David Norris' presidential bid scupperd by Israel

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

sure.....

of course how could I be less intelligent than you to have come to a differing opinion having read the same I must be stupid....

That's not what I posted.
See you can't even properly represent what I'm directly saying to you.

David Norris does not advocate what you claim he does.

tayto lover

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, you did miss something.
What Norris actually said in his letter.
He at no point "defended" any sort of rape.

He did try to infer that the young boy gave consent for the sex act.
A underage person cannot give consent for a sex act EVER, so Mr Norris did actually try to defend it.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

David Norris does not advocate what you claim he does.

so grooming children toward homosexuality and extending state wishes of clemency for a priest guilty of raping a child in cork .... sorry extending state wishes of clemency for a charity worker guilty of homosexually raping a palestinian child in Israel advocates a child protection agenda to you?

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and since he was his partner I can see why he would want to defend him regardless of whether or not if Norris was right, hence I do not question his judgement.

enough said

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

so grooming children toward homosexuality ...

Could you please actually provide a shred of evidence that Norris actually supports this.

King Mob

tayto lover wrote: »

He did try to infer that the young boy gave consent for the sex act.
A underage person cannot give consent for a sex act EVER, so Mr Norris did actually try to defend it.

Could you point to were this is in the letter?
All I can find is a section detailing how consent (among a lot of other things) are used as mitigating factors in British and Irish law which influence sentencing.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please actually provide a shred of evidence that Norris actually supports this.

nope - you can google norris and pederasty - I wouldn't waste the time on you

54kroc

I don't think Senator's should be defending pedophiles.

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

nope - you can google norris and pederasty - I wouldn't waste the time on you

So I'll assume that you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_%28politician%29#2002_Magill_magazine_interview

And looking at what he's actually said everyone can see that you're lying.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

So I'll assume that you're referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Norris_%28politician%29#2002_Magill_magazine_interview

And looking at what he's actually said everyone can see that you're lying.

now you are relying on Wiki when you condemned others for the same such thing stating it was open for all sorts of editing etc ...

but hey I am lying he didnt advocate grooming children toward self gratifying homosexual under age sex nor did his ex partner homosexually rape a vulnerable child within a charitable setting ....

and hey he didn't contact another jurisctiction purporting to represent this state sking for clemency for a child rapist?

Course he didn't - I made it all up :rolleyes:

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

now you are relying on Wiki when you condemned others for the same such thing stating it was open for all sorts of editing etc ...

So you're claiming that he didn't say:

I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually... but in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life, I think that there can be something to be said for it.

?

N8 wrote: »

but hey I am lying he didnt advocate grooming children toward self gratifying homosexual under age sex ...

You are lying because that's clearly not what he advocates.

tayto lover

King Mob wrote: »

Could you point to were this is in the letter?
All I can find is a section detailing how consent (among a lot of other things) are used as mitigating factors in British and Irish law which influence sentencing.

And was he using these mitigating circumstances to get a lesser sentence for the benefit of the accused. Yes indeed he was. It was the benefit of the defendant i.e. his boyfriend. BUT not a word about the victim, a child of 15 years.

King Mob

tayto lover wrote: »

And was he using these mitigating circumstances to get a lesser sentence for the benefit of the accused.

Which is what happens in some cases in British and Irish law as he points out.

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes indeed he was. It was the benefit of the defendant i.e. his boyfriend. BUT not a word about the victim, a child of 15 years.

You do understand that by pointing out that consent (again, among several other factors) is a mitigating factor in some systems does not amount to him defending the act of rape.

tayto lover

King Mob wrote: »

Which is what happens in some cases in British and Irish law as he points out.


You do understand that by pointing out that consent (again, among several other factors) is a mitigating factor in some systems does not amount to him defending the act of rape.

yes indeed but when you read it in conjunction with his opinions in the H.L.B. matter you might start to question if he had this in mind when commenting on pederasty, replace Ancient Greece with Israel.

King Mob

tayto lover wrote: »

yes indeed but when you read it in conjunction with his opinions in the H.L.B. matter you might start to question if he had this in mind when commenting on pederasty, replace Ancient Greece with Israel.

But he hasn't either in the letter or else were defended any sort of rape, or as some are claiming advocates grooming children for gay sex.

Again he said and has said on several occasions:

I cannot understand how anybody could find children of either sex the slightest bit attractive sexually

I honestly don't see how that can be any clearer.

Bullseye1

How can you be groomed towards homosexuality? You are either gay or your not.

Regarding the term Statutory Rape it's a legal term which exists in western society. In some countries people marry at this age and have sex. They do not consider it rape. It was not so long ago in Ireland that we too married at this age.

Was the alleged statutory rape in a country which recognises the term?

N8 wrote: »

so grooming children toward homosexuality and extending state wishes of clemency for a priest guilty of raping a child in cork .... sorry extending state wishes of clemency for a charity worker guilty of homosexually raping a palestinian child in Israel advocates a child protection agenda to you?





enough said

King Mob

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Was the alleged statutory rape in a country which recognises the term?

It was because the guy in question was actually convicted of it in Israel.

Bullseye1

Fair enough.

N8

King Mob wrote: »

You do understand that by pointing out that consent (again, among several other factors) is a mitigating factor in some systems does not amount to him defending the act of rape.

A minor consented - isn't this what catholic priests here in Ireland claimed???




KIng Mob - the Final Protector Of Child Rapists now the papal nuncio is gone .....



Rather than incurring a ban - I will be careful in what I say - defenders of child rapists whether they be senators or folk on here are the equal of and facilitators of same said child rape and should be punished accordingly - Norris and those backing his clemency views for child rapists should be exposed for what they are - and it is not a conspiracy theory to do so or agree with so even when such experts as King Mob throw in their speak and as such the self same posters need exposed for defending child rape too

King Mob wrote: »

You are lying because that's clearly not what he advocates.

to quote your quote and put in context....

in terms of classic paedophilia, as practised by the Greeks for example, where it is an older (homosexual) man introducing a younger man or boy to adult (homosexual) life (its ok to abuse and statutorily rape him)

whilst homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (or as claimed genetic) to groom a child toward such whilst raping them is not - Norris saying by way of a clemency request under the pretext of our sovereign state senate membership (given by way of a few liberals up there in trinity) he agrees with such and then in context agreeing with his buddy raping a child within a charitable context is abhorrent.

King Mob you need to take time out and reflect or come back within a context of agreeing with Norris toward a pretext that the homosexual rape of children with a charitable context is ok or its not and he should not only step back from a run at the presidency byut resign his seat without a pension that senaors like he clearly do not deserve.

norris should too but he knows no shame.

Now report me as a liar or give up our defence of such.

I have wasted enough time on the likes of you.

Your posts speak volumes and those posts on this thread should be reflected upon by those replying to anything you spout your SELF given authority upon in the future

King Mob

N8 wrote: »

Your posts speak volumes and those posts on this thread should be reflected upon by those replying to anything you spout your SELF given authority upon in the future

N8, I've not the will or energy to actually attempt to debate someone so willing to distort and misrepresent and lie.

I've posted the quote you've used to damn Norris and it's shown you up as the liar you are.
I think anyone with the ability to read will see that.
Anything else I can add is just beating my head off a closed minded, bigoted wall.

Boo Radley

N8 wrote: »

A minor consented - isn't this what catholic priests here in Ireland claimed???




KIng Mob - the Final Protector Of Child Rapists now the papal nuncio is gone .....



Rather than incurring a ban - I will be careful in what I say - defenders of child rapists whether they be senators or folk on here are the equal of and facilitators of same said child rape and should be punished accordingly - Norris and those backing his clemency views for child rapists should be exposed for what they are - and it is not a conspiracy theory to do so or agree with so even when such experts as King Mob throw in their speak and as such the self same posters need exposed for defending child rape too








to quote your quote and put in context....



whilst homosexuality is a lifestyle choice (or as claimed genetic) to groom a child toward such whilst raping them is not - Norris saying by way of a clemency request under the pretext of our sovereign state senate membership (given by way of a few liberals up there in trinity) he agrees with such and then in context agreeing with his buddy raping a child within a charitable context is abhorrent.

King Mob you need to take time out and reflect or come back within a context of agreeing with Norris toward a pretext that the homosexual rape of children with a charitable context is ok or its not and he should not only step back from a run at the presidency byut resign his seat without a pension that senaors like he clearly do not deserve.

norris should too but he knows no shame.

Now report me as a liar or give up our defence of such.

I have wasted enough time on the likes of you.

Your posts speak volumes and those posts on this thread should be reflected upon by those replying to anything you spout your SELF given authority upon in the future

Just to make you aware I have reported this post for its outrageous innuendo leveled at another user. You are, not too subtly, making some quite serious statements about other users here.

I, for one, find it despicable.

Penn

Nullzero and N8 both banned for a week for personal abuse. My Name is URL, you were extremely close to being banned too. Keep it calm folks.

Emiko

N8 wrote: »

...
fair point - why not contact Norris and offer your under age child for his israeili bud to shag up the butt and endure the forced oral sex?

For pointing out the difference between rape and statutory rape I should offer up someone to be forced to give a blowjob?

Fair point.

Jeboa Safari

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and since he was his partner I can see why he would want to defend him regardless of whether or not if Norris was right, hence I do not question his judgement.


But no one has actually presented any form of argument as to why what he did was actually wrong.
All the stuff you are posting is simply based on lies and ignorance.

