Is David Norris Toast?

Annasopra · 02-08-2011 04:18PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

To be fair, you're right.
He does, however, have no education in regard to the Constitution and/or interpretation of same and is a 70 year old man. Is he really the best choice for President?

What?

Michael D Higgins has no education in regard to the constitution?

What on earth are you talking about? He was a political science lecturer in UCG for years as well as being a TD and Senator

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:19PM

Sparticle wrote: »

Ezra raped a 3 year old????

There is a big difference between rape and statutory rape.

1. He was 15
2. It was consensual

If you think that's worse than murder you have some seriously screwed up morals.

Well it wasn't legally consensual, we know that much.

I'm not assessing consequences, I'm comparing justifications.

Killing people is rationally justifiable in certain circumstances, raping children just simply isn't.

kerash · 02-08-2011 04:19PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

As have I, yay us!

So long as:

1. Men have emotions.
2. Men are mortal.
3. Men can buy and hold a gun.

Murder will exist. Sad but True.

I am a woman. Or do you mean - 'man'
That is bullsh1t. To hold a gun, have strong emotions and feel a longing to kill doesn't mean you will carry out the act at all. Nor that it is right.
You also don't need a gun to commit murder

Nobody is denying that murder exists but you are suggesting we have some divine right to murder because it's in our basic instincts.
What about our inherent moral values that prevent us from doing so. Your argument so far is ridiculous.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 04:19PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ezra broke the law.
Ezra pleaded guilty.
Norris accepts he was wrong to write the letters.

But was it a breach of his powers since

1) He only gave a character reference on headed paper
2) The plea for leniency was not on headed paper

Is this really the big deal it's being made out to be, and if so why aren't we upholding these standards across the board?

ULMarksman · 02-08-2011 04:21PM

Messi2 wrote: »

Great news. Realistically we couldn't have had a homosexual president, it would have caused too many problems and would have been just wrong for the country.

I won't even ask you to explain the bigot, homophobic comment.

RayM · 02-08-2011 04:22PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I disagree. Would you say Murder is worse than having sex with a three year old child?

I don't know why you're bringing three year old children into this - apart from trying to further a very weak argument via use of emotive language. By the way... yes... murder is definitely worse than having sex with a child (whatever the age of the child).

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:23PM

Sparticle wrote: »

Ezra raped a 3 year old????

There is a big difference between rape and statutory rape.

1. He was 15
2. It was consensual

If you think that's worse than murder you have some seriously screwed up morals.

kerash wrote: »

I am a woman. Or do you mean - 'man'
That is bullsh1t. To hold a gun, have strong emotions and feel a longing to kill doesn't mean you will carry out the act at all. Nor that it is right.
You also don't need a gun to commit murder
Nobody is denying that murder exists but you are suggesting we have some divine right to murder because it's in our basic instincts.
What about our inherit moral values that prevent us from doing so. Your argument so far is ridiculous.

No, go back over my posts.

Of course I mean men and women. I hate having to explain that.

It should be clear that what I mean, and the reason I wrote it so concisely, is because its a logical argument.

Killing is unavoidable, because we are mortal and capable of dying.

My argument is simple and logical.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 04:24PM

Just to be clear here:

rape =/= statutory rape
murder =/= abortion

Rape and murder are both bad, but to say one is worse than the other really depends on a lot of factors.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 04:26PM

What's the difference between David Norris and the Pope?

Both vocal in their support of people that have raped young boys, yet one is adored in this country and the other is treated like scum.

gizmo555 · 02-08-2011 04:27PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But was it a breach of his powers since

1) He only gave a character reference on headed paper
2) The plea for leniency was not on headed paper

Is this really the big deal it's being made out to be, and if so why aren't we upholding these standards across the board?

This headed paper thing is a complete red herring. Norris in his letter to the Israeli court goes into some detail about the fact that he is a Senator, how long he has been one, and even throws in his prospective future candidacy for President of Ireland. It was also signed "Senator David Norris". The clear intent was that the court would give greater weight to his letter - coming from an Oireachtas member - than they might have to one from some anonymous Irish citizen. In that context, what difference does it make whether the official letterhead was used or not?

Godge · 02-08-2011 04:29PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would hope animals aren't having sex with children :eek:

As someone who was once a 15 year old boy, I can clearly say that I was fully aware of who I was having sex with.

Well, I happen to know a few people (both male and female) who were once 15-year olds and who were sexually abused by older males and who have suffered since. They are still fully aware of who they had sex with.

There is a certain flippant attitude on this thread and out there that sure it was consensual, what was the harm (it was only a bit of pederastry, that was educating the young lad, and sure isn't Norris' partner a good and moral person) mirrors the attitude of the Catholic heirarchy to sexual abuse by priests. I know both sides would hate it but the supporters of Norris who see nothing morally wrong with what he (and his partner) did and the supporters of the Church who see nothing wrong with what was done in Cloyne look more and more like each other all the time - a bit like the pigs and humans in Animal Farm.

FreudianSlippers · 02-08-2011 04:30PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

This headed paper thing is a complete red herring. Norris in his letter to the Israeli court goes into some detail about the fact that he is a Senator, how long he has been one, and even throws in his prospective future candidacy for President of Ireland. It was also signed "Senator David Norris". The clear intent was that the court would give greater weight to his letter - coming from an Oireachtas member - than they might have to one from some anonymous Irish citizen. In that context, what difference does it make whether the official letterhead was used or not?

I think it makes a difference.

One is a person giving their factual background in an opinion in their personal capacity; the other is, seemingly, an official stance on a case.

Hermy · 02-08-2011 04:31PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Killing is unavoidable, because we are mortal and capable of dying.

Killing is avoidable if you don't kill.

Godge · 02-08-2011 04:33PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What's the difference between David Norris and the Pope?

Both vocal in their support of people that have raped young boys, yet one is adored in this country and the other is treated like scum.

Enda Kenny spoke for the whole country when he addressed the Church last Wendesday and told them where to go. At least Norris has had the good grace to withdraw following his disgraceful actions.

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:40PM

Hermy wrote: »

Killing is avoidable if you don't kill.

Ok, quick lesson on logical argument.

The above statement is a fallacy. Which AFAIK means it doesn't hold true in every circumstance.

I can only control myself.

I can't always stop you killing someone.

Therefore, killing is unavoidable.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of replies on how horrendous a post this is, and how people are morally driven, and how ridiculous a statement it is to say such in modern society etc. and blath blath blath.

If you feel you have to do that then type please type 'Logic' into Wikipedia, read a little, if it isn't about recording software and references Ancient Greece, (and isn't an article relating to an interview of David Norris from about ten years ago), then please, please read that before you reply here.

Hermy · 02-08-2011 04:40PM

Enda Kenny said this nation puts children first while he stands over the cutting of special needs assistants in schools. Enda Kenny does not speak for me. Indeed few if any politicians in this country speak for me. Most politicians in this country speak only for themselves.

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:43PM

RayM wrote: »

I don't know why you're bringing three year old children into this - apart from trying to further a very weak argument via use of emotive language. By the way... yes... murder is definitely worse than having sex with a child (whatever the age of the child).

Correct, you don't know, and that wasn't the reason.

Though, you're not a hundred miles away referring to emotion.

Hermy · 02-08-2011 04:43PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Ok, quick lesson on logical argument.

The above statement is a fallacy. Which AFAIK means it doesn't hold true in every circumstance.

I can only control myself.

I can't always stop you killing someone.

Therefore, killing is unavoidable.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of replies on how horrendous a post this is, and how people are morally driven, and how ridiculous a statement it is to say such in modern society etc. and blath blath blath.

If you feel you have to do that then type please type 'Logic' into Wikipedia, read a little, if it isn't about recording software and references Ancient Greece, (and isn't an article relating to an interview of David Norris from about ten years ago), then please, please read that before you reply here.

Before you start lecturing me on logic learn to spell!

kerash · 02-08-2011 04:44PM

littlemac1980 wrote: »

No, go back over my posts.

Of course I mean men and women. I hate having to explain that.

It should be clear that what I mean, and the reason I wrote it so concisely, is because its a logical argument.

Killing is unavoidable, because we are mortal and capable of dying.

My argument is simple and logical.

If you don't want to explain then express yourself clearly. It is not clear what you mean, nor is it concise or logical.

So your argument is to show that murder is rationally justifiable. Well rapists may argue that a rape they've committed was rational and justifiable. I'll use your own words.
The rapist could argue that his human frailty can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause a person to rape another...

The one thing I will agree with you on is that humans can do terrible things. I cannot however agree that one action is worse or more just than the other due to one set of logical rules, humans are far too complicated.

hestia · 02-08-2011 04:45PM

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Funny how there are "nuances and grey areas" when it comes to David Norris, but it's all black and white when it comes to the Catholic Church...

colm o'gorman and andrew madden, both victims of clerical abuse and founding members of One in Four, as well as being the most vociferous critics against all sources of child abuse, are on public record this week as condemning any neat comparision between the two. forget that though, bring on the crucifix.

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:48PM

Hermy wrote: »

Before you start lecturing me on logic learn to spell!

Ah now, come on, were not doing that, are we...? I took the time to respond.

kerash · 02-08-2011 04:51PM

On topic again

Senator David Norris will be a guest on The Last Word just after 5pm.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 04:52PM

The issue is not abortion, rape, gender or anyones sexuality, the issue here is is Norris toast, and yep he's toast and he got a dam good toasting!!

Now let's hope that the senate give him the equally good toasting that he deserves, and let the country get on with paying his fat pension, maybe even a little bonus golden parachute to help him on his way,

rockmongrel · 02-08-2011 04:57PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0802/breaking2.html

Well, that's it folks. Congrats to all the **** slingers and closet homophobes.

littlemac1980 · 02-08-2011 04:59PM

kerash wrote: »

If you don't want to explain then express yourself clearly. It is not clear what you mean, nor is it concise or logical.

So your argument is to show that murder is rationally justifiable. Well rapists may argue that a rape they've committed was rational and justifiable. I'll use your own words.
The rapist could argue that his human frailty can give way to the psychological pressure inherent in us, which in certain circumstances can cause a person to rape another...

The one thing I will agree with you on is that humans can do terrible things. I cannot however agree that one action is worse or more just than the other due to one set of logical rules, humans are far too complicated.

Good, I like that response.

What I had been saying was not that Murder is Rationally Justifiable in the sense that it is ok to kill because we are people, but that in certain circumstances, claims for clemency in relation to murder can be justified, based on the fact that Murder in some cases arise from situations which as people, we can empathise with. Such as where for instance a man has raped a young child and a father kills that person. Like in John Grisham's book/movie 'A time to kill'. Samuel L.Jackson shouts - 'Yes they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in Hell'.

tayto lover · 02-08-2011 05:01PM

rockmongrel wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0802/breaking2.html

Well, that's it folks. Congrats to all the **** slingers and closet homophobes.

Wrong. He brought it on himself by foolishly writing a letter in defence of a child sex abuser. Plain and simple. At least he had the decency to apologize and withdraw from the election process.

Sierra Oscar · 02-08-2011 05:04PM

I probably would not have voted for him, but I think its sort of a disgrace that he cannot even get his name on the ballot paper. Genuinely feel sorry for him.

Side Show Bob · 02-08-2011 05:08PM

rockmongrel wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0802/breaking2.html

Well, that's it folks. Congrats to all the **** slingers and closet homophobes.

Congratulate the self demise of Norris on his hypocritical behaviour, mouthing off over the years about the worlds children and at the same time condoning and seeking reduce the sentence of his then boyfriend and lover who was convicted of the Rape of the young man,

The hypocritical behaviour alone did it, and he only has himself to blame.

skregs · 02-08-2011 05:09PM

rockmongrel wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0802/breaking2.html

Well, that's it folks. Congrats to all the **** slingers and closet homophobes.

If only his supporters had something more than "Wah, wah homophobia" to go on, he'd be grand.

I haven't seen a single valid argument in defence of his actions, but his supporters are throwing the homophobia card around like there's no tomorrow

ULMarksman · 02-08-2011 05:13PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

This headed paper thing is a complete red herring. Norris in his letter to the Israeli court goes into some detail about the fact that he is a Senator, how long he has been one, and even throws in his prospective future candidacy for President of Ireland. It was also signed "Senator David Norris". The clear intent was that the court would give greater weight to his letter - coming from an Oireachtas member - than they might have to one from some anonymous Irish citizen. In that context, what difference does it make whether the official letterhead was used or not?

The letter was still a personal letter and the facts stated about the case if true are very worrying..

Is David Norris Toast?

Comments