Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Einhard

optogirl wrote: »

Of course they are comparable - aside from the fact that Lolita has her part to play in Humbert's seduction, the point was that a straight man DID write a book about the relationship between an adult male and a female child.

Yes, but the nature of the relationship is the point, not who wrote it!! Jesus, if you have actually read the Lolita, which I doubt, then you clearly didn't get it. Fry's play portrays the sexual exploitation of a minor as mutually pleasurable, Nabokov does the exact opposite. Nowehere is Humbert's actions justified or obfuscated or sanitised. He's a horrible, horrible man, and his actions are despicable. Lolita herself is a victim too, despite the strength of her character and resourcefulness. There is no comparision between the two works.

Corsendonk

Does he actually have any political party backing him yet? People can rant and rave the case for and against him but he does need to be nominated by the following:

• At least twenty members of the Oireachtas.
• At least four county or city councils.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

Where did I say Stephen Fry must be precluded from having an opinion? THAT post refers specifically not to Stephen Fry but rather to the other people who will champion anything, on a shifting basis which basically boils down to a concept of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'... well, that's not always the case.

As for the second part.... I asked you what percentage of such relationships you thought are welcome? If not all are unwelcome, hazard a guess at what 'not all' means? It's ironic that you would choose not to judge every single case the same way since that is exactly what others, Mr Fry included, seem addicted to doing.

Well I haven't carried out a study but saying that not all are unwelcome is true. And in what way is it ironic that I don't judge every case in the same way? I don't speak for Stephen Fry or 'others' (any idea what percentage of others do this? Just wondering)

Elle Collins

optogirl wrote: »

the point was that a straight man DID write a book about the relationship between an adult male and a female child.

I haven't seen anyone deny that such a book was written?

The point is Einhard made was that the writers of these books are afforded vastly different treatment depending on whether or not they belong to minority groups. Vladimir Nabokov was torn to shreads in the media for his depiction of heterosexual paedophilia - whereas similar homosexual paedophilic books/plays/films are depicted as 'art'.

The novel 'Lolita' and the publics reaction to it only proves Einhards point.

Cheap Thrills!

davidnorris4president.com was registered 23rd Oct this year through GoDaddy. All the Registrants contact details on the domain are anonymous email addresses and hiding behind Domains by Proxy and a c/o address there :rolleyes:

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: DAVIDNORRIS4PRESIDENT.COM
Created on: 23-Oct-10
Expires on: 23-Oct-11
Last Updated on: 23-Oct-10

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration DAVIDNORRIS4PRESIDENT.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

However the Registrant for campaignforconscience.org has not been so sneaky:

Registrant:
Enoch Burke
Cloonsunna
Castlebar
Castlebar, Co. Mayo 000000
Ireland

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: CAMPAIGNFORCONSCIENCE.ORG
Created on: 01-Mar-10
Expires on: 01-Mar-11
Last Updated on: 01-Mar-10

Administrative Contact:
Burke, Enoch [email]xxx[/email]
Cloonsunna
Castlebar
Castlebar, Co. Mayo 000000
Ireland
(087) xxx Fax -- (000) 000-0000

Technical Contact:
Burke, Enoch [email]xxx[/email]
Cloonsunna
Castlebar
Castlebar, Co. Mayo 000000
Ireland
(087) xxx Fax -- (000) 000-0000

Domain servers in listed order:
NS25.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS26.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

optogirl

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, but the nature of the relationship is the point, not who wrote it!! Jesus, if you have actually read the Lolita, which I doubt, then you clearly didn't get it. Fry's play portrays the sexual exploitation of a minor as mutually pleasurable, Nabokov does the exact opposite. Nowehere is Humbert's actions justified or obfuscated or sanitised. He's a horrible, horrible man, and his actions are despicable. Lolita herself is a victim too, despite the strength of her character and resourcefulness. There is no comparision between the two works.

Why are you insisting that I didn't read the book? Lolita was offered as an answer to your asking whether people would respond the same way to a book involving a male adult and a female child. That's all. In that case, they are infact comparable.

Snakeblood

Elle Collins wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone deny that such a book was written?

The point is Einhard made was that the writers of these books are afforded vastly different treatment depending on whether or not they belong to minority groups. Vladimir Nabokov was torn to shreads in the media for his depiction of heterosexual paedophilia - whereas similar homosexual paedophilic books/plays/films are depicted as 'art'.

The novel 'Lolita' and the publics reaction to it only proves Einhards point.

But Lolita is hailed as a classic? Who is talking about Stephen Fry's play?

oppenheimer1

Corsendonk wrote: »

Does he actually have any political party backing him yet? People can rant and rave the case for and against him but he does need to be nominated by the following:

• At least twenty members of the Oireachtas.
• At least four county or city councils.

He is to seek the Labour nomination. He is up against Micheal D Higgins and the former CEO of Bernardos Fergus Finlay for it. I would imagine if he doesn't get the nomination from Labour I doubt he will run. Without their support it is unlikely he could win.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

And in what way is it ironic that I don't judge every case in the same way?

In the way that when it comes to certain 'perpetrators' it seemed you were completely at ease with judging en masse.

AnonoBoy

Elle Collins wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone deny that such a book was written?

The point is Einhard made was that the writers of these books are afforded vastly different treatment depending on whether or not they belong to minority groups. Vladimir Nabokov was torn to shreads in the media for his depiction of heterosexual paedophilia - whereas similar homosexual paedophilic books/plays/films are depicted as 'art'.

The novel 'Lolita' and the publics reaction to it only proves Einhards point.

However the novel is now regarded as a classic. So is it just a matter of time?

Do gays get a headstart on straights in this regard?

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

In the way that when it comes to certain 'perpetrators' it seemed you were completely at ease with judging en masse.

???? What? Which perpetrators? My very point is that I am not judging anyone en masse??? Seriously - please explain?

Let me guess - you are going to say that I judge paedophile priests en masse - yep, got me there. Men raping children - not cool. A concensual relationship - well, let's look at the facts before we hang 'em.

Elle Collins

Snakeblood wrote: »

Who is talking about Stephen Fry's play?

That is exactly the point - Books like Lolita cause outraged media storms and plays like Stephen Fry's don't even raise an eyebrow.

Einhard

optogirl wrote: »

Why are you insisting that I didn't read the book? Lolita was offered as an answer to your asking whether people would respond the same way to a book involving a male adult and a female child. That's all. In that case, they are infact comparable.

Well, perhaps you read Lolita, but you certainly didn't read my post. There's a major difference between what you claim i said, and what i actually said. As you'll see from the highlighted section below.

Einhard wrote: »

Were a straight man to produce a play involving sex between a man and a 13 y/o girl, and do so in a way that attempted to romanticise such predation, then I would have a similar reaction, and I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with my criticisms.

Elle Collins

AnonoBoy wrote: »

However the novel is now regarded as a classic. So is it just a matter of time?

I don't think so. I doubt any book/film/play that depicted heterosexual contact beween an adult and child could possibly hope to be released without widespread condemnation.

Einhard

optogirl wrote: »

Let me guess - you are going to say that I judge paedophile priests en masse - yep, got me there. Men raping children - not cool. A concensual relationship - well, let's look at the facts before we hang 'em.

Are you seriously suggesting that a consensual relationship between a grown man and a child/young teenager is possible?

The problem is that Norris seems to have been advocating just that.

philologos

OP: He doesn't seem to care very much about anything bar homosexuality & transsexuality from examining either site. This would tell me something about the depth of his faith, his concept of God, or both.

Chuchoter

Just want to point out there is a huge difference between writing a story about something (we write novels/movies about murderers all the time, it does not mean we condone murder) and saying that in real life something should be acceptable. Stephen Fry wrote a play, Norris said yeah this should is ok for real people to do. When I was 13, I got in a very, very intense and really very inappropriate emotional relationship with my music teacher who was in his mid twenties that had I been there longer, probably would have turned sexual.Would have made a great novel, not so great in real life.

oppenheimer1

AnonoBoy wrote: »

However the novel is now regarded as a classic. So is it just a matter of time?

Do gays get a headstart on straights in this regard?

It is only regarded as a classic because of the way it was written and how the author explored the desires of the torn mind. Ultimately the subject matter is of little relevance. Had it been badly written it would have been dismissed at its publication as "filth" and would not be considered noteworthy today.

Fry on the other hand can produce quite weak work but yet is above criticism as he has cultured himself a some sort of Wildean modern day dandy.

Einhard

Elle Collins wrote: »

I don't think so. I doubt any book/film/play that depicted heterosexual contact beween an adult and child could possibly hope to be released without widespread condemnation.

I disagree actually. I don't criticise Fry because he dealt with the issue of a sexual relationship between a man and a child, but how he dealt with it, ie. portraying it as a mutually uplifting, positive experience.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Let me guess - you are going to say that I judge paedophile priests en masse - yep, got me there. Men raping children - not cool. A concensual relationship - well, let's look at the facts before we hang 'em.

The vast majority of global clerical child abuse isn't paedophilia at all. It relates to post-pubescent teens. Again, most of which involved teen boys. I presume you acknowledge therefore that not all of these were unwelcome and that each should be considered individually..

Snakeblood

Elle Collins wrote: »

That is exactly the point - Books like Lolita cause outraged media storms and plays like Stephen Fry's don't even raise an eyebrow.

There's a big difference between doing a play about homosexuality and paedophilia in the 1980s, post Orton, post punk, and writing a book about heterosexual paedophilia in the 1950s.

Especially if the book about heterosexual paedophilia is a good book that deserves praise.

You'd be better off comparing the furore over Stephen Fry's play to the furore over Don't Stand So Close To Me by the Police, as at least they were at the same time and had the same theme, (except for gender). Except of course, the Police's song was far more successful.

AnonoBoy

Elle Collins wrote: »

I don't think so. I doubt any book/film/play that depicted heterosexual contact beween an adult and child could possibly hope to be released without widespread condemnation.

But today I could walk into a bookshop, buy a copy of Lolita and nobody would look at me twice.

oppenheimer1

Ironically what the OP had originally intended to be a thread to bash the bible people has actually turned into a serious discussion because believe it or believe it not there is some merit in the arguments put forth.

Maybe the OP should have kept quiet, how many people would have discovered that obscure website only for him?!

AnonoBoy

Just to bring this back to Norris - did he not clarify that he was referring to people above the age of consent?

Snakeblood

Einhard wrote: »

I disagree actually. I don't criticise Fry because he dealt with the issue of a sexual relationship between a man and a child, but how he dealt with it, ie. portraying it as a mutually uplifting, positive experience.

Have you seen the play or got the text?

Einhard

crayolastereo wrote: »

Just want to point out there is a huge difference between writing a story about something (we write novels/movies about murderers all the time, it does not mean we condone murder) and saying that in real life something should be acceptable. Stephen Fry wrote a play, Norris said yeah this should is ok for real people to do.

It's not that Fry wrote a play about an inappropriate relationship. I'd have no problem with that. I do have a problem though with the way in which he portrayed this relationship between a man and a child, as a positive thing.

AnonoBoy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ironically what the OP had originally intended to be a thread to bash the bible people has actually turned into a serious discussion because believe it or believe it not there is some merit in the arguments put forth.

Maybe the OP should have kept quiet, how many people would have discovered that obscure website only for him?!

Well to be honest, what's happening here is an actual debate.

That website and the campaign for conscience are not balanced in any way.

prinz

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just to bring this back to Norris - did he not clarify that he was referring to people above the age of consent?

He did, but was he really? Raises questions that he should address if he has any hope of getting the presidency.

Einhard

Snakeblood wrote: »

Have you seen the play or got the text?

No, I'm relying on the reviews that I've managed to google.

Snakeblood

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Just to bring this back to Norris - did he not clarify that he was referring to people above the age of consent?

No, I don't think so. If he said he'd be more interested in consent than age, then I think he's giving up on the idea of the age of consent.