The Father of Computer Science is Still a Criminal

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

DVS BSTrD:

Such great choices.
Remind me never to work for the British government.

How can you not realize that the reason shit is so fucked up is because people with better/different views refuse to work for government?

This pisses me off almost as much as my American friend who refuses to vote because he doesn't think his vote matters.

Well...

DUH!!!!!!

When half the voting population takes the same shit stance as my friend, it's no wonder things don't change. When you feel your voice is shit, and you don't speak it, You have no right to give a shit. Simple math there... no shit given equals no shit received.

Can I get an Amen...

Can I get someone ta give a shit??

-sigh-

I want to say 'I give up, the dude is a focal point 'for science' (lol, you monster) and gay activists, who am I to bring up his possible indiscretions that have may be the cause for his refusal to be pardoned...

Let people believe what they want, it makes things easier, eh? (That's how religion still holds people)

What really pisses me off, is that these same people that take no action to vote for anyone to adjust the laws, in the ways they like to scream at the internet as being right when they fear monger just like FOX NEWS! Are they the ones making scandalous headlines on the internets?

Monkeyman O'Brien:
They made the right call. No matter his contributions to society he was still guilty of a criminal offence. It does not matter one bit what we think of the laws back then. So it is only right that he stay a criminal.

To me, this sounds like if present day Germany didn't pardon the Jewish whom died in the Second World War, because then it was considered illegal/ immoral to be Jewish, and they knew they were committing an offense by preaching to that religion.

Or people persecuted in America for believing in communist ideologies during the cold war era.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Illegal isn't the same as immoral. Turing didn't do anything immoral. He was persecuted simply because his beliefs were different to that of the British aristocracy at the time. His persecution was nothing less than rascism. The ultimate irony being that he helped fight again rascism in another country.

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense. He would have known that his offense was against the law and that he would be prosecuted."

Oh Turing, should've stopped being gay there, old chap! Bloody stupid of you, remaining a fag when you knew they'd stick in you jail for it. Oh well, who wants biscuits and tea?

@Sober Thal
Do you have anything to support this conspiracy theory of yours at all? I'm asking for evidence here not more of your musings.

Fat_Hippo:
"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offense. He would have known that his offense was against the law and that he would be prosecuted."

Oh Turing, should've stopped being gay there, old chap! Bloody stupid of you, remaining a fag when you knew they'd stick in you jail for it. Oh well, who wants biscuits and tea?

I read that and thought "Good job boys, keep digging that there hole". I mean do they really think thats going to do anything to help them avoid looking like antediluvian fools?

Knight Templar:
@Sober Thal
Do you have anything to support this conspiracy theory of yours at all? I'm asking for evidence here not more of your musings.

Nope. (I love the afraid/try to @ quote thing ya did BTW)

Nothing more than the wiki sources I have already listed again.

Do you have any sources to quote besides the House of Lords that haven't pardoned Alan Turing?

Do you have any idea why he hasn't been pardoned? Or do you just want to idealize a brilliant dead guy who was thought to be gay, and possibly sick in the head? Well, he did commit suicide, so he was definitely sick in the head... but maybe it was due to the chemical castration that he chose instead of imprisonment...

Seriously... what is the conspiracy you refer to? The one were he was an alleged molester of children, or the one where a recognized governmental force refuses to forgive him for being what he was?

FalloutJack:
With respect, denying a dead man a little dignity for posterity's sake is something of a 'beating the dead horse' moment. People convicted of crimes and then proven innocent by the DNA testing that came years later are released. We can't go "Sorry, Turing, old chap. It was all hot-blooded intolerance and foolishness in the end.", now that being gay isn't a crime? I find that pathetic, especially since he certainly can't harm anyone NOW. I suppose he'll announce candidacy and win an election against a living man, since it's happened before in the U.S., right?

It's the difference between intellectually being innocent of a crime, and being morally innocent of a crime.

The fact is, he was guilty of the crime, regardless of whether the law dictating the crime was right. People who are proven innocent via DNA testing are not.

Not exactly the same thing...

cobra_ky:

Sober Thal:
But taking Prime Minster Gordon Brown's word of apology, even though he (The Prime Minister) was only a year old at the time of Turings sentencing, makes him deserving of absolution?

Yeah...

Uh, no, the presumption of innocence does.

And who cares how old Brown was at the time? Were you even alive then?

Sober Thal:

cobra_ky:

Yes. Yes, it's pretty crazy to think that the House of Lords today refused to pardon him because they are guarding the secret coverup of the crimes Alan Turing supposedly committed 50 years ago. Never mind that if they actually wanted to cover it up that badly, they simply could have granted the pardon and not lent any credence to your conspiracy theory. I'm sure you could then twist some other event in order to support the conclusion you've already reached.

Idk, I think that makes an awful lot of sense considering the very law he was convicted under was itself bitterly homophobic.

Then why do they not pardon him, if not for the fact that there may be something they don't want to admit that he was guilty of?

Because they're stuffy jerks who don't want to admit the state was wrong to chemical castrate one of their greatest heroes and drive him to suicide? I think they'd be more likely to cover the ass of their predecessors than a supposed child molester, in which case i remind you that if they actually wanted to cover for him they would have granted the pardon.

Except that doesn't hold up for half a second. "It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offense which now seems both cruel and absurd".

What part of that quote did you miss? They clearly aren't trying to make themselves out to have been justified in their punishment of this man.

Yes, his contributions were great. Yes, nobody should be sentenced based on their sexual orientation. Yet, at the same time, here's the tricky thing with laws: they apply at the time of their validity, without any exceptions.

Living in a society governed by laws requires adherence to that principle, no matter how inappropriate certain laws may seem in hindsight. Any exceptions made based on subjective perceptions of achievement or greatness or whatever can only hurt the entire system.

Also, who pardons the most sentenced criminals? Mostly dictatorships, who change their perception of who is guilty and who is not on a whim.

Better to honor him civilly and let this rest.

so by that logic the Nazis should just have made killing jews legal and nobody would get prosecuted for the Holocaust because hey, it was legal at the time.

Just goes to show what many of us already know: legal/illegal and right/wrong really don't have all that much to do with eachother.

I think Dr Turing was a superbly intelligent man and I am fond of the statue of him that sits in a park no more than 100 yards from where I am now, which is why it is hard to say but the House of Lords is not wrong.

Posthumous pardons are for people who are found to be innocent of the crime that they committed. Alan was a practicing homosexual at a time when this was a criminal activity. A pardon is quite simply not appropriate for this case. An apology and many tributes are appropriate and these things are being or have been done.

Sober Thal:

Do you have any idea why he hasn't been pardoned?

Is the above explanation satisfactory?

You are inventing a theory for the sake of it. You have no evidence for quite a serious accusation and the reason for the refusal to pardon Dr Turing is quite clear.

Sober Thal:

I want to say 'I give up, the dude is a focal point 'for science' (lol) and gay activists, who am I to bring up his possible indiscretions that have caused his refusal to be pardoned...

Let people believe what they want, it makes things easier, eh? (That's how religion still holds people)

Considering you're using an argument similar to "You can't prove that God doesn't exist therefore he does" it would appear that you're the "religious" person here. Bringing up the "possible indiscretions" adds to a discussion but sticking by them when it is obviously not the case is frustrating and nonsensical.

Personally I would grant a Posthumous pardon to every single man convicted of being gay during those times as a statement that the Law itself was wrong.

And as to the 'suspicion' of child molestation you have to take that in context of a time where homosexuals were considered sexual deviants by default, thus of course if someone was molesting children it must be the gay man, after all he's a freak anyway...

Any distinction between child molestation and homosexuality wasn't surfacing before after the 1950s in the west, and the excuse is still utilized in Africa to outlaw it.

I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

Poisoned Al:
While sucky, it's not surprising. While the law was bullshit, it WAS the law at the time and he broke it. Pardoning someone for a "crime" he DID commit is a massive can of worms you don't want to open. It sucks, but you don't go making exceptions in law or the whole bloody thing falls to bits.

Yeah I know, right? Everything that also happened to both women and African Americans before they were given rights was also justified! After all, any act of defiance they showed was just 'breaking the law' at the time. Law is a good thing, law means order. It's good to have order, otherwise we would have Nazi's riding Dinosaurs through our streets.

If a law has long since been changed or removed - especially one of discrimination or prejudice - that is already an acknowledgment that it was Wrong. I think they should apologize to everyone effected by it, it's the humane thing to do. All governing powers should be responsible for what they allowed to transpire, if for any reason then to make them more considerate of the laws they pass in modern times.

Also the child molester thing. It is impossible to tell now, because people - most notably people of the more simple variety - usually connected homosexuality with child molestation. Hell, people STILL do it today! So that could very well be BS.

As I said in another thread on this topic...

Personally I should think Turing should not only be posthumously pardoned, he should also receive a posthumous Victoria Cross for his wartime service (forget the "in the face of the enemy bit" he was at danger of being lynched by his own people and he still contributed!), a posthumous George Cross for his services after the war in computing science, and that counts as services to humanity.

FFS they give knighthoods to rockstars and puffed up little premadonnas, this man should go down in history with his name kept in the same company as Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking!

Hell most every nation on the planet should be giving him their highest civil honour, not only did he fight one of the most evil empires in history, but he literally contributed to the birth of the modern world.

All this bullshit about him being a child molester is just bullshit, there is no evidence, just slander, he was convicted on being gay.

I imagination some of people posting he "deserved what he got" are Americans (just based on statistical breakdown of the 'net, not that Americans are any more or less tolerant then any other nation), well, look at the good Americans who took part in WWII and were later "convicted" of being communists, they never did anything wrong, other then holding a viewpoint that some disagreed with, and yet like Turing they had their lives ruined by rumour and accusation.

Treblaine:
I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

Just have to point out that most Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 90 of 788, most are appointments are for life peers made by the political parties.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/lords-by-type-and-party/

It isn't often that people can make me sick to my stomach.

The people who condemn Turing using his machines manage it though.

But yeah, Jobs Innovates, Turing "gets away with".

Filth. The lot of you.

Belated:
That's just stupid. "Pardons" are called "pardons" for a reason. It's the government forgiving you for committing a crime that you did commit, not one that you didn't. It's a way of saying "We know you did something illegal but we're going to let you get away with it." Pardons aren't appeals on sentences. Pardons are forgiveness for sentences. They weren't asking for them to undo the court's decision. They were asking the British Government to forgive the crimes, not find that no crimes were committed. Seriously, do these people even know what a "pardon" is?

I'm going to sound incredibly anal with the way I say this, but pardons aren't for forgiving you for a crime you committed, but for a crime you were convicted of.

Sometimes the two are the same, sometimes they're not.

Sometimes you could be found innocent of a crime, but the State of Texas will execute you years later, because well, it's Texas.

Megalodon:

Treblaine:
I remind everyone that the House of Lords is made up entirely of NON-ELECTED INDIVIDUALS!! A huge proportion are even HEREDITARY! As in they got this job LITERALLY JUST BECAUSE THEIR DAD HAD IT!!!!

As disgusting as this is our elected officials still allow these sociopaths to remain part of our political establishment. Our elected officials actually allow these people to make such decisions as the power to pardon the most blatant injustice. FUCK THAT!

The lords aren't fooling everyone, the WHOLE POINT OF A PARDON is the recognise that the law was unjust!

This needs to be a lightning rod for reform (if not absolute abolishment) of the House or Lords. Replace it with a popular vote house like they have under the US constitution, they didn't have a bloody war to be separate over the price of tea, they separated over shit like this. A bunch of Lords having this much power.

A power they have demonstrated they have no competency to wield. Democratically, they certainly have no right.

Just have to point out that most Lords aren't hereditary anymore, only 90 of 788, most are appointments are for life peers made by the political parties.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/lords-by-type-and-party/

My point was not that CURRENTLY people can become a Lord by inheritance, but that those who DID inherit their peerage are somehow still allowed to make any bloody decisions. We can't even wait for them to retire but have to wait for them to die.

Are we still living in the dark ages? People who inherited position should have a purely ceremonial role in deference to elected officials requests and ruling! Not set public polity!

A public office should not be inherited like private property! And I mean retroactively as well, this should be undone!

And I don't agree at all that it is right for even elected officials to set life peerages, that is too far removed from democracy. How can UK object to despotic leaders like "Presidents for Life" when we are arbitrarily appointing Lords for Life? And not just till retirement FOR LIFE! Until they are old and completely out of touch!

How can we lecture other countries about poor democratic practice when we practice this!?!? Only by hypocrisy.

Therumancer:

Yep, and one of the reasons why left wing politics drive me crazy. The guy pretty much got what he deserved.

It's sort of like saying that because Hitler made many great contributions, especially before World War II (the guy was an international "man of the year") that we should pardon him for all of his crimes, like that little holocaust thing, so he can be remembered as a humanitarian and economic reformist....

To put this into perspective, despite his sexual orientation being a crime he managed to rise to a position of great prominance. What he was doing would doubtlessly have been overlooked it it wasn't for associated crimes. Fair or not, social status has always had it's privleges, and keeping certain things "in the closet" at the time was one of them. If he had not been a child molester, this would have fallen under the catagory of "vile rumor" which right now given how the political conditions changing would perhaps be validated as true.

Are you trolling or just... nvm.
First of all, what Hitler did actually wasn't against the law at the time. So that comparison is way off. What that fact does show is that "the law" is a pretty shitty way to judge people. Dutch people collaborating during WWII with the German occupiers, betraying the location of Jews in hiding, were in fact not doing anything illegal. Which also made prosecution rather difficult after the war was over. It wasn't pretty.
Anyway, should we really judge people for not keeping to idiotic laws? If the law states it's your duty to betray Jews, should you do so? Should we judge people for not abiding a law which they cannot meet (for, you know, simply being a homosexual)? I would say no.

Also, I have no words for the fact that you're comparing the person who's responsible for tens of millions of casualties, torn families and the cold blooded murdering of millions of innocent people with someone who violates the law for nothing but loving men and who helped fight the aforementioned dictator.

Sober Thal:
Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester, only given till his work was done, before being given the choice of imprisonment, or chemical castration.

He decided on the chems. He then committed suicide.

If people think that The British House of Lords is some sort of evil homophobic group, so be it... but perhaps what was possibly 'swept under the rug' is why they refuse to pardon the man.

(The Prime Minister who eventually 'apologized' to him was a baby when Alan Turing was convicted. Just sayin.)

Thanks for the rather important tid-bit on information. Hate when articles "forget" to add somewhat important little things like possible child molester. Not sure if it's true or false (though I would imagine him being in libraries a lot anyway) it's better to know than to not.

Kaulen Fuhs:

FalloutJack:
With respect, denying a dead man a little dignity for posterity's sake is something of a 'beating the dead horse' moment. People convicted of crimes and then proven innocent by the DNA testing that came years later are released. We can't go "Sorry, Turing, old chap. It was all hot-blooded intolerance and foolishness in the end.", now that being gay isn't a crime? I find that pathetic, especially since he certainly can't harm anyone NOW. I suppose he'll announce candidacy and win an election against a living man, since it's happened before in the U.S., right?

It's the difference between intellectually being innocent of a crime, and being morally innocent of a crime.

The fact is, he was guilty of the crime, regardless of whether the law dictating the crime was right. People who are proven innocent via DNA testing are not.

Not exactly the same thing...

That's one particular detail I'm not gonna care about. I may not be any sort of gay rights activist, or even know many people who are gay themselves. I'm just anti-moron, against things in general that are caused by one form of stupidity or another. And if your judgement is clouded by things like red tape and finicky little details when the man is already dead... Well, that's pretty much on the list, now isn't it? You can try to argue that one with me, but I'm not gonna see it your way.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't pardoning only done when you've been found innocent of committing said crime after your death or before, not because the law has changed?

Grey Carter:
Emphasis is my own.

Early in 1944 a suspicion arose that he might have been the man responsible for molesting schoolboys at the main public library in Luton, a large industrial town not far from Bletchley. While no proceedings arose, it was decided that the need for good order and discipline required his removal - but not before he had done his finest work.

And the bold parts really tell you all you need to know don't they? I'm not sure how anyone couldn't be skeptical of claims that a man, known to be a homosexual at the time, was molesting children.

Therumancer:

Yep, and one of the reasons why left wing politics drive me crazy. The guy pretty much got what he deserved.

Nah, the reason is just that you're a crazy right-winger and homophobe. And I'm not even left, I vote for a right-wing party in my country. But compared to that party, you're still an extremist.

The guy didn't get what he deserved. Yes, I know your kind wants us to die, but that's expected of right-wing crazies. Treating us like human beings is something you just are incapable off, because your religion didn't teach compassion, but hate.

Jesus would cry at what horrible things you are doing in his name.

Then why do they not pardon him, if not for the fact that there may be something they don't want to admit that he was guilty of? Is it so crazy to think that they have knowledge they would rather not release to the public?

Because homophobia is still a thing influencing politics? Homophobia is visibly on the rise in Britain right now, and the House of Lords has been notoriously backwards and tends to only act sensibly when they are forced to.
Maybe, just maybe, they simply went along with their homophobic beliefs, as they did earlier?

The thing is: Your argument doesn't even work. If child molestation had any chance of sticking, they'd have used it as a justification. It's pretty much proof that the charges were lacking a basis in reality that it was neither officially brought up back then, nor now.

Just look at the actual charges back then. He was accused of being the one molesting schoolboys, because he was gay and was somewhat in the area. That's it. He was the one that was pointed at because gay => icky => deviant => chief suspect. Oddly, other evidence doesn't seem to exist.

How come? Because, maybe, it's just a rumor? A typical rumor, too. Even today, people think that gay people are automatically child molesters, even when the statistics kinda show the opposite. Homophobia at its finest.

They made the right call. No matter his contributions to society he was still guilty of a criminal offence. It does not matter one bit what we think of the laws back then. So it is only right that he stay a criminal.

You are currently arguing that the Nazis had a right to kill the jews because their laws supported it, and that anyone fighting them was a filthy law-breaker that should be put into prison even after the war is over.

Well, if you want to be in this camp, that's your choice. It's saying a lot about you, to be honest.

The law can be criminal. The law is made by people, not some supernatural law-entity that is without fault.

Seeing as the thread is already Godwin'd pretty badly, why not throw in another example from Nazi-Germany:

In 1998 and 2002, almost all verdicts made by the Nazi courts "Volksgerichtshof" and the military "Standgerichte" made against, among others, homosexuals, deserters, resistance fighters etc. were summarily declared invalid and all accused/convicted pardoned. Before that, each case had to be re-examined individually, which was often difficult if not impossible due to missing files, the deaths of people involved and general post-war chaos (and the fact that the judical system as a whole was mostly untouched by de-nazification).
It happened much too late, but it declared that what was the law at the time may have been upheld in these verdicts, but the law in and of itself was unjust and the verdicts thus "Unrechtsurteile" (=unjust verdicts).
Sadly, this so far hasn't happened for the verdicts against homosexuals after 1945. The law against homosexuality was, aside from the penalty, carried over into post-war Germany almost unchanged and only (mostly) rescinded in 1973.

Vivi22:

Grey Carter:
Emphasis is my own.

Early in 1944 a suspicion arose that he might have been the man responsible for molesting schoolboys at the main public library in Luton, a large industrial town not far from Bletchley. While no proceedings arose, it was decided that the need for good order and discipline required his removal - but not before he had done his finest work.

And the bold parts really tell you all you need to know don't they? I'm not sure how anyone couldn't be skeptical of claims that a man, known to be a homosexual at the time, was molesting children.

Why? because homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

Hookah:

Vivi22:

Grey Carter:
Emphasis is my own.

Early in 1944 a suspicion arose that he might have been the man responsible for molesting schoolboys at the main public library in Luton, a large industrial town not far from Bletchley. While no proceedings arose, it was decided that the need for good order and discipline required his removal - but not before he had done his finest work.

And the bold parts really tell you all you need to know don't they? I'm not sure how anyone couldn't be skeptical of claims that a man, known to be a homosexual at the time, was molesting children.

Why? because homosexuals are more likely to molest children?

I'm thinking you may have misunderstood my post. I'm saying I'm skeptical of any claim made at the time that he was molesting children, particularly since he was never prosecuted, because he was a homosexual. As much as fear and discrimination against homosexuals exists now, it was far worse back then. They were considered immoral, sexual deviants, and I have no trouble believing that if children in the area really were molested that they may have suspected him, not because there was any actual evidence he did it, but because he was gay and a lot of people knew he was gay.

People in general simply had no clue about what homosexuality is and that such people are not horrible monsters out to destroy society and the lives of others. Society considered them evil and that was pretty much that.

Oh what? I thought he was pardon a year ago or so.

Well either way does the pardon matter now? I mean we all know that he was a great man for what he did for his country. It's not like we really need that approval just to be liked.

The_root_of_all_evil:
It isn't often that people can make me sick to my stomach.

The people who condemn Turing using his machines manage it though.

But yeah, Jobs Innovates, Turing "gets away with".

Filth. The lot of you.

Inb4 something about high horses and the descent thereof :D

I sort of agree with the decision.

They're not going back and whiting out all the undesirable decisions of the past, but rather, admittting that the law was terrible and ensuring the same thing never happens again.

The same way that we can't start punishing people for things they've done in the past, that happen to be illegal now.

We can't undermine the rule of law. Sure, the law can be pretty damn stupid sometimes, but it's not like we have anything better (I'm sure there's a fallacy in there somewhere).

Kaulen Fuhs:

cobra_ky:

Sober Thal:
But taking Prime Minster Gordon Brown's word of apology, even though he (The Prime Minister) was only a year old at the time of Turings sentencing, makes him deserving of absolution?

Yeah...

Uh, no, the presumption of innocence does.

And who cares how old Brown was at the time? Were you even alive then?

Sober Thal:

Then why do they not pardon him, if not for the fact that there may be something they don't want to admit that he was guilty of?

Because they're stuffy jerks who don't want to admit the state was wrong to chemical castrate one of their greatest heroes and drive him to suicide? I think they'd be more likely to cover the ass of their predecessors than a supposed child molester, in which case i remind you that if they actually wanted to cover for him they would have granted the pardon.

Except that doesn't hold up for half a second. "It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offense which now seems both cruel and absurd".

What part of that quote did you miss? They clearly aren't trying to make themselves out to have been justified in their punishment of this man.

I was perhaps being a bit flippant last evening, because i really don't believe Thal's conspiracy theory is really worht entertaining. But really there's any number of other reasons the House of Lords might have refused a pardon, most notably fear of any potential political or legal repercussions. Male homosexual acts were only decriminalized in 1967, so there are quite possibly men still alive who were convicted of the crime who might start demanding pardons too. Always much safer to do nothing and maintain the status quo.

Sober Thal:
Again, people gloss over how he was allegedly a child molester

I don't know about you, but make a point out of ignoring whatever lies homophobes have to say. If they accuse a guy they were out to destroy of more stuff to discredit him, they'd better provide rock-solid evidence, even more evidence than is normally required, before I believe it.

Especially since it was more common to accuse homosexuals of child molesting as a pretense to go after them. In the Netherlands, political trials against homosexuals in the 1911-1953 period often featured fabricated charges added to being homosexual.

And that fits into a long tradition. The largest organised persecution of homosexuality took place around 1730 in this country. Dozens and dozens of people were hanged or strangled, or banished if they were rich enough. Many of the victims at that time were also accused of satanism for instance, because their meeting place was in the ruins of a church destroyed in a storm.

Sober Thal:
If people think that The British House of Lords is some sort of evil homophobic group, so be it... but perhaps what was possibly 'swept under the rug' is why they refuse to pardon the man.

They basically reasoned the law is always right, even when it's wrong. It's more than a little disturbing that any college with formal power reasons like that.

Apply the same line of reasoning to another legal question, and the house of lords would support the race laws in the US in days past. Rosa Parks would be a horrid criminal in their eyes. After all, the law is never wrong, is it?

But I guess it should come as no surprise that a college that holds hereditary positions and official representatives of the state church takes moronic viewpoints far more often than democratic institutions.

Sober Thal:

DVS BSTrD:

Such great choices.
Remind me never to work for the British government.

How can you not realize that the reason shit is so fucked up is because people with better/different views refuse to work for government?

This pisses me off almost as much as my American friend who refuses to vote because he doesn't think his vote matters.

Well...

DUH!!!!!!

When half the voting population takes the same shit stance as my friend, it's no wonder things don't change. When you feel your voice is shit, and you don't speak it, You have no right to give a shit. Simple math there... no shit given equals no shit received.

Can I get an Amen...

Can I get someone ta give a shit??

-sigh-

I want to say 'I give up, the dude is a focal point 'for science' (lol) and gay activists, who am I to bring up his possible indiscretions that have caused his refusal to be pardoned...

Let people believe what they want, it makes things easier, eh? (That's how religion still holds people)

What really pisses me off, is that these same people that take no action to vote for anyone to adjust the laws, in the ways they like to scream at the internet as being right when they fear monger just like FOX NEWS! Are they the ones making scandalous headlines on the internets? Are they like you?

Damn cowards...

cYou are sooo right. The main reason why "govs" tend to behave the way they do is because the people who run them are always the same people. AKA the same political stances, classes and ideologies. You can only change something by getting out be heard and become part of the governament.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here