----------the lynx wrote:Although the royal pardon was a big deal, the fact it was:
1. posthumous, and;
2. a pardon for something that wasn't actually wrong in the first place,
really puts a joke on the British government (I'm sorry to have to say this) but yeah it is all in the history now so I guess this is the best they can come up with.
Well yes, perceived as a 'great man' until his social downfall and disgrace... said now that we look back to events of 60 years ago, via our prism of today, and post-hippy anything-goes moral-emancipation, trying to view and re-judge historic events retrospectively, incorporating the social mores of today. But at the time, of course it was considered immoral, and it was illegal.x9200 wrote:Because Turing was a great man he was just showed some formal forgiveness of his crime but no mature society considers what he did a crime in the first place.
Hmmm. Maybe it symbolises, and communicates, that 'We as a society have done wrong, accept that, and are now moving on hoping not to repeat the mistake'?x9200 wrote:what purpose does it serve?
Hmm There is some difference between morals, and laws. Should Guy Fawkes ever be pardoned for trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 16xx? No of course not. Or Henry the 8th for his holocaust of British Catholics? (come to think of it, arguably akin to what Hitler set out to do to the Jews)... nope.x9200 wrote:I am fine with not judging the past from current moral perspective, but than no pardon should be given to anyone.
Quite, confusing isn't it. Like being a husband in a post-feminist household lol.x9200 wrote: I see it as a sort of political/legal schizophrenia: in one act the man is made honored but the same act is a reminder that he is still considered a criminal (at least technically).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests