Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Is David Norris Toast?

1…89111314…70

Comments

  • #302
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    later10 wrote: »
    MILF - Fine. Every adolescent goes through that. SILF is quite another. yYou are defending Norris by suggesting that he was talking about something in the line of going for milkshakes and pacman, when actually he made a direct reference to classical Greek pederasty, which, seen in the light of his views on a permissibility approach of consent and not age, is pretty unacceptable.

    My Dad is exactly the same age as David Norris is, he even has the beard and the sense of humour, in my biased opinion. However, if my Dad said what David Norris has said in a heterosexual context, about a mentoring system as Greek pederasty, about consent based on consent and not age, I would, even as his son, be outraged. This is not an issue of homophobia, the comments that Norris made would be inexcusable coming from any adult.

    The conversation was on pederasty before he made the statements, it was a flowing conversation, in which he moved from pederasty to saying that, as a young man, etc..... I'm repeating myself at this stage.

    context context context.


  • #303
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,416 ✭✭✭reprazant


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    Ignoring the pederasty comments (I struggle to find a real moral difference between pederasty and paedophilia), little has being said regarding his incest comments which were pretty mind boggling.

    You struggle to find the moral difference between an adult having sex with a 16 year old and an adult having sex with a 6 year old?

    Ok.


  • #304
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    I am finding this all a bit saddening.

    I think we should be having a discussion about our age of consent laws which are out of step with many of our contemporaries.

    The reason we have an age of consent and that child abuse is a strict liability offence is to avoid child rape cases ending up as "he said she said" or whatever as so many rape cases do. And that is a good thing, a 25 year old has no business having sex with a 15 year old (regardless of that 15 year old's fantasies)

    But do I think that a boy who has just turned seventeen should be convicted of rape for having consensual sex with his almost 16 year old girlfriend? No

    Many jurisdictions deal with this by lowering the age of consent but limiting the age gap between participants who can rely on consent which has merit.

    I would also note that Sen Norris has spent most of life unable to "consent" to sex and having had to fight for that right I suspect that he may well place too much store in consent.

    I think he is guilty here of being a verbose intellectual twit, I think he is guilty of an inherent bias in favor of consent due to his own experiences under the law, but I think that a debate should be had about age of consent when it comes to balancing the need to protect the child with the need to not criminalize other children.

    If we separate the consent comments from the pederasty comments then it could start a real debate. But the ninny seems to have combined the two in a most unfortunate way which means there will be no debate on the real issue and lots of debate over context.

    Is the tape public yet?


  • #305
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    reprazant wrote: »
    You struggle to find the moral difference between an adult having sex with a 16 year old and an adult having sex with a 6 year old?

    Ok.

    Yea I didn't say that.
    Pederasty from what I have read involved boys from 'about 12' years old in Greece.

    Ok.


  • #306
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    Yea I didn't say that.
    Pederasty from what I have read involved boys from 'about 12' years old in Greece.

    Ok.
    Yes, interestingly the marriage age in ancient Greece was 17 or 18 - so similar to our own age of consent. Athenian boys of that age would be beyond the mentoring stage.

    @beeftotheheels - no, not public yet. I agree that a debate about the age of consent is important, and indeed Norris has already advanced some creditable work in this area.

    However, I do think that this issue of what Norris has said does need to be examined as a whole. I am not quite convinced that he was talking about 18 year olds and 16 year olds engaging in sexual relations. That would have been a very clear and straightforward commentary.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    later10 wrote: »
    You seem unable to grasp the notion that people who are fine with gay people, enjoy their company, or might be gay themselves could be concerned about what Norris has said.

    I think you need to distinguish between the people who are concerned about what he said because it can be twisted and used against him and the people who are concerned because they think it proves he's a big gay perv who is unfit for president.

    I get both of those groups.

    No idea where you're coming from, though.


  • #308
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    The-Rigger wrote: »
    Yea I didn't say that.
    Pederasty from what I have read involved boys from 'about 12' years old in Greece.

    Ok.

    I honestly don't think his comments were meant to extend to the full range of pederasty though. More the young men end of the spectrum

    I mean the porn industry is largely based around pederasty. Teen pussy/barely legal etc - yet that industry doesn't advocate 12 year olds in porn.


  • #309
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I think you need to distinguish between the people who are concerned about what he said because it can be twisted and used against him and the people who are concerned because they think it proves he's a big gay perv who is unfit for president.
    I am advancing that difference - that is my point - you need to start doing so. And not coming out with rubbish like this in insinuating that those of us who find Norris's comments unacceptable must be homophobic.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72513757&postcount=286

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72506764&postcount=135

    Hopefully you will start to recognize that those of us who are concerned by Norris's comments are not all God-fearing-rosary-saying-homophobes.


  • #310
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    ... What if he started carrying on about it at a dinner with Obama or someone similar?

    Nothing to fear - we don't discuss anything of importance with US presidents and just bring them to the pub. :D

    It appears that Lucy-Burke has unearthed the cassette but has nothing to play it on. I'm sure RTE will have something. Next we'll hear the caseete deck ate it.

    I think Norris has been on the receiving end of an agenda. He should learn a lesson that the Irish mainstream media are not ready for an "academic" discussion on these matters and he should have steered well clear of it.


  • #311
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    later10 wrote: »
    However, I do think that this issue of what Norris has said does need to be examined as a whole. I am not quite convinced that he was talking about 18 year olds and 16 year olds engaging in sexual relations. That would have been a very clear and straightforward commentary.

    But if he failed to enunciate what he was actually considering at the time, because he wasn't aware that it would be taken out of context, the only context we can have is the context he has put it in since where he talks about his own teenage experience.

    It is quite possible for me to say that as a five year old I would have enjoyed unlimited sweets.

    This would not stop me advocating (as an adult) the limiting of the amount of sweets given to small children. If I thought that this was an intellectual discussion then I might omit to put it in any context since it is patently absurd to suggest that we should give toddlers unlimited sweet access.

    If he thought he was engaged in an intellectual discussion on his views on consent, rather than a technical discussion on his views on the law around consent then there was no context which we can meaningfully extrapolate from.

    It is perfectly possible to have ideals which you recognize can not or indeed should not be implemented in practice.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Haven't posted on this thread for most of the day as I hadn't got a chance to listen to the Pat Kenny interview. I must admit that I am a lot more reassured by what Norris said.

    There were just a small number of discordant notes:

    (1) Constant reference that he was always advocating what was inside the law when it came to incest and sexual relations with those under the age of consent. This doesn't fit with his campaign over a long period (which I supported) to change the law on homosexuality. If he wouldn't speak out against the law ten years ago or now, why was it ok thirty years ago? Strange.

    (2) The spectrum of abuse. He failed to understand the realities of the sexual abuse of children. It is not the act that causes the problem but the effect. While of course a person would prefer a hand in the pocket to being dead, but does he not realise that many of the victims of what he might deem mild sexual abuse have wished themselves dead on a number of occasions over the years.

    (3) He did not deny favouring pederastry or state an age at which it is acceptable. He did mention he had answered this before so maybe I need to look a bit further.

    (4) Near the end he descended into the "they are all out to get the poor gay" defence which does not wash coming from an intellectual.

    so not enough to win my vote but not gone for ever either. Will wait and hear what the tape has to say and any further comments.

    P.S. As always to reiterate I am not homophobic
    P.P.S. Neither am I a "single elderly female pre-vatican 2 Catholic latin-mass false-pope monomaniac" but I would defend their right to express their view just as I would defend Norris' right.
    P.P.P.S. Both of the above are to express the hope that people here will debate the issues rather than label the debaters.


  • #313
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    So basically it's alright to suggest pedophelia is ok if you're a gay popular man in this country?

    Honestly, some of the people on here need to stand back from the situation. Just because david norris is a generally likable and popular man, does not give him the right to go around saying underage sex is ok. If any other politician said it they'd have to resign :rolleyes:


  • #314
    Dub.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭Dub.


    later10 wrote: »
    What are you talking about, she is not on Radio 1. They are trying to convert the tape to radio.
    That`s interesting, as she has said she cannot find the tape. Where did you get your information?

    I reckon Norris should sue the Duffy show and the restaurant woman.


  • #315
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    So basically it's alright to suggest pedophelia is ok if you're a gay popular man in this country?

    Honestly, some of the people on here need to stand back from the situation. Just because david norris is a generally likable and popular man, does not give him the right to go around saying underage sex is ok. If any other politician said it they'd have to resign :rolleyes:

    oh lord, please read what he said. and what he says was misquoted. then read a definition of paedophilia. He never said underage sex is ok.


  • #316
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    But if he failed to enunciate what he was actually considering at the time, because he wasn't aware that it would be taken out of context, the only context we can have is the context he has put it in since where he talks about his own teenage experience.
    Well this is not necessarily the case. Norris talks about his childhood experience on the last page of the Magill article, whereas before that there are direct quotes whereby he says he is in favour of people being allowed to make any choices they like, within very wide limits. He is also directly quoted as saying that there is a lot of nonsense about paedophilia before getting on to Athenian pederasty and his own childhood.

    I think that attempts to seperate the comments about Athenian pederasty from the beliefs that Norris has expressed with regard to consent that is not based on age may be attempting to do what most people are complaining about - selective quoting to remove context. There is, in this thread, a cherry picking of individual paragraphs to turn each one around to mean something else. There have been defenses put forward that even David Norris has not put forward or mentioned. To imagine there is no relationship between the different comments is, on the face of it, hard to credit.The sooner this tape becomes available, the better.

    Straight off the bat, I am skeptical. I think that HLB is not completely pure and well meaning in her motives, but I think that Norris may have failed to think deeply through what he was saying. In that case, he should just admit so... not pretend that he was engaged in some wothy academic analysis that a food critic could not grasp. I think this could be cleared up if Norris came out and said he said some very silly things - we all do, at times - and he regretted it.
    It is quite possible for me to say that as a five year old I would have enjoyed unlimited sweets.
    That is fair enough, I do not think anybody would criticise the adolescent desire to have some sort of sexual relationship which, in adulthood, one would presumably reflect upon as having been inappropriate, had it occured.


  • #317
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    So basically it's alright to suggest pedophelia is ok if you're a gay popular man in this country?

    If you insist on saying stupid things, at least spell them properly. Unless you this is a poor parody of a Chris Morris episode.

    P.


  • #318
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    he never advocated letting old people have sex with adolescents.


  • #319
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    zuroph wrote: »
    oh lord, please read what he said. and what he says was misquoted. then read a definition of paedophilia. He never said underage sex is ok.
    I read what he said. He basically said anyone who wants to have sex and can find a willing partner should be able to have sex with them. Even if they are underage and their parent or sibling lol.

    I mean, gays have got their rights now but this is taking it a bit too far.

    Yes when i was a 10 year old lad, i would have loved to have sex with a woman (not related to me) but that's not saying it was right. Who knows what kind of psychological damage it could do. Everyone is different so we need a blanket rule of no sex before 16 or 18 as is the case in most states. Young people want to drink and smoke too - but does that mean they should be allowed to?


  • #320
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    I read what he said. He basically said anyone who wants to have sex and can find a willing partner should be able to have sex with them. Even if they are underage and their parent or sibling lol.

    I mean, gays have got their rights now but this is taking it a bit too far.

    Yes when i was a 10 year old lad, i would have loved to have sex with a woman (not related to me) but that's not saying it was right. Who knows what kind of psychological damage it could do. Everyone is different so we need a blanket rule of no sex before 16 or 18 as is the case in most states. Young people want to drink and smoke too - but does that mean they should be allowed to?

    And so ends my interaction. wow.


  • #321
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    "I'd murder a ham sandwich"
    zuroph wrote:
    I'd Murder...

    :eek: lock me up.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    zuroph wrote: »
    And so ends my interaction. wow.
    I didn't mean gays were in favor of what norris was suggesting or purported to have suggested. That came out wrong.


  • #323
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    later10 wrote: »
    Yes but they are not saying that there is something to be said for it. They are just explaining a technical difference, not excusing it. Not in the same league at all as what DN has supposedly said.
    They blame the 60s for what happened. Read the full article or report.


  • #324
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    I didn't mean gays were in favor of what norris was suggesting or purported to have suggested. That came out wrong.
    Perfectly understandable - you've clarified your position, no problem at all.
    See how it works.


  • #325
    zuroph
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,102 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    dvpower wrote: »
    Perfectly understandable - you've clarified your position, no problem at all.
    See how it works.

    ^^ Wins thread. If I could thank more than once I would.


  • #326
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Godge wrote: »
    (2) The spectrum of abuse. He failed to understand the realities of the sexual abuse of children. It is not the act that causes the problem but the effect. While of course a person would prefer a hand in the pocket to being dead, but does he not realise that many of the victims of what he might deem mild sexual abuse have wished themselves dead on a number of occasions over the years.

    I actually found his quote on this element interesting...
    "In my opinion, the teacher, or Christian Brother, who puts his hand into a boy's pocket during a history lesson, that is one end of the spectrum. but then there is another: there is the person who attacks children of either sex, rapes them, brutalises them, and then murders them. But the way things are presented here it's almost as if they were all exactly the same and I don't think they are. and I have to tell you this -- I think that the children in some instances are more damaged by the condemnation than by the actual experience."

    If you read Clarissa Dickson Wright's biography she notes being abused by a stranger as a small child and her mother was pretty dismissive which with hindsight she viewed as helpful because it meant she felt no shame or guilt. She maintained that as a small child she took her lead from her mother, and if her mother said it was nothing much to worry about then it was nothing much to worry about. I can see the logic in this.

    Imagine a flasher flashing a 4 year old. The 4 year old is probably unaware of there being a sexual nature to the crime and so could view it as being no different to Daddy getting ready for the shower. Once the child realizes that it is "shameful" then it becomes more of an issue for the child (it is always a big deal for society and the flasher).

    However I think the reality is that too many children already do feel ashamed and guilty so that horse has bolted.

    We also need to bear in mind recidivism of sex abuse so the laws have to treat all child abuse as horrific (don't mention Ryan - I'm in an idealistic bubble here).

    But to suggest that if we could get the child who was the subject of non-violent abuse to view it as being "no big deal", that that could be helpful to the child is not objectionable to me. Provided that the onus is exclusively on the welfare of the child.

    This to me reads further like an idealistic debate, because as you noted many, many children suffering such "lesser" abuse do suffer hugely, and recidivism has to be addressed so while it could have intellectual merit, it has insurmountable practical obstacles.


  • #327
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Drivetime covering this with Patsy McGarry and Teresa Reidy right now. Going into historical crises as well, specifically the famous Jim Duffy interview and the Robinson campaign too... interesting stuff.

    Still no tape as yet, though.


  • #328
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    dvpower wrote: »
    Perfectly understandable - you've clarified your position, no problem at all.
    See how it works.
    Are you being sarcastic?


  • #329
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    later10 wrote: »
    Drivetime covering this with Patsy McGarry and Teresa Reidy right now. Going into historical crises as well, specifically the famous Jim Duffy interview and the Robinson campaign too... interesting stuff.

    Still no tape as yet, though.

    She revealed on the 6 o clock News that the tape she had is not the tape, and that the recording may have been lost when her 'roof caved in'.


  • #330
    2wsxcde3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭2wsxcde3


    Nodin wrote: »
    She revealed on the 6 o clock News that the tape she had is not the tape, and that the recording may have been lost when her 'roof caved in'.
    It was obvious that she was never going to produce the tape. I don't like her anyway. She sounds like a moan.
    And while i only half liked david norris before - i only a quarter like him now because of his statements.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    2wsxcde3 wrote: »
    It was obvious that she was never going to produce the tape. I don't like her anyway. She sounds like a moan.
    And while i only half liked david norris before - i only a quarter like him now because of his statements.
    This doesn't really make any sense. If you don't believe the tape is accurate, why are you discrediting Norris in the first place?

    I don't think it is inevitable that a tape won't turn up. I hope it does turn up to bring some further clarity to this issue.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement