply.
I guess one reason for focusing on Britain is the need to start somewhere. Turning should be an easy victory as his contributions are quite considerable and it is easy to illustrate how wretchedly he was "rewarded."
Another reason is to elevate and build up the countries that *should* be leaders.
I completely agree that in a perfect world we would want to apply (spend) our energy on the wrongs that can currently affect the most people. As a pragmatist, i'm just happy to see some/any steps in the right direction.
I do agree with your sentiment about concentrating on the "biggest bang for the buck." Like, we spend billions on terrorism prevention, yet heart attacks are the leading killer in the US.
(i'm particularly thin-skinned when i hear what sounds like justifications based on what other people are doing -- i heard that a lot over the last 8 years w/r/t Iraq)
waving to a boat coming into harbor. "my family's on the boat" she says to you, and you see a little boy and girl and a guy on deck waving back to her
just then an asteroid falls to earth and obliterates the boat. after the massive wave retreats, you look to her dripping and clinging to the same railing you are both holding on to to gird against the wave and you say
"i'm sorry for the loss of your family"
why do you say that? because you made the asteroid fall to earth?
no, moron, you apologize because you feel remorse when something bad happens. its not an admission of guilt, that you caused the tragedy
its a simple human impulse to apologize for something bad happening, even if you are just an observer, do you not understand that? it doesn't make you culpable, to apologize, its not an admission of guilt, and anyone of average intelligence understands that
i don't think you're a sociopath for not understanding this simple concept, i just think you're too fucking retarded, socially and psychologically about human nature. you need to properly identify the nature of simple human impulses and emotions, then open your ignorant mouth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How about making no apologies for the past and moving on. if you want to carry generation after generation of grudges for past wrongs move to the middle east, they've taken 8000 year old grudges to an art form.
What's done is done. You can't undo it, you can right a past wrong. It's done, it's over, he's dead. Move on and try not to make new mistakes rather then wasting time and energy trying to save face on old mistakes...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
This isn't completely on-topic, but it's something I've been wanting to say for a while, and this is as good a time as any.
The discussion in this area is so polarized on both sides it's almost impossible to talk about rationally. On the one hand, there certainly are some self-professed Christians, including prominent ones, who are unabashed gay bashers. They're wrong, and God will correct them in due time. I'll correct them to their faces, given a chance. On the other hand, there are some homosexuals, including prominent ones, who see anything that is less than 100% supportive of homosexuality as "homophobia".
From where I, a Christian, sit, both extremes are wrong. Homosexuality is contrary to God's commandments (i.e. a sin), but so are a heck of a lot of other things people do -- including being hateful towards people who commit some particular sin, like homosexuality.
True Christians shouldn't hate anyone, whether as a group or as individuals. I certainly don't hate gays or lesbians, either collectively or as individuals. The homosexuals I know are pretty much just people like any other. Some I really like, others... not so much. I'm not concerned about "catching" the "gay disease" from them, or about them influencing or "recruiting" my children, etc.
That said, if asked I make no bones about saying that their homosexual acts are sinful. I don't volunteer this opinion, but if it comes up I don't try to hide, which tends to get me labeled as a "gay basher" and a "homophobe". Not in real-life discussions, where people are more civil, but in online fora like this one suggesting that there may be something sinful about homosexuality is guaranteed to elicit such responses. Undoubtedly, this post will trigger a few.
From a doctrinal perspective, homosexuality is a serious sin, at the same level as fornication. It's not as serious as adultery, since that involves not just sexual sin but also breaking a solemn vow and most likely injuring a spouse. Adultery is itself less serious than pedophilia or rape, since those are non-consensual and generally very harmful. It makes no sense in general to be abusive to sinners of any sort, but it's absolutely ludicrous to heap greater abuse on those who commit lesser sins.
My point here is just to try to make clear that, per Christian doctrine, Christians should accept gays as valid and valuable people, who have the same rights as all other children of God. Homosexuals should, in their turn, accept that Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, and not demonize Christians for their beliefs.
There is a middle ground that doesn't demand that people give up their right to conduct their private relationships however they want, doesn't demean or disadvantage people for making unpopular choices, and doesn't demand that people give up their closely-held religious beliefs.
It's called tolerance, and it's really not that hard.
