Is David Norris Toast?

04-06-2011 07:06PM

later10 wrote:

David Norris is not attempting to attack the character of HL Burke, nor are his campaign team. Because they knwo that will work against them. I just wish some of the slower online supporters would catch on to that.

oh is the pot calling the kettle black now and attacking my intelect lol...charming...What you forget,(a common trait in your posts is forgetting) is the article,you defend is a slur on David Norris because he rejects it.
You also conveniently forget that he explained in the Kenny interview that ms burke has not told the truth when she said she read him the whole article and she saying he was happy with it.
If thats not the opposite of an endorsement of her character,I'm mickey mouse.
He is not going any further and rightly so,I'm not a supporter of his so don't feel bound by hisrequest not to question whats behind HLB on this.
I do note of course that one question about HLB's sobriety on the night and it's all about me now.. ha I'm afraid,you seem to like prompting people to repeat themselves and then ignore the pertinent so I'll say it again,I stopped taking Hlb's article seriously when she descibed him as sinfull and evil..
But oh no she's not slurring him at all ...lol little wonder I'm laughing because this feigning is entirely laughable.

einhard wrote:

Also, I'm probably going to get somewhat inebriated tonight, it being the long weekend and all. Would you use this to impugn me should you disagree with any other posts I might write?

I certainly wouldn't advise you to write them while drunk or get drunk during research.
I merely posed a question though and it's been an interesting experiment to see what ye have done with it and that is make a page about me.heh.

If Fergus Finlay came out tomorrow, and said much the same thing

about girls? and his growing up? very little would be said,which was the point made near the start of this thread and thanked by quite a few people.

I'm not arguing about the meaning or nuances of Norris' words, but rather with the notion that even discussing his words, and what they meant, is somehow part of a homophobic smear campaign. Norris went on Pat Kenny to put his side forward; it's only right that those of us who have issues with what he said be allowed to listen to both sides, and then make up our minds without being accused of sexual prejudice.

Thats not the case at all.
The fact is,this looks like a hatchet campaign,rehashing an article already robustly rebutted 9 years ago.
John Drennan a seasoned commentator on politics said so on tv3's midweek the other night.
Norris went on Kenny because he was upset.It's clear most people in the media and elsewhere were happy with what he had to say.
The story has died.
As for homophobia,I remain convinced that people don't start this kind of mischief for nothing and that yes,theres a we don't want a homosexual in the park element behind this teacup storm.
They'll need to try harder.
I don't know if David Norris would have won or will win a nomination or got/get the job.
I'd have thought actually Michael D might have a better run.
I'd be on here defending him against a hatchet job too if there was one.

later12 · 04-06-2011 07:46PM

Deleted User wrote: »

oh is the pot calling the kettle black now and attacking my intelect lol

Was that supposed to be ironic?

You also conveniently forget that he explained in the Kenny interview that ms burke has not told the truth when she said she read him the whole article and she saying he was happy with it.

Yes he did say that. He said that he wished to clarify that where HL Burke had written paedophilia, Norris had said (or had intended to say) pederasty.
Other than that he does not dispute the actual quotes. I wouldn't call that an attack on her character. though. Repeatedly drawing implications about the woman's drinking habits is quite different, and yes, thankfully David Norris, along with his campaign team, are far too intelligent to do so.

lol little wonder I'm laughing because this feigning is entirely laughable.

Well this thread seems to have ended with you LOLing and ROFLing, so I'll leave you to it.

Memnoch · 04-06-2011 07:47PM

Einhard wrote: »

She accuses him of holding these opinions, opinions that many people would find sinful and evil. How exactly is it wrong to express this?

Because the same people who would consider someone simply holding an intellectual opinion as 'sinful and evil,' are almost certainly going to hold that opinion against that person's character. Even if what they think his opinion is, isn't anywhere close to what he was trying to say.

She's smart enough to know this and smart enough to know exactly what she was trying to do when she used such inflammatory language. She could have just as easily said, 'I disagree with his opinion in the strongest possible terms. I think he's wrong/misguided/misinformed.' But she decided to take the kind of emotive stance that is likely to rile people up and effectively besmirch his character.

She might as well have said. 'Oh my god, he defended pedos, the monster!' or 'He thinks theres nothing wrong with pedos, what a sicko!'

spikeprint · 04-06-2011 08:19PM

later10 wrote: »

Well this thread seems to have ended with you LOLing and ROFLing, so I'll leave you to it.

Very clever, you must really be proud. LOL.

P. Breathnach · 04-06-2011 08:42PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Because the same people who would consider someone simply holding an intellectual opinion as 'sinful and evil,' are almost certainly going to hold that opinion against that person's character. Even if what they think his opinion is, isn't anywhere close to what he was trying to say.

She's smart enough to know this and smart enough to know exactly what she was trying to do when she used such inflammatory language. She could have just as easily said, 'I disagree with his opinion in the strongest possible terms. I think he's wrong/misguided/misinformed.' But she decided to take the kind of emotive stance that is likely to rile people up and effectively besmirch his character.

She might as well have said. 'Oh my god, he defended pedos, the monster!' or 'He thinks theres nothing wrong with pedos, what a sicko!'

Norris expressed opinions. Burke quoted what he said, and he does not dispute that the quote is accurate. Burke also expressed her own opinions on Norris's position. For which she is now subject to attack. It's beginning to look as if the only way to avoid controversy is to agree with Norris or remain silent.

Abitthick · 05-06-2011 03:49AM

Cathal Ó Searcaigh for president anyone?

Memnoch · 05-06-2011 08:58AM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Norris expressed opinions. Burke quoted what he said, and he does not dispute that the quote is accurate. Burke also expressed her own opinions on Norris's position. For which she is now subject to attack. It's beginning to look as if the only way to avoid controversy is to agree with Norris or remain silent.

It has been pointed out many many times that Norris DOES contest parts of Burke's story.

We are clearly on very different wavelengths here. Because as far as I'm concerned the WAY in which she chose to express her disagreement with Norris was an ad hominem, a personal attack. You seem to see it as simply stating a difference of opinion and I do not accept that this was the case.

The only way she is being attacked is that people are pointing out that she used ad hominem. If she had been a poster on boards and said to someone 'your opinion is sinful and evil,' she would have been carded or at the very least, warned for breaking the charter of civilized debate.

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 09:49AM

Memnoch wrote: »

It has been pointed out many many times that Norris DOES contest parts of Burke's story.

He does not contest quotes attributed to him, although his appearance on Pat Kenny's programme was so blusterous that you had to be attentive to note that he did not say that she was lying.

We are clearly on very different wavelengths here. Because as far as I'm concerned the WAY in which she chose to express her disagreement with Norris was an ad hominem, a personal attack. You seem to see it as simply stating a difference of opinion and I do not accept that this was the case.

The only way she is being attacked is that people are pointing out that she used ad hominem. If she had been a poster on boards and said to someone 'your opinion is sinful and evil,' she would have been carded or at the very least, warned for breaking the charter of civilized debate.

I see. So if somebody says something that other believe to be profoundly reprehensible, words like sinful and evil are not part of the permissible lexicon that one might use in commenting on those views. Because commenting on those views becomes morphed into an ad hominem attack by people who would wish to support the author of those views.

I see a great irony here. Burke attacked Norris's views, not Norris himself. As a result, she is under personal attack here, including suggestions that she is a liar and a drunk.

Memnoch · 05-06-2011 10:11AM

I don't see the point of repeating myself further, I feel I've already answered the points your making and re-phrasing them or elaborating on them is unlikely to make much difference.

I guess I'll agree to disagree. I think you're wrong and I disagree with your opinion. I don't think they are evil or sinful though.

Fuinseog · 05-06-2011 10:16AM

Abitthick wrote: »

Cathal Ó Searcaigh for president anyone?

minister for children would be more appropriate

Fuinseog · 05-06-2011 10:20AM

Memnoch wrote: »

It has been pointed out many many times that Norris DOES contest parts of Burke's story.

We are clearly on very different wavelengths here. Because as far as I'm concerned the WAY in which she chose to express her disagreement with Norris was an ad hominem, a personal attack. You seem to see it as simply stating a difference of opinion and I do not accept that this was the case.

The only way she is being attacked is that people are pointing out that she used ad hominem. If she had been a poster on boards and said to someone 'your opinion is sinful and evil,' she would have been carded or at the very least, warned for breaking the charter of civilized debate.

but surely if the things that HLB is saying are so shocking then the elderly gent feels compelled to sue for defamation?
methinks he is unhappy with the public reaction but HLB has basically revealed his views. In a libel case he would not have a leg to stand on. you do not have to beat a right wing roman catholic to say that some of the views Norris holds are disturbing and evil.

Sir Oxman · 05-06-2011 11:26AM

Waters and Dunphy are pretty much lashing into Norris/Norris's comments on the Dunphy show - podcast available later today - it's at the start of the show.

Godge · 05-06-2011 12:11PM

Memnoch wrote: »

Because the same people who would consider someone simply holding an intellectual opinion as 'sinful and evil,' are almost certainly going to hold that opinion against that person's character. Even if what they think his opinion is, isn't anywhere close to what he was trying to say.

She's smart enough to know this and smart enough to know exactly what she was trying to do when she used such inflammatory language. She could have just as easily said, 'I disagree with his opinion in the strongest possible terms. I think he's wrong/misguided/misinformed.' But she decided to take the kind of emotive stance that is likely to rile people up and effectively besmirch his character.

She might as well have said. 'Oh my god, he defended pedos, the monster!' or 'He thinks theres nothing wrong with pedos, what a sicko!'

Evil is a very strong word. It might be better to compare opinions.

For example, the current Pope's view on homosexuality, contraception and women priests are things that I strongly disagree with him on. I would have a similar level of disagreement with Norris on his views as expressed on pederastry.

Teyla Emmagan · 05-06-2011 12:30PM

I think he's really in trouble alright, which IMO is a real shame. I think he's intensely brave, and I really admire the courage with which he has lived his life. He has almost single handedly achieved amazing things in this country in terms of how we view gay people. Also, just by virtue of being who he is he encourages more 'minority' people to become involved in public life and I think that's hugely important.

I do think he was foolish to make some of these comments, but I think the attention that they have been given in the last week is really worrying. This stuff has been out there for years. I really wonder what was behind HLB coming forward this week. There seems to be a real campaign out there to discredit Norris at the moment. It's cynical and disgusting and it's utterly based in homophobia.

Very, very depressing for the future of this country.

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 12:36PM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

... It's cynical and disgusting and it's utterly based in homophobia....

So if a gay person says something controversial, it is homphobic to take issue with what is said?

Einhard · 05-06-2011 01:24PM

Not just that, it's homophobic to even discuss it.

Teyla Emmagan · 05-06-2011 01:32PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So if a gay person says something controversial, it is homphobic to take issue with what is said?

No, not at all. That's not what I meant though - I just think there is a wider campaign against Norris at the moment which is wholly based on his sexuality and I think that this is part of it.

Look at this madness like:

http://www.davidnorris4president.com/

Judgement Day · 05-06-2011 01:48PM

There may well be a campaign to keep David Norris from becoming President and that website is a pretty disgusting example of same, but really he has hoisted himself on his own petard with the HLB interview.

Fuinseog · 05-06-2011 02:32PM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

I think he's really in trouble alright, which IMO is a real shame. I think he's intensely brave, and I really admire the courage with which he has lived his life. He has almost single handedly achieved amazing things in this country in terms of how we view gay people. Also, just by virtue of being who he is he encourages more 'minority' people to become involved in public life and I think that's hugely important.

I do think he was foolish to make some of these comments, but I think the attention that they have been given in the last week is really worrying. This stuff has been out there for years. I really wonder what was behind HLB coming forward this week. There seems to be a real campaign out there to discredit Norris at the moment. It's cynical and disgusting and it's utterly based in homophobia.

Very, very depressing for the future of this country.

HLB is an elderly lady who was subject to vicious verbal abuse by homophiles since she expressed her concern about Norris.

Fuinseog · 05-06-2011 02:38PM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

No, not at all. That's not what I meant though - I just think there is a wider campaign against Norris at the moment which is wholly based on his sexuality and I think that this is part of it.

Look at this madness like:

http://www.davidnorris4president.com/

Both O Searcaigh and Norris have a few things in common. Both are gay and have been out of the closet for some time, but the vast majority of people on this isle did not really have a major problem with it. Even when O Searcaigh expressed his desire to have sex with a lounge boy (under 17) in one of his poems(check out his collection entitled Homecoming) people did not really object.
both however seem to condone sex with minors and that is really bothers people.

Teyla Emmagan · 05-06-2011 02:57PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

both however seem to condone sex with minors and that is really bothers people.

Well O Searcaigh definitely does, and it's entirely right that his opinions bother people. Norris did say in the HLB interview that he could never understand why anyone would be sexually attracted to a child. Those quotes aren't being as widely reported however. I know he was talking about sex with minors in the interview, but in fairness it was in relation to ancient Greece/Rome.

And Norris did not (at least not as far as I'm aware) personally attack HLB. It's hardly his fault if 'homophiles' (mad word that) did.

Teyla Emmagan · 05-06-2011 02:59PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

There may well be a campaign to keep David Norris from becoming President and that website is a pretty disgusting example of same, but really he has hoisted himself on his own petard with the HLB interview.

Yes, I agree. And I think it was stupid and naive of him to do same. I also think it's a great shame. I don't know if I would want him for president myself, but I do really admire him, and I think he represents a real beacon of hope for other marginalised groups in our society. And if this controversy ruins him, I think it will a great loss for Ireland.

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 04:39PM

No mention of today's poll in the sindo so far...

Norris finished 20% ahead of his nearest rival, as it appears many can see beyond a nasty, mean-spirited smear when they see one.

I think a Norris presidency would be excellent for Ireland. I admire him greatly, but more importantly believe his victory would benefit Ireland far more than it would ever benefit him personally.

However, part of me questions whether such a good, decent man should put himself through what might be a horrendous experience. It's so sad to see a good man so tarnished by those whose own bad-mindednesss is in the gutter.

Perhaps David Norris is too good for the people of Ireland, if they choose to fall for such a vindictive agenda against him.

As an aside, it strikes me as odd that little has been asked of why HLB was so strange as to ask questions of an elected senator about such lowly subjects as casual sex, paedophillia and incest???
I know the good senator stated he was shocked and surprised by her bizzare line of questioning!

http://irishindependent.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 05-06-2011 04:43PM

The title of this thread sounds like a line from an 80's high school movie.

I'd normally have great time for Norris, but these comments frankly disturb me. Even if he says that it was an 'academic' conversation, it still seems very unsettling to me.

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 04:55PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

...
As an aside, it strikes me as odd that little has been asked of why HLB was so strange as to ask questions of an elected senator about such lowly subjects as casual sex, paedophillia and incest???
I know the good senator stated he was shocked and surprised by her bizzare line of questioning!
...

Really? Burke tells us in the opening paragraph of her piece what the purpose of the interview was. Gay marriage was on the agenda in 2002, with some people advocating it, and others opposing it. Is it wrong that an elected public representative be asked questions about issues that come within the scope of public policy?

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 05:04PM

What exactly does gay marriage have to with child abuse, paedophillia and classical pederastry????

I don't think most would think it normal to ask elected representatives their views on paedophillia and child abuse (as if it's presumable they might just be mad for it) and incest???

I think most would assume that the said elected representatives would be abhored by the subject matter. What was it about openly gay senator David Norris that meant Helen Lucy Burke felt compelled to ask him how he felt about child abuse and paedophillia, as if there was a possibility he was going to come out with the views that he advocated it!!!

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 05:13PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

What exactly does gay marriage have to with child abuse, paedophillia and classical pederastry????

I don't think most would think it normal to ask elected representatives their views on paedophillia and child abuse (as if it's presumable they just be mad for it) and incest???

I think most would assume that the said elected representatives would be abhored by the subject matter. What was it about openly gay senator David Norris that meant Helen Lucy Burke felt compelled to ask him how he felt about child abuse and paedophillia, as if there was a possibility he was going to come out with the views that he advocated it!!!

I suggest that you read the article, particularly the very long quotation from Norris that starts at the end of the second page and continues for most of the third page. It was principally Norris who took the conversation into dangerous territory.

zuroph · 05-06-2011 05:14PM

Fuinseog wrote: »

Both O Searcaigh and Norris have a few things in common. Both are gay and have been out of the closet for some time, but the vast majority of people on this isle did not really have a major problem with it. Even when O Searcaigh expressed his desire to have sex with a lounge boy (under 17) in one of his poems(check out his collection entitled Homecoming) people did not really object.
both however seem to condone sex with minors and that is really bothers people.

this is malicious leaping of logic and you know it. Norris never condoned sex with minors, wquite the opposite.

Me and you have quite a few things in common too i'm sure, including sexuality, but that doesnt mean I am in any way like you.

nordisk celt83 · 05-06-2011 05:25PM

I've no intention of reading the chopped, edited, personalised and badly written article again. (twice was enough)

It's very obvious from any reading that the article took a direction that its composer wanted it to. Much of it is written from her own perspective!!!

IIRC it also includes lots of 'when the senator was asked what his views were on, he appeared to.' This suggests that HLB clearly led the line of questioning, and the Senator himself has said he was shocked by the interview on the night in question.

He also says she only quoted two paragraphs of the article, and didn't make the alterations he requested, which I'm inclined to believe. This makes HLB's account worthy of questioning at the very least. Why should she be believed ahead of the senator??

The only real verification is in the tape itself... Hasn't she found it??? Oh no wait, she's lost it... Oh no wait, she's found it... Oh no wait, it doesn't work... Oh no wait, it's the wrong tape... Oh now wait, it's been buried under the roof of her home in a biblical flood... Oh no wait, no comment!!!

P. Breathnach · 05-06-2011 05:38PM

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

I've no intention of reading the chopped, edited, personalised and badly written article again. (twice was enough)

It's very obvious from any reading that the article took a direction that its composer wanted it to. Much of it is written from her own perspective!!!

IIRC it also includes lots of 'when the senator was asked what his views were on, he appeared to.' This suggests that HLB clearly led the line of questioning, and the Senator himself has said he was shocked by the interview on the night in question.

He also says she only quoted two paragraphs of the article, and didn't make the alterations he requested, which I'm inclined to believe. This makes HLB's account worthy of questioning at the very least. Why should she be believed ahead of the senator??

The only real verification is in the tape itself... Hasn't she found it??? Oh no wait, she's lost it... Oh no wait, she's found it... Oh no wait, it doesn't work... Oh no wait, it's the wrong tape... Oh now wait, it's been buried under the roof of her home in a biblical flood... Oh no wait, no comment!!!

I invited you to read Norris's words, not Burke's. Why are you going on a tour around all the houses?

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments