Is David Norris Toast?

Rubik. · 06-06-2011 05:16PM

kn wrote: »

Just so that everyone understands what 'pederasty' means the definition is sex, including anal penetrative sex, between a man and a boy aged 12-17.

Google it yourselves.

What it is claimed he said was...

"where it is an older man introducing a younger man to adult life"

"Younger man" - not boy or child.

zuroph · 06-06-2011 05:24PM

kn wrote: »

Just so that everyone understands what 'pederasty' means the definition is sex, including anal penetrative sex, between a man and a boy aged 12-17.

Google it yourselves.

and paedophilia is

typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children

So quite a bit of difference there already, as, as you can see from your definition, Norris can be referring to a 17 year old... and does say Younger man/boy, which would seem to back that up. Plus, he was speaking about it from the view of BEING that young man/boy, not the other way around.

P. Breathnach · 06-06-2011 05:33PM

zuroph wrote: »

... the poster never said anything about homophobia, but you jumped on it accusing him of calling HLB and Waters homophobes....

I did not.

zuroph · 06-06-2011 05:45PM

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I did not.

apologies, Einhard did.

PatsytheNazi · 06-06-2011 07:41PM

In a typical over-the-top contribution from the pompous and posturing Norris he condemned the Pope (who was 6 when the Nazis came to power in 1933 and 12 at the outbreak of WWII in 1939) as if he were a leading Nazi like Himmler or something - In a Sunday Tribune interview, David Norris is quoted as saying ”I will not take moral instruction from anyone who, like the present Pope, wore the swastika on his arm.” Someone should tell the fool that Hitler Youth membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939 :mad:

Now I'm not a Catholic, but how can anyone conceive that this loud mouthed imbecile should be President is beyond me.

http://mollox.blogspot.com/2005/12/david-norris-and-nazi-pope.html

zuroph · 06-06-2011 07:47PM

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

In a typical over-the-top contribution from the pompous and posturing Norris he condemned the Pope (who was 6 when the Nazis came to power in 1933 and 12 at the outbreak of WWII in 1939) as if he were a leading Nazi like Himmler or something - In a Sunday Tribune interview, David Norris is quoted as saying ”I will not take moral instruction from anyone who, like the present Pope, wore the swastika on his arm.” Someone should tell the fool that Hitler Youth membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939 :mad:

Now I'm not a Catholic, but how can anyone conceive that this loud mouthed imbecile should be President is beyond me.

http://mollox.blogspot.com/2005/12/david-norris-and-nazi-pope.html

is that your own blog?

the quote is actually "...while people like myself were being put alive into ovens at Auschwitz simply for being gay."

you've misquoted him by adding a full stop after "arm"

later12 · 07-06-2011 02:41PM

David Norris is quite correct to refuse to accept moral preaching (from anybody) and to criticise the Roman church for its treatment of homosexuals, both historically and in the present era.

However - I have not seen that comment before, although having just researched it, it appears to have been made. The current Pope has described the personal burden of his time in the Hitler Jugund (a compulsory movement) and how he has carried it like a stone through life, and he clearly does seem intent on improving Christian-Jewish relations.

It has nothing to do with the HL Burke article, but I think it was cheap and unfair of Norris to bring up the the past of Pope Benedict in this respect, something which, as a fourteen year old boy the Pope had no control over.

tayto lover · 09-06-2011 04:38PM

later10 wrote: »

David Norris is quite correct to refuse to accept moral preaching (from anybody) and to criticise the Roman church for its treatment of homosexuals, both historically and in the present era.

However - I have not seen that comment before, although having just researched it, it appears to have been made. The current Pope has described the personal burden of his time in the Hitler Jugund (a compulsory movement) and how he has carried it like a stone through life, and he clearly does seem intent on improving Christian-Jewish relations.

It has nothing to do with the HL Burke article, but I think it was cheap and unfair of Norris to bring up the the past of Pope Benedict in this respect, something which, as a fourteen year old boy the Pope had no control over.