An aside about marriage: IMO, the solution to the marriage "problem" is to get the government out of the business of formalizing or solemnizing personal relationships at all. The fundamental problem here is an inappropriate mixing of issues. Most of the practical concerns around gay marriage are related to financial issues, like insurance and taxes. Most of the opposition to gay marriage is due to religious/moral issues. There are two separate things, and they should be handled separately.
From a financial perspective, it makes sense for an employer to provide insurance to its employees and their "dependents", meaning those who depend upon them financially. Likewise, the government should assess taxes to such financial groupings, in order to be fair about it. So, IMO, people should be able to arrange contractual sharing of assets with whomever they wish (regardless of gender, or even number), and employers and insurers should recognize those relationships.
"Marriage" then becomes a purely personal/philosophical/religious issue, not a financial one that is of any
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Please sure us where in the Bible it says homosexuality is wrong. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was about being a bad neighbor, something that was considered reprehensible in that culture.
I suggest *any* government or body of law apologize for any past law criminalizing *victimless* offenses, and immediately repeal any such existing law.
So in this example, the apology shouldn't be : we're sorry for what we did for Alan Turing - but rather, we're sorry for what we did to any individual for any wrongdoing for what they were, what they believed (or what they didn't believe in), for what their lifestyle may have been, for thinking different or for being different.
This includes, but is not limited to prosecution, forced labor, legally induced grief or discrimination because of
- Sexual orientation and practices
- Religious belief
- Race, ethnological group or geographic origin
- Political view
- Drug usage
- Health issues (cf Euthanasia for example)
- etc..
Also, ensure that any individual or group of individuals wrongdoing towards *any* other individual or group of individual (regardless of creed, race, sexual orientation (non exhaustive list)) be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Of course, there is one potential issue with such a libertarian system : How to define 'wrongdoing', and especially how to prevent contradiction with some other principles (especially free speech).
--Ivan
Yeah, I agree that Britain is a good place to start - apart from anything else, there's a reasonable acknowledgement amongst many British people that we can / should do better.
And Turing should be a good place to campaign because his position is so egregious - he deserved to be commended as a key wartime figure and a prominent scientist, yet the treatment he received was inhuman.
My main objection to the comment I originally replied to was that I sometimes see Britain's past held up as a particular example of a country whose policies have been harmful. I think that's accurate enough - Britain has been involved in some awful stuff - but I just don't think it's fair or representative to suggest that they're an outlier in this respect.
I basically just objected to what I saw as an implication that other countries are / have been somehow less bad, rather than the concept that Britain ought to do better.
And agreed - justifications based on what other people are doing are rarely relevant to an argument, at least if you like to think of yourself as doing the right thing rather than just being part of the scrum. A lot of countries try to have it both ways and that doesn't really work - I'm not even sure it pays off for them from a purely selfish perspective in the end.
that means i have to tolerate intolerance
there is nothing to the concept of respect that requires me to respect disrespect
conservatives often like to cry about the hypocrisy of liberals who ask for tolerance and respect... but then don't abide to hearing conservative views. there is no hypocrisy in that position at all: conservative views are often very intolerant and disrespectful, such that it is required, as a tolerant respectful individual, to show hostility to their often xenophobic, sexist, racist, and otherwise narrow minded intolerant stupidities
you criticize my attitude, yet you fail to take into account the context in which my attitude appears
i'm in conversation with a guy who thinks great britain owes no apologies for past sins
this is intolerant and disrespectful. so i fight it
that i fight it with acid and venom: why does this offend you? i have to be polite and charming and placid in my words?
why do i have to be calm and smile when faced ignorance? why do i have to respect ignorance? why does it make sense for me to do that in your mind?
here's what i do: when i see ignorance, i say "you're ignorant". the man i am responding to is clearly and objectively ignorant. so what is your problem with my words?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Anyone that doesn't know Turing's life story should definitely read:
Alan Turing: the Engima
by Andrew Hodges.
It's a great book.
Alan Turing did great, great, things for Britain and the world.
He was one of the most important figures in defining the outcome of WWII.
He was one of the few mathematicians responsible for inventing the computer, both in laying foundational theory and physically engineering them.
He published insightful papers and commentary, across a wide range of topics, that are still relevant today. For example, in my PhD thesis I am citing a paper of his that is cited in pretty much every major text in my field (evolutionary computation). The field has only really existed since the 1970s, 20 years after his death, yet Turing foresaw its potential.
I know that some people will be dissatisfied with the fact that the apology might seem empty, or it is one of a million apologies that should be made, but I think it's important to recognise what an exceptional man Turing was and just how pivotal he has been in our history. To apologise would be to recognise our gratitude for his achievements, as well as the dreadful mistakes that were made at the time.
If we don't recognise the errors we have made in the past, then I see no reason to imagine we are any different from those in power back then. I think that at least some people want to correct past mistakes.
Anyone who things this is unjust should watch the movie: "In the name of the Father".
Look here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107207/
They threw young kids in jail for decades. No apologies.
My cousin suggests the human race is splitting. I think she might be right. Clearly however there is a dark side and how civil servants can justify what they do sometimes causes me despair. I have never even been to the UK of course.
Marxism hasn't been a significant part of British politics since Maggie's day. Wake up and smell the coffee. Blair borrowed from the USA and brought in "greed is good" instead. If anything, that's the dominant paradigm in Westminster, but it has precious little to do with religion. It's about moolah. As for the "doctrine of equality" -- I guess the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, and the inscription on the Supreme Court building, must really trash your shorts. I don't see how you're going to get around them, though, unless you'd prefer to go back to the old division between nobility and peasantry.
I piss off bigots.
asperger's, or something, an inability to understand simple human emotion
since my simple analogy was way too complicated for you dimwit, i'll be more concise:
you hear of a death, no matter how long ago, and you say "i'm sorry". it's a simple, common, everyday response that anyone with the slightest bit of life experience and empathy can understand and comprehend, and has probably witnessed or been a part of dozens of times in their lives
why do you say "i'm sorry"?
NOT BECAUSE YOU CAUSED IT YOU DUMB FUCK
but as a simple statement of simple human empathy
do you fucking understand yet you dimwit?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> pardon is 'unlikely,'
Get over it, he's fucking dead, and all it costs you people is making some words happen. What's the matter, will the guilt become unbearable if you admit it? You know, we know, you know we know, and we know you know.
Either apologize, pardon, and clean the slate, or someone in the future is going to do it, as well as apologize to him, and us, because you didn't have the balls that Turing had even after you subjected him to estrogen emasculation. That's psychological AND physical torture, with the perpetrators attempting to skip with less than full accounting.
If the Crown's proud bastard son Australia can apologize to an entire race for worse http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7241965.stm you can manage this surely. Or if you've actually managed to export all your intestinal fortitude, ring up down under and see if maybe Kevin Rudd could pop up topside and do it for you.
No matter what you do it won't be enough because he saved all your asses many times over, and started a movement that makes modern life possible. So the only measure of your sincerity, humility and mettle will be your effort. Most visible in that effort will be that which you put towards minimizing your responsibility then and now.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
just like you understand "i'm sorry" is a normal and typical response most people have for the same emotion and situation
you do understand that right?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"People are not guilty for the sins of their fathers." Not so, traditionally the guilt lasts for seven generations, or in certain cases forever. However, in the Bhagavad Gita a good argument is made that the repercussions of evil are generally realized in the entire population, in an almost ecological sense, like the aftermath of a Chernobyl or a particularly nasty toxic spill.
The fact is, our future was truncated by the loss of Turing, just as it was disfigured by the loss of Oppenheimer.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
I know that saying bad things about some religion frequently get modded down, so maybe some mods jumped at a post that looks like a sensible and rebellious post.
The poster got two out of three religions wrong - either sheer ignorance or s/he is just trolling.
There is no single "hindu law". The book you are probably referring to is Manusmriti which no Hindu in their right mind would claim to be *the* law.
Unlike abrahamic religions hinduism does not have a rulebook about everyday stuff that tells you what is right and what is wrong. Hell you could even be eating dead human bodies and claim that you are not doing anything wrong by the religion.
And yes, I modded you troll. Not because I disagree with you but because you are blatantly lying about christianity being lenient on homosexuals (it is not, see another posters reference below).
PS: I am an atheist and don't care two hoots which religion is the least bad, but your trolling was pretty successful.
Unless you mean the one that isn't logical..
I want to point out that by your "logical" definition, not only homosexuals are flawed - everybody who is smart enough to separate sex from procreation has some faulty chromosomes. You are absolutely right by saying that a gene that causes homosexual behavior is not very likely to replicate, but neither is one that causes people to be smart enough to use contraceptives.
as long as you don't apologize, you
yes, I have learned a bit from politicians...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
He was convicted of a crime that was on the books as an offense. Maybe it isn't a crime now, but it was then. The LAW was followed.
There is also the synthesizer-pioneer Walter Carlos, of Switched-on Bach-fame who changed into Wendy Carlos in 1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Carlos
[Citation does not support the claim]
Refutation:
"Pilate summoned the head cohanim (priests), the leaders and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man before me on a charge of subverting the people. I examined him in your presence and did not find the man guilty of the crime you are accusing him of. And neither did Herod, because he sent him back to us. Clearly, he has not done anything that merits the death penalty. Therefore, what I will do is have him flogged and release him." - Luke 23:13-16
The "crime" that was posted on the cross above Yeshua's (Jesus') head was "King of the Jews." That's not a crime. The religious leaders wanted Him dead because they were jealous of Him (His independent, authoritative teaching and wild popularity undermined their positions) and He did not overthrow the yoke of Roman imperialism like they thought a real messiah should've done. He was not a criminal.
Moreover, the innocence of the Messiah is a requirement for being the "Passover Lamb," as Believers call Him. Just as the lamb for the Passover sacrifice had to be examined for four days (according to Torah - Leviticus 23), so was Yeshua examined by the authorities for four days, after which, having been found unblemished/innocent, He was slaughtered on the eve of Passover.
Given the known correlation between homosexuality in male humans and birth order (men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual) there is such a stunningly obvious evolutionary reason for it that I can't be bothered to explain it to you.
Well, then, why not explain it to the rest of us?
> Given the known correlation between homosexuality in male humans and birth order (men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual) there is such a stunningly obvious evolutionary reason for it that I can't be bothered to explain it to you.
So... what does you reading too many slashfics have to do with evolution?
David Beckham and Alan Turing.
And I'm neither a soccer fan or a homosexual, in fact I find both groups in general to be annoying and especially when they appear as groups (but that doesn't mean I go all "Islamic" on them). Individuals can be ok, the groups are equally braindead.
P.S. I did have to think a bit before remembering Beckham's first name.
P.P.S. A lot of Muslims living in the Western hemisphere need to change their attitudes right now or they're going to be history before the century is over (and no I'm not a racist either). The writing is on the wall.
No you're wrong, at least in Europe the privacy elimination laws are to ensure the average citizen does not start a revolution to kill non-integrating immigrants, politicians and other criminals.
One doesn't need anything but ordinary powers of observation and simple logic of extrapolation to see that it likely won't work. It's a lose-lose situation caused by the failure of politics.
I think everyone should be entitled to an apology!
Particularly from those people who are always wringing hands and squirming.
Better apologize to me now you whitebread Christian folk. You know who you are!
- A person who has suffered. At your hands!
You know who you are. Don't you!
( PS - a small cash contribution to me might be appropriate, just to keep this apology on the up'n'up)
.
- aqk
F U
Hindus must apologize horses for raping them.
Slashdot is pathetic sometimes. I scrolled through a few hundred posts, and not one of them read something like, "That Turing guy, he was a cool dude. Sucks he got owned."
No apology needed to the gay law-breaker!
Instead, spend your efforts in eradicating the socialist and marxist elements from your government!
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
What the fuck do you fundamentalist Islams have to do with the treatment Alan Turing received in England 60 years ago? What the fuck does Prop 8 have to do with Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?
Why do you fucking morons respond to complaints about homophobia in western countries by talking about how badly homosexuals have it in third world theocracies?
Sure, why don't the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese apologies for their empire-building past. The various European powers for their slave trade. The various African tribes who were already practicing slavery when the white men arrived and sold them slaves from other tribes should probably go on the list. The Mongols should probably apologise for their invasion of China too. And what about the descendants of people responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire? They definitely need to apologise!
...those events happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago, where as these events happened 60 years ago, and many of the victims - and those who carried out these policies - are still alive. To pretend that is equal to crimes committed 4, 5, 50 generations ago is asinine.
maybe one day those of us who like Microsoft dev tools will be fairly treated as well. :)
Just kidding... I've always admired Turing and have been rather deeply disturbed by the treatment dealt to a bona fide war hero. Governments are realizing, more than ever before, that the hearts and minds of developers is of paramount importance to national security.
The persecution of prostitutes still continues, they are the last Minority.