Motoring7 mins ago
Turing To Be On £50 Pound Note
67 Answers
https:/
Fantastic news, he was my first choice when the nominations were first announced.
Fantastic news, he was my first choice when the nominations were first announced.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Old_Geezer - // Bad law should be treated with disdain. It's a moral duty. But one tries not to judge the earlier society by the standards it was taught and so lived by. On the other hand it doesn't mean individuals can't have been treated unfairly if the law of that time is seen in retrospect to be unfair. Ultimately if one takes a stand against bad law and injustice one risks the consequences from the State from that time period. //
A superb post, if I may say so.
I would like, on reflecting on it, to re-assess my position with regard to the treatment that Turing received - it was unfair on the basis that the law was a bad law, but as you also point out, people are subject to the laws at the time, he was, as we are now.
In terms of my reference to Jimmy Savile - it is not a comparison to Turing in any way, and should not be seen as such.
The point I am maaking is, if a case is to be made for people to be exempt from the law at the time they are alive, on the basis of a sliding scale of peceived value and goodness, than that approach has to be applied without fear of favour.
That is why I observed that if people are to be allowed a degree of credit because they have a massive human benefit on the basis of their lives and actions - then Jimmy Savile must be partially exempt from the vilification he received, and receives, on the basis of legally unproven criminal behaviour.
It's not a comparison at all - it's an argument that if you want to argue that Turing should be exempt from the law because he did good things, then you have to apply that concept equally and without favour to anyone else who also did good, but behaved in a criminal fashion.
Of course, you can't do that - which is exactly my point.
A superb post, if I may say so.
I would like, on reflecting on it, to re-assess my position with regard to the treatment that Turing received - it was unfair on the basis that the law was a bad law, but as you also point out, people are subject to the laws at the time, he was, as we are now.
In terms of my reference to Jimmy Savile - it is not a comparison to Turing in any way, and should not be seen as such.
The point I am maaking is, if a case is to be made for people to be exempt from the law at the time they are alive, on the basis of a sliding scale of peceived value and goodness, than that approach has to be applied without fear of favour.
That is why I observed that if people are to be allowed a degree of credit because they have a massive human benefit on the basis of their lives and actions - then Jimmy Savile must be partially exempt from the vilification he received, and receives, on the basis of legally unproven criminal behaviour.
It's not a comparison at all - it's an argument that if you want to argue that Turing should be exempt from the law because he did good things, then you have to apply that concept equally and without favour to anyone else who also did good, but behaved in a criminal fashion.
Of course, you can't do that - which is exactly my point.
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
Body & Soul9 mins ago
Well At Least Sir Kier Is Topping One...
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
