3 ms·

This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were unacc

by kirinan 13y ago

This falls under the category of too little too late. I get that traditions change throughout history, I get that some things that are acceptable now were unacceptable even 10 years ago, but this is a case where people should have looked the other way. Alan Turning is both a war hero and one of the greatest minds to ever live. To simply disregard someone like that because of their sexual orientation is both short sighted and a disgusting lack of humanity. Imagine how much further computing would be if he had lived longer? If he had been free to think and live without ridicule and the tests run on him?

tptacek 13y ago
Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than Turing.
- icambron 13y ago
  Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle me.
  - scintill76 13y ago
    Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and "disgusting lack of humanity."
scintill76 13y ago
Huh? Special people should be allowed to break laws the rest of us have to follow? Gays should not have been persecuted, but only if they were "war heroes" and had "great minds"? No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)

by kirinan 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Exactly false. People could have looked the other way, and Turing could have lived a longer, happier life, and we could all be that much less aware of the injustice done to hundreds of thousands of other LGBT people throughout the last century. The tragedy is the policy that cost Turing his life, not the fact that an exception wasn't made for him. It cost many more people than Turing.

icambron 13y ago
Yes, wow. To go further, there is something deeply troubling about the parent's line of reasoning: that the tip of its spear is that Turing could have helped computing more, and not that the law was heinous in its treatment of humanity. The priorities required to even think of a point like that baffle me.
- scintill76 13y ago
  Especially ironic when it simultaneously uses phrases like "short sighted" and "disgusting lack of humanity."

scintill76 13y ago

Huh? Special people should be allowed to break laws the rest of us have to follow? Gays should not have been persecuted, but only if they were "war heroes" and had "great minds"? No, an unjust law is unjust to everyone! This is not tragic because it was done to somebody special, but it was done to thousands of "boring" others who may not get a pardon. (To say nothing of the original injustice that can't be taken back, or the fact that a pardon is not an admission of injustice.)