Alan Turing given royal pardon.

[NineBerry]

Now if someone would just make his machine...

We are all Turing machines...

Nope. I know men like to brag about the size of their dongs, but you don't have an infinite band. Or maybe you are confusing turing machines with the turing test which have no relation :-)

[FBM]

Giving Jim the benefit of the doubt, I was just going to say, "Speak for yourself."

[Warren Dew]

Sure, but it hamstrung much of its scientific potential in the process. The number of Jewish refugee scientists who helped to develop the atomic bomb in the US is testament to that...

I don't disagree. It's arguably a good thing that intolerant societies drive out productive refugees.

However, I don't see what class of scientists will be driven out by Islamic fundamentalists - unless you think all their scientists are gay, or something? Educated women, aybe?

[Warren Dew]

I disagree fundamentally. I think that western societies have made significant gains in the ethical treatment of people who were regarded as evil and depraved in the past because they were put into the "other" category, and that these are not some sort of trivial change in fashion, but real, and highly unlikely to be reversed.

Go back further, and you will find in our history the most horrible examples of cruelty to both humans and animals that were regarded as entertainment, but are unthinkable now.

Sure, a "Royal Pardon" has some baggage, but it is really only a symbol, and one with real meaning, irrespective of being royal or not.

As far as needing "the other" to hate, that tendency has always been with us. However, the licence we give to deciding who is "other", and the extent and vehemence of the actions we can allow ourselves have changed, and not trivially.

Well I hope you're right and I'm wrong. However I'm not confident since I think the more liberal society becomes and the more tolerent one is expected to be given the excesses of certain groups (that could be any btw from Fat Cat Bankers, through Jesus Junkies to the Screaming Queen Mafia) then there will be eventually a backlash and sadly, the majority will always win through, especially since our societies politicians are less and less interested in social change and more and more interested in protecting their own jobs.

As I've said before and I think you specifically guilty of this Jim (no blame btw) the way we revile paedophiles, people who have clearly fundamental sexual illnesses is a good example of how our behaviour remains the same. And as I've also claimed before, we've just made "the other" people from the Middle East now, rather than say "the hun" and we are doing a sterling job in treating those nations like absolute shit, much the same we did in Africa during the 19th Century, only with even more firepower.

We're very good at changing targets, not so good at changing our behaviours.

Christians are the main group that is getting flak in the U.S. these days.

[JimC]

I disagree fundamentally. I think that western societies have made significant gains in the ethical treatment of people who were regarded as evil and depraved in the past because they were put into the "other" category, and that these are not some sort of trivial change in fashion, but real, and highly unlikely to be reversed.

Go back further, and you will find in our history the most horrible examples of cruelty to both humans and animals that were regarded as entertainment, but are unthinkable now.

Sure, a "Royal Pardon" has some baggage, but it is really only a symbol, and one with real meaning, irrespective of being royal or not.

As far as needing "the other" to hate, that tendency has always been with us. However, the licence we give to deciding who is "other", and the extent and vehemence of the actions we can allow ourselves have changed, and not trivially.

Well I hope you're right and I'm wrong. However I'm not confident since I think the more liberal society becomes and the more tolerent one is expected to be given the excesses of certain groups (that could be any btw from Fat Cat Bankers, through Jesus Junkies to the Screaming Queen Mafia) then there will be eventually a backlash and sadly, the majority will always win through, especially since our societies politicians are less and less interested in social change and more and more interested in protecting their own jobs.

As I've said before and I think you specifically guilty of this Jim (no blame btw) the way we revile paedophiles, people who have clearly fundamental sexual illnesses is a good example of how our behaviour remains the same. And as I've also claimed before, we've just made "the other" people from the Middle East now, rather than say "the hun" and we are doing a sterling job in treating those nations like absolute shit, much the same we did in Africa during the 19th Century, only with even more firepower.

We're very good at changing targets, not so good at changing our behaviours.

Christians are the main group that is getting flak in the U.S. these days.

"Getting flak" is very mild compared to institutionalised hatred and legal sanctions...

And Audley, I don't think I've done any irrational demonising of paedophiles; there needs to be very firm action to prevent, as far as possible, their attacks on young people, but it may well be that treatment could be a viable option, and if so, fair enough.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Anyone else think that the pardon is pretty weird?

After all, he was convicted of Homosexuality. Something that was a crime at the time and of which he was guilty.

A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!

[JimC]

Anyone else think that the pardon is pretty weird?

After all, he was convicted of Homosexuality. Something that was a crime at the time and of which he was guilty.

A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!

Good point, an apology makes more sense...

[NineBerry]

However, I don't see what class of scientists will be driven out by Islamic fundamentalists - unless you think all their scientists are gay, or something? Educated women, aybe?

Islamic fundamentalists will drive out scientists. Full stop.

[JimC]

However, I don't see what class of scientists will be driven out by Islamic fundamentalists - unless you think all their scientists are gay, or something? Educated women, aybe?

Islamic fundamentalists will drive out scientists. Full stop.

Not all, mind you. There seems to be a type of very clever engineers/applied scientists that will thrive in such places, and are full-on islamic believers. Perhaps not capable of original theoretical work at the boundaries of reality, but perfectly capable of running a nuclear weapons program, which, unlike in the days of the Manhattan Project, truly is applied science.

[NineBerry]

That's engineers.

[NineBerry]

Engineers and doctors are prone to become religious fundamentalists. That's my experience. And I am an engineer.

[Warren Dew]

Anyone else think that the pardon is pretty weird?

After all, he was convicted of Homosexuality. Something that was a crime at the time and of which he was guilty.

A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!

A pardon doesn't imply that you were innocent. A pardon means you are forgiven, or otherwise undeserving of punishment.

[pErvinalia]

Anyone else think that the pardon is pretty weird?

After all, he was convicted of Homosexuality. Something that was a crime at the time and of which he was guilty.

A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!

And what about all the other people convicted of homosexuality. I hope they are going to get pardons too.

[JimC]

Anyone else think that the pardon is pretty weird?

After all, he was convicted of Homosexuality. Something that was a crime at the time and of which he was guilty.

A royal apology for the fact that his sexual preference was punishable under law in the first place and for the dreadful acts carried out upon those convicted of this "crime" would be a far more fitting statement.

A pardon implies that he was incorrectly found guilty when, in fact, he was correctly found guilty - it's just that there never should have been such a crime to be guilty of!

And what about all the other people convicted of homosexuality. I hope they are going to get pardons too.

Yeah! Free the poofters!

[hadespussercats]

I wish they didn't "pardon" him, because then they'd have to live with their own evil ignorance and wouldn't get to claim some sort of forgiveness for themselves.