Well I think it shows a terrible lack of judgement, both morally and politically. He shouldn't be that blinded by the wrongdoings of his (ex?) partner. And between this, the magill interview and his follow-up reaction to it and his defense of Cathal o'Sharcaigh, his views on pedastry are questionable to say the least. It would also appear he wasn't upfront and honest with his campaign team, hence their resignations

Monty Burnz

yekahS wrote: »

Anyway, its true, so what does it matter who released the letters. A senator tried to use his position as a senator to interfere in a trial of his partner accused of child rape. Not someone I want representing our country.

I don't think it had anything to do with the trial. The guy had already been convicted, the letter was seeking clemency. And it wasn't 'child rape' either, it was consensual sex. But the consent granted by people below a certain age (I'm not sure what it is for homosexuals in Israel) is not recognised by the law. That's why it's called 'statutory rape' - consent not recognised by statute.

Ironically, if Israel were behind this, they've just opened the door for well-known Zionist Michael D. Higgins, who I think a lot of the Norris vote will switch to.

Son Of A Vidic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

..it wasn't 'child rape' either, it was consensual sex.

Well you can call it two things actually since it's a 15 year old - grooming and pedophilia.

The technical semantics surrounding the terms 'rape' and 'statutory rape' I always find laughable. I don't think a victim of such crimes appreciates being told "You weren't really raped." Whether it's anally or orally ect, the suffering of it's victims aren't any less.

I think it's an utter disgrace that Norris is still running for the presidency. If he had some dignity and perhaps some cop on, then he would immediately step aside forthwith.

Monty Burnz

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Well you can call it two things actually since it's a 15 year old - grooming and pedophilia.

The technical semantics surrounding the terms 'rape' and 'statutory rape' I always find laughable. I don't think a victim of such crimes appreciates being told "You weren't really raped." Whether it's anally or orally ect, the suffering of it's victims aren't any less.

I'm sorry, but that reflects total ignorance of the situation. I don't know whether you are deliberately misunderstanding, or you just don't have a clue. The 'victim' doesn't necessarily 'suffer' at all. As others have stated, people used to get married in this country at that age, and they still do in other cultures.

Do you understand that 'statutory rape' is not a rape in the sense of making someone do something they don't want to do? The underage party has given consent, but the society in question deems them no competent to give consent. In this country, if a 17-year old guy has sex with a 16-year old girl who is mad keen to hop in the sack with him, he's guilty of statutory rape. Is he a child-molester? :rolleyes:

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I think it's an utter disgrace that Norris is still running for the presidency. If he had some dignity and perhaps some cop on, then he would immediately step aside forthwith.

Meh. I'd probably lose more respect for him if he didn't try to help his former partner when he was in dire straits.

Yitzhak Rabin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that reflects total ignorance of the situation. I don't know whether you are deliberately misunderstanding, or you just don't have a clue. The 'victim' doesn't necessarily 'suffer' at all. As others have stated, people used to get married in this country at that age, and they still do in other cultures.

Do you understand that 'statutory rape' is not a rape in the sense of making someone do something they don't want to do? The underage party has given consent, but the society in question deems them no competent to give consent. In this country, if a 17-year old guy has sex with a 16-year old girl who is mad keen to hop in the sack with him, he's guilty of statutory rape. Is he a child-molester? :rolleyes:

Norris not only tries to play down the seriousness of his partner raping the child, he also tries to blame the victim, saying Nawi was caught in a trap. Despicable and foolish actions.

Meh. I'd probably lose more respect for him if he didn't try to help his former partner when he was in dire straits.

Yeah, of course when you hear that you ex just raped a child, your first reaction is to abuse your position as a senator and make representations on his behalf.

Monty Burnz

yekahS wrote: »

Norris not only tries to play down the seriousness of his partner raping the child, he also tries to blame the victim, saying Nawi was caught in a trap. Despicable and foolish actions.

He didn't 'rape' the guy, as I understand it. Let's not (deliberately?) confuse a legal term with a physical action.

Yitzhak Rabin

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He didn't 'rape' the guy, as I understand it. Let's not (deliberately?) confuse a legal term with a physical action.

Rape is when one party doesn't give consent. A 15 year old is incapable of giving consent.

A 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old boy or girl is grooming and rape as far as I'm concerned.

Monty Burnz

yekahS wrote: »

Rape is when one party doesn't give consent. A 15 year old is incapable of giving consent.

A 15 year old is capable of giving consent; but for legal purposes, our society has decided that their consent doesn't count until some line in the sand has been crossed. That line is set arbitrarily, and will move around over time.

yekahS wrote: »

A 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old boy or girl is grooming and rape as far as I'm concerned.

Well, as far as the law is concerned it's rape by statute.

I don't approve of it any more than the next person, but equating consensual sex with a young person who is near (but below) the age of consent with non-consensual sex by force is to exaggerate the seriousness of the former at the expense of the latter.