Indeed. Norris is not the nice man he likes to be portrayed as at all. He didn't do too well on Morning Ireland today either and is digging himself further into the big hole. He reeled off the statements he made on his website almost verbatim which shows he is practicing. He must be very worried now that he will not achieve his dream.

later12 · 09-06-2011 04:49PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Indeed. Norris is not the nice man he likes to be portrayed as at all. He didn't do too well on Morning Ireland today either and is digging himself further into the big hole. He reeled off the statements he made on his website almost verbatim which shows he is practicing. He must be very worried now that he will not achieve his dream.

Well actually I do think that David Norris is a perfectly nice man in general, but he seems a little gaafe prone and in the case of the pope, perhaps exceding the level of appropriate criticism.

Criticise the mans moral preaching, absolutely, but not something he has clearly struggled with and had no control over - a bit like sexuality.

Zubeneschamali · 09-06-2011 04:58PM

later10 wrote: »

I think it was cheap and unfair of Norris to bring up the the past of Pope Benedict in this respect, something which, as a fourteen year old boy the Pope had no control over.

I think comparing Ratzinger to Hitler is silly. Comparing him to Emperor Palpatine would be more effective with today's voters:

Teclo · 09-06-2011 05:03PM

Ah sure it could happen to a bishop. Although the type of people who are first to defend Norris would promptly call on the Gardaí to arrest any bishop who had such quotes attributed to him.

Godge · 09-06-2011 10:27PM

Read the Daily Mail interview today, ignored the editorial (I presume it called for him to stand down). Didn't have a problem with his views on abortion or on the catholic church. His views on drugs are naive, legalise drugs and everyone will use them, causing similar health problems to the abuse of alcohol and cigarettes - we can't reverse the law on those but we can stop adding to the problem. On prostitution, I am not sure what exactly he is proposing but would listen.

It is on the subject of the age of consent that I am most concerned. He once again gave the impression through the juxtaposition of his views on pederastry and on the principle of consent rather than the age of consent that he would see no problem in a sexual relationship between a 15-year old boy and a 40-year old male so long as there was consent. I am not happy with that and I wish he would just say he is against it. Unfortunately he just says he is against child abuse without defining what child abuse is.

Is a sexual relationship between a 15-year old (altar) boy and a 40-year old male (Christian Brother) child abuse or not? And what difference apart from the costumes to the example in the last paragraph?

tayto lover · 09-06-2011 10:59PM

Definition of PEDERASTY

: anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner.

No mention of adult in the definition at all. Just boy, BOY.
Norris is for this, says it all really. How could he ever become President ?

zuroph · 09-06-2011 11:31PM

tayto lover wrote: »

Definition of PEDERASTY

: anal intercourse especially with a boy as the passive partner.

No mention of adult in the definition at all. Just boy, BOY.
Norris is for this, says it all really. How could he ever become President ?

yet, when Norris spoke of it, he talked of "in the classical greek sense", as there was many types of pederasty. He further went on to clarify which "part" of it he was speaking for, and spoke of how when he was a young adult that he had no guiding person to help him.

but sure, its easy to just ignore all that and say "oh he means bumming boys". :rolleyes:

No, he doesn't

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 09-06-2011 11:41PM

Godge wrote: »

Read the Daily Mail interview today, ignored the editorial (I presume it called for him to stand down). Didn't have a problem with his views on abortion or on the catholic church. His views on drugs are naive, legalise drugs and everyone will use them, causing similar health problems to the abuse of alcohol and cigarettes - we can't reverse the law on those but we can stop adding to the problem. On prostitution, I am not sure what exactly he is proposing but would listen.

Would you use heroin if you could purchase it legally?

later12 · 09-06-2011 11:44PM

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Would you use heroin if you could purchase it legally?

Heroin is quite an extreme example, though.

There are some very strong arguments in favour of the legalisation of drugs, and David Norris is quite correct to raise them. However yes, personally I would use some drugs to a greater extent if some of them were available as legally as alcohol. I wouldnt even hesitate. Would that be unusual for my age group? I really doubt it.

zuroph · 10-06-2011 12:01AM

The portuguese example seems to be working.

Zubeneschamali · 10-06-2011 08:34AM

later10 wrote: »

HHowever yes, personally I would use some drugs to a greater extent if some of them were available as legally as alcohol.

If we banned alcohol, it cost €100 for a bottle of wine, and I had to deal with organized criminals to buy it, I would drink less than I do.

That doesn't mean Prohibition is a good policy.

ebbsy · 10-06-2011 09:56AM

If Gay Mitchell runs they are all toast.

Judgement Day · 10-06-2011 09:58AM

ebbsy wrote: »

If Gay Mitchell runs they are all toast.

You're only kidding - right? :rolleyes:

later12 · 10-06-2011 01:31PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If we banned alcohol, it cost €100 for a bottle of wine, and I had to deal with organized criminals to buy it, I would drink less than I do.

That doesn't mean Prohibition is a good policy.

Who said prohibition is a good policy? I certainly did not.

I am saying that the argument that legalisation would not increase the rate or incidence of consumption is a poor argument.

zuroph · 10-06-2011 04:46PM

later10 wrote: »

Who said prohibition is a good policy? I certainly did not.

I am saying that the argument that legalisation would not increase the rate or incidence of consumption is a poor argument.

Yet its proven to be the case in portugal.

later12 · 10-06-2011 04:59PM

zuroph wrote: »

Yet its proven to be the case in portugal.

Portugal has not legalised drugs.

I am presuming here that most people understand the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation.

zuroph · 10-06-2011 05:08PM

i dont know why, but i read "legislation" instead of "legalisation".. Either way, the discussion of alternative techniques is something be commended. Legislation and decriminalisation has worked in Portugal, and fair play to them for having the balls to try something else, and acknowledge the old way was failing.

look at the news in dublin over the last few weeks, shooting after shooting after shooting. Crime gangs are sweeping up the money from drugs and prostitution. blanket bans are not working, and the problem with criminalising the end users is filling our prisons and resulting in a cyclical problem. IMO David Norris is absolutely correct in his opinion that the system needs to be changed.

EDIT:

Living in inner-city Dublin, I am acutely aware of the harmful affects that the drug culture has had on my community and wider society. The blunt instrument of criminalisation is not working because of the vast profits it generates for organised crime. No country can face this problem on its own. I believe that there needs to be a European led global response. Hard as it is to accept, my view is that the welfare of the community, including the victims of drug abuse may be better served by having access to quality controlled, legally prescribed drugs.

legally prescribed, meaning the victims of addiction get to doctors, and get offers of treatment etc. It would decriminalise the end users, and give them more options, while taking money out of crime gangs coffers. good idea IMO.

later12 · 10-06-2011 05:28PM

I am not against decriminalising drug abuse, David Norris is talking about legalisation - quite another issue.

I am not necessarily opposed to legalisation either, by the way, but I find it hard to believe that it would not increase the rate or incidence of drug usage. There are strong arguments in favour of legalisation, but I would doubt that a fall in consumption is one of them.

zuroph · 10-06-2011 05:31PM

he does clarify legally prescribed drugs..

Which would be a major stumbling block in its use increasing...

SeteSois · 10-06-2011 06:48PM

John Waters' article in the Irish Times is particularly outrageous. It really grates to see a man who's used a lot of ink complaining about what a hard time those poor old paedophiles in the church get go on to rub his hands with glee and present himself as a moral voice.

ebbsy · 10-06-2011 10:36PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're only kidding - right? :rolleyes:

No.

Nobody gets votes like Gay Mitchell.

Ellis Dee · 10-06-2011 10:40PM

ebbsy wrote: »

No.

Nobody gets votes like Gay Mitchell.

If he attracts a lot of Gay votes, it will be a problem for the other gay candidate.

delos · 10-06-2011 10:54PM

Slightly off topic but does anyone know exactly how the FG council members have been told to vote? Have they been told not to vote for non-FG people or to vote against non-FG people? It could have a large impact on any independent looking for support from councils....

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments