Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

David Norris - Post-Revelations

Options
1…1920222425…36

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    The issue is I refuse to believe you care about the victim either, and are just using it as a standing point against him.
    Hysterical, have you any idea how ironic that ^^^ is?
    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    It was the smear campaign against him by the media, and the misrepresentation of the letter and the events surrounding it that cost him his running. You and several others have shown a poor understanding of it - so you can't claim the events themselves caused it when you were not supporting him based on a twisted account(many saying rape rather than statutory rape, etc.). Whether these were because he was gay, or a progressive, or an intellectual(Ireland hates intellectuals), who knows, but there was obviously some element of all 3 in there.

    What media smear? He (Norris) wrote the letters, they where made public by a blogger with no connection to the media. His campaign team jumped before the media knew anything about why.

    FFS I know you are angry but don't lose the grip on reality completely!


  • Options
    #633
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    A Disgrace wrote: »
    Okay, time for a real poll.. if Norris HADN'T sent that letter, but still news came out about an ex-lover in a statutory rape case, how would you all feel?

    I wasn't voting for him anyway but if he hadn't tried to interfere in a criminal matter as a representative of the people then I would have nothing against him (obviously if it was a crime that I thought was OK it would be a different storuy but you get my point).
    dvpower wrote: »
    He does appear in search results. The Sunday World have a pretty sensationalist piece, but after that, all I can find is some bits in IrishCentral.com (the wikipedia references the IrishCentral pieces) and the Irish Observer (who?). I simply can't find the extensive coverage you talk about, nor can I remember it.

    It didn't even get a run out on boards (but maybe they have a policy about discussing cases that may come before the courts).

    But it may be just me. Maybe he was utterly, utterly vilified and I missed it.

    Hit pages from Ireland when you google it and the first page was 4/5 in terms of pieces talking about him and the case.

    Admittedly I never looked for a boards post about it before but TBH I never posted in AH until recently, I have yet to mention his name to anyone who does not know what he has done or mention it to anyone who is not utterly disgusted by it.
    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    Yes, because asking for some degree of clemency towards someone accused of having relations with a minor by a government who is rather notoriously intolerant of people like him(activists, not gays) is exactly the same as having those relations with the minor.

    Idiot.

    Idiot?

    No one said it was the same, although asking for leniency for someone 40yo having relations with a child of 15 (and before that 15yo girl gives out to me, if you are 15, you are not as mature as you think, i was 15 once, I even remember it, I thought I was mature, age has helped me realise that I was not, most, if not all, are not) is wrong, very wrong, if you can't see that then I pity you. Of course it is not as bad as the act itself but by helping to justify the act or even attempting to make it acceptable to people it is wrong in a different but no less evil manner if that person is successful.


  • Options
    #634
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    No one said it was the same, although asking for leniency for someone 40yo having relations with a child of 15 (and before that 15yo girl gives out to me, if you are 15, you are not as mature as you think, i was 15 once, I even remember it, I thought I was mature, age has helped me realise that I was not, most, if not all, are not) is wrong, very wrong, if you can't see that then I pity you.

    Sorry, but why is it so very wrong?

    It's very patronising to say you pity me if I can't see it.

    As far as I can see, Norris was not condoning the act. He was seeking clemency probably largely on the base of his already shaky relationship with the Israeli authorities which were down to his politics.

    Not all 15 year olds are immature, and some may be capable of consenting as an adult, and even if they aren't, it's nothing like Rape with a capital R. The age of consent is even lower than that in some civilised european countries, why does nobody take offense to this?

    Because they only care about what the media tells them to.

    **** it, it's time for this song.



  • Options
    #635
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    It was the smear campaign against him by the media, and the misrepresentation of the letter and the events surrounding it that cost him his running. You and several others have shown a poor understanding of it - so you can't claim the events themselves caused it when you were not supporting him based on a twisted account(many saying rape rather than statutory rape, etc.). Whether these were because he was gay, or a progressive, or an intellectual(Ireland hates intellectuals), who knows, but there was obviously some element of all 3 in there.

    Have you read the letters, its hard to misrepresent what he has written down (in an admittedly long winded fashion).

    Please go back an read the part where he speaks about how in Ireland he would have gotten away with it on technicalities (my shortened version but I believe that is what he is saying in an extended fashion) and therefore he should get a suspended sentence.


  • Options
    #636
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    The issue is I refuse to believe you care about the victim either, and are just using it as a standing point against him.

    It was the smear campaign against him by the media, and the misrepresentation of the letter and the events surrounding it that cost him his running. You and several others have shown a poor understanding of it - so you can't claim the events themselves caused it when you were not supporting him based on a twisted account(many saying rape rather than statutory rape, etc.). Whether these were because he was gay, or a progressive, or an intellectual(Ireland hates intellectuals), who knows, but there was obviously some element of all 3 in there.
    How could you misinterpret a letter looking for leniency for a man who sexual assaulted a 15 year old child?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    neantog
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭neantog


    David Norris was shafted by those in the political establishment who consider that they have an exclusive right to the presidential contest : Fianna Fail and Fine Gael : ruthless, power-hungry, unscrupulous, hypocritical and right-wing.

    Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will always pull the levers of power to ensure that no political outsider can become a candidate in the presidential election.

    Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will dig through the political and personal histories of undesirable election candidates - that is, independent candidates, popular with the general public, who have a strong chance of winning.

    They will dig for any evidence of corrupt practices - not in the interests of promoting higher moral or ethical standards in politics, but rather for the pragmatic purposes of removing the undesirable from the race.

    The morals and ethics of the politics practiced by all politicians in leinster house are of great concern to the general public.

    Unfortunately for the vast majority of politicians morals and ethics have been long ago discarded in the mad scramble for power and money.


  • Options
    #638
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Show Time wrote: »
    How could you misinterpret a letter looking for leniency for a man who sexual assaulted a 15 year old child?

    In that he didn't sexually assault a 15 year old?


  • Options
    #639
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »

    Not all 15 year olds are immature, and some may be capable of consenting as an adult, and even if they aren't, it's nothing like Rape with a capital R. The age of consent is even lower than that in some civilised european countries, why does nobody take offense to this?
    You don't deal with kids much this part of your post tells me or you are under 25 yourself just to be even thinking that.


  • Options
    #640
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    In that he didn't sexually assault a 15 year old?
    A 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old child is considered wrong wrong in most if not all of the world.


  • Options
    #641
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    neantog wrote: »
    David Norris was shafted by those in the political establishment who consider that they own the Presidency : Fianna Fail and Fine Gael :

    Fine Gael have never won a Presidential election so I doubt they consider that they own the office.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Show Time wrote: »
    A 40 year old man having sex with a 15 year old child is considered wrong wrong in most if not all of the world.

    .... but you said sexually assaulting. That's not the same thing.

    Please acknowledge this inconsistency.


  • Options
    #643
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Show Time wrote: »
    You don't deal with kids much this part of your post tells me or you are under 25 yourself just to be even thinking that.

    I'm sorry you feel the need to use age as an argument in place of any actual reasoning.


  • Options
    #644
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    Fine Gael have never won a Presidential election so I doubt they consider that they own the office.

    POMPEY!!!! How dare you. Never let the truth get in the way of a huffy conspiracy theory! :)


  • Options
    #645
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I'm sorry you feel the need to use age as an argument in place of any actual reasoning.
    And you never gave an answer to my question of age and let's not split hairs on the last posts, Both are the same.


  • Options
    #646
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    .... but you said sexually assaulting. That's not the same thing.

    Please acknowledge this inconsistency.

    I'd say his parents (who were the complainants btw) would have used the word assault.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #647
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'd say his parents (who were the complainants btw) would have used the word assault.:rolleyes:
    He has to be trolling.


  • Options
    #648
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Have you read the letters, its hard to misrepresent what he has written down (in an admittedly long winded fashion).

    Please go back an read the part where he speaks about how in Ireland he would have gotten away with it on technicalities (my shortened version but I believe that is what he is saying in an extended fashion) and therefore he should get a suspended sentence.

    I think you mean the part where he was criticising the circumstances of his arrest, disallowing him the advice of a lawyer, and that such misconduct would have had the case dismissed in an Irish court? That's not quite the same thing....

    He also criticises's the prosecution's case so clearly he does not believe, at least officially, that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    It is not a fact that he was guilty, even if he pleaded so(no doubt expecting a shorter sentence - remember he was disallowed advice from his lawyer too).

    Nowhere in the letter does he say "Ah sure, will ye let him off." He offers an intellectual and valid criticism of the circumstances surrounding the rest and the case of the prosecution, etc. not that the crime itself is excusable, if he is guilty. He does ask for him not to be sent to prison - which isn't really all that unreasonable given what he's known for - his reasoning given was the likelihood of him attempting suicide, which may well be the case.

    All this sort of stuff doesn't matter to the "Moral" opposition to Norris's campaign of course. The possibility of someone wrongly accused, or unfairly treated even if guilty, doesn't