David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

sesna · 07-06-2011 11:36PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Seriously, what is your problem? I mean it's clear that you're on some sort of mission to discredit Norris as much as is possible. Fair enough if you honestly hold the beliefs you claim, but after pages and pages of reasoned argument you still feel the need to throw out any link you can find that contains even the slightest implication that Norris supports paedophilia etc.

Calm down, I am simply dealing with facts.

It's completely relevant to the discussion at hand, and gives everyone indication of the type of coverage this issue is getting in the media. There are some interesting parts, including a part on the the Irish Times editorial also. Have a listen and stop shooting the messenger.

oceanclub · 08-06-2011 10:01AM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yeah bad-mouthing a church which systematically abused children and covered that up. How dare he!

Presumably the Magdelen laundries weren't evil. Sure, they were doing those prostitutes a favour(*).

P.

(*) I've actually seen that line of argument used.

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 10:14AM

oceanclub wrote: »

Presumably the Magdelen laundries weren't evil. Sure, they were doing those prostitutes a favour(*).

P.

(*) I've actually seen that line of argument used.

Really? Somebody actually said that? Holy sweet ****e! The mind just boggles at that sort of mentality!

Biggins · 08-06-2011 10:20AM

oceanclub wrote: »

Presumably the Magdelen laundries weren't evil. Sure, they were doing those prostitutes a favour(*).

P.

(*) I've actually seen that line of argument used.

I know your only stating whats been said before.
Its shocking stuff how in the past had passed things off (and some probably still do in their refusal to see truth).

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 03:48PM

This is a great interview from ilovelimerick.com it's very interesting. Well worth a watch, it's about 15mins long! Talks about diversity and equality! Not an ounce of campness (for those of you who are easily offended :rolleyes: )

http://youtu.be/_N9ARqhMysU

AudreyHepburn · 08-06-2011 04:05PM

sesna wrote: »

Calm down, I am simply dealing with facts.

It's completely relevant to the discussion at hand, and gives everyone indication of the type of coverage this issue is getting in the media. There are some interesting parts, including a part on the the Irish Times editorial also. Have a listen and stop shooting the messenger.

You are not dealing in facts, only your own opinions and prejudaces which you are entitled to even if they are wrong.

Just don't try to pass them off as something they are not.

Spread · 08-06-2011 05:56PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

This is a great interview from ilovelimerick.com it's very interesting. Well worth a watch, it's about 15mins long! Talks about diversity and equality! Not an ounce of campness (for those of you who are easily offended :rolleyes: )

http://youtu.be/_N9ARqhMysU

Not an ounce of campness? What about the guy holding the mike?

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 06:00PM

Spread wrote: »

Not an ounce of campness? What about the guy holding the mike?

Sh1te, didn't think of him when I was posting...

Lets just say I was referring to David

Spread · 08-06-2011 06:04PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

Sh1te, didn't think of him when I was posting...

Lets just say I was referring to David

OK my dear ....... You are forgiven

sesna · 08-06-2011 08:56PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You are not dealing in facts, only your own opinions and prejudaces which you are entitled to even if they are wrong.

Just don't try to pass them off as something they are not.

Facts Audrey, leave the emotion of it.

Biggins · 08-06-2011 08:58PM

sesna wrote: »

Facts Audrey, leave the emotion of it.

We haven't had much facts from you - just your opinions tried to be passed a lot of facts!

Not the same - and your fooling no one in your attempts to pass them off as such.

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 08:59PM

sesna wrote: »

Facts Audrey, leave the emotion of it.

Eh, no!!! You posts a load of opinions etc; that's not fact! Don't try to be condescending when you get called on something that's not fact! It's OPINION and going on the way your are is just sh1t stirring!

Biggins · 08-06-2011 09:01PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

...going on the way your are is just sh1t stirring!

Its troll-like at this stage.
Beyond that, its gotten repetitive, boring and says much about any person posting such rubbish.

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 09:04PM

Biggins wrote: »

Its troll-like at this stage.
Beyond that, its gotten repetitive, boring and says much about any person posting such rubbish.

I agree 100% cos all it is is sh1t stirring, and deliberately trying to get a rise specifically outta Audrey. Just p1ssing me off now!

Biggins · 08-06-2011 09:06PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

I agree 100% cos all it is is sh1t stirring, and deliberately trying to get a rise specifically outta Audrey. Just p1ssing me off now!

Indeed and I think at this stage, its very clear to everyone else too.

sesna · 08-06-2011 09:18PM

Rachel you're the biggest thanks whore I've ever seen on any thread, you thank any post that remotely supports Norris, no matter what the calibre.

Audrey, you're a broken record going on about people opinions. Try talking about the topic at hand and expressing some of your own.

Biggins moaning about pi$$ed of he is. In fairness, I would be too if a politician I supported came out with really weird comments about child abuse, etc like Norris has.

Biggins · 08-06-2011 09:23PM

sesna wrote: »

Rachel you're the biggest thanks whore I've ever seen on any thread, you thank any post that remotely supports Norris, no matter what the calibre.

Audrey, you're a broken record going on about people opinions.

Biggins, try and deal with the topic at hand instead of moaning on about how your pi$$ed off. I would be too if a politician I supported came out with really weird comments like Norris has.

Please give your rubbish a rest. Its very repetitive now.
If you can't bring something new to the discussion, stop at least trying to pass opinion off as fact.

As pointed out, the comments were not weird if seen in the proper context and understanding of background historically.
..But then that's obvious to those that have a clue or at least willing to look at a fuller picture.
Your obviously not - but thats just my opinion, not fact.

AudreyHepburn · 08-06-2011 09:25PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

I agree 100% cos all it is is sh1t stirring, and deliberately trying to get a rise specifically outta Audrey. Just p1ssing me off now!

People do that to me a lot tbh so I kind of expect it now. I don't know why really, I suppose I do tend bring emotions into things but as human beings I feel our emotions and feelings are a large part of who we are the decisions we make/opinions we hold.

A person would need to be a pyscopath for feelings not to come into play in their lives.

Obviously people are entitled to their opinions but I would rather they didn't try to pass them off as facts.

Sesna the reason I repeat about opinions being merely opinions is that people seem to be incapable of distinguishing them from facts. I have expressed my opinions on Norris already as you know so no need to patronisingly tell me to 'try talk about the topic' or whatever way you put it.

sesna · 08-06-2011 09:26PM

Back to the topic at hand. I suppose the defence will be that Dunphy is out to get Norris too!

[/QUOTE]

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 09:29PM

sesna wrote: »

Rachel you're the biggest thanks whore I've ever seen on any thread, you thank any post that remotely supports Norris, no matter what the calibre.

Audrey, you're a broken record going on about people opinions. Try talking about the topic at hand and expressing some of your own.

Biggins moaning about pi$$ed of he is. In fairness, I would be too if a politician I supported came out with really weird comments about child abuse, etc like Norris has.

Clearly you don't like your opinions being questioned...
FYI I'm hardly a thanks whore, a thanks whore is someone who LOOKS for thanks, not someone that thanks! Ya feeling a bit left out? Make some form of sensible point and ya might just get one!

And as for trying to drag 3 specific Norris supporters into some twisted arguments, that's probably the silliest most pathetic thing I've seen in the entire thread!

sesna · 08-06-2011 09:35PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

Clearly you don't like your opinions being questioned...
FYI I'm hardly a thanks whore, a thanks whore is someone who LOOKS for thanks, not someone that thanks! Ya feeling a bit left out? Make some form of sensible point and ya might just get one!

And as for trying to drag 3 specific Norris supporters into some twisted arguments, that's probably the silliest most pathetic thing I've seen in the entire thread!

Semantics, a bit like Norris and the pederasty versus paedophilia debate.

I think it's time Norris came out and clarified what he really thinks about adult sex with post-pubescent teenagers, what his opinion is of sex tourism in Nepal, and what his stance on incest is between two males or two females.

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 09:37PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

People do that to me a lot tbh so I kind of expect it now. I don't know why really, I suppose I do tend bring emotions into things but as human beings I feel our emotions and feelings are a large part of who we are the decisions we make/opinions we hold.

Audrey, god knows I didn't mean to speak up for you, you can do that all by yourself

I was just get particularly p1ssed off as no matter what you said it was just dismissed in the most condescending fashion I've seen in a long time and you didn't once resort to the same tactics (you are more restrained that I am). If anyone is going to debate something, the very least you do it give you opponent a bit of respect!

sesna · 08-06-2011 09:40PM

Listening to Marc Coleman and his panel talking about Norris's outrageous comments. It's been said several times that Norris refused to show up and defend himself. No surprise !

AudreyHepburn · 08-06-2011 09:41PM

RachaelVO wrote: »

Audrey, god knows I didn't mean to speak up for you, you can do that all by yourself

I was just get particularly p1ssed off as no matter what you said it was just dismissed in the most condescending fashion I've seen in a long time and you didn't once resort to the same tactics (you are more restrained that I am). If anyone is going to debate something, the very least you do it give you opponent a bit of respect!

No no I appreciate the support Rachel! Sorry didn't mean to give you the wrong impression at all.

I do try to restrain myself from sneering at people who patronise me because I refuse to stoop to their level but I must admit I am not always sucessful!

Micky Dolenz · 08-06-2011 09:42PM

Take it to PM.

Back on topic please.

AudreyHepburn · 08-06-2011 09:42PM

sesna wrote: »

Listening to Marc Coleman and his panel talking about Norris's outrageous comments. Norris of course refused to show up and defend himself. I wonder why :rolleyes:

Perhaps because he has already done enough to defend himself? Or because he doesn't actually have reason to do so?

Biggins · 08-06-2011 09:44PM

sesna wrote: »

Listening to Marc Coleman and his panel talking about Norris's outrageous comments. Norris of course refused to show up and defend himself. I wonder why :rolleyes:

..Maybe 'cos he though he'd be only also talking to people like yourself that are unwilling to see a possible larger picture?
Maybe he had other more issues or meetings to deal with that day?
Maybe he was going to be out of the country? (again - just like the first time this was dug up by a journalist who can't back up her original supposed full interview?)

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 09:47PM

sesna wrote: »

Listening to Marc Coleman and his panel talking about Norris's outrageous comments. It's been said several times that Norris refused to show up and defend himself. No surprise !

Probably has more to do with the fact that that he's travelling the country, and from what I can tell online getting huge amounts of support!

RachaelVO · 08-06-2011 09:50PM

sesna wrote: »

Semantics, a bit like Norris and the pederasty versus paedophilia debate.

I think it's time Norris came out and clarified what he really thinks about adult sex with post-pubescent teenagers, what his opinion is of sex tourism in Nepal, and what his stance on incest is between two males or two females.

Definition of Semantics: 1. (Linguistics) of or relating to meaning or arising from distinctions between the meanings of different words or symbols

He has clarified his position. Do you only read/listen/watch detractors. He has said he thinks its abhorrent. Re-read the thread, you'll see it all...

sesna · 08-06-2011 10:00PM

Interesting discussion on Marc Coleman. The panel find it ludicrous the defence being presented by Norris that this is somehow all a smear, and that those who question Norris are homophobic.

Christine Buckley, survivor of child sexual abuse, questioned how Norris could have an intellectual, academic discussion about paedophila with no moral context, and said that Norris did not consider the moral responsibility in relation to paedophilia.

David Norris for President....would you vote for him?

Comments