Slashdot Mirror
No Pardon For Turing
mikejuk writes "A petition signed by over 21,000 people asked the UK Government to grant a pardon to Alan Turing. That request has now been declined. A statement in the House of Lords explained the reasoning: 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted. It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.'"
So what if it were a choice?
UK: *long elegant and poignant refusal*
US: "We'll do it, but you have to 'donate' to our campaign funds."
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Human rights are not created by laws, dumbfuck.
It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not.
Either you're a part of the ongoing circle of life, or you're not, and if you're not, you'll be treated differently from those that are, and that's a good thing.
It doesn't matter if you're gay, or born sterile, or just decided you couldn't be bothered to have kids. You should still be treated as an outsider who is only tolerated if they don't screw things up for those who are a part of the ongoing fabric of humanity.
That doesn't mean people should go out of their way to persecute such folks, but it does mean they should be kept away from positions of authority. They lack a material connection to the future, and their motives are suspect. They lack the biological mechanisms that prevent toxic decadence in a human culture.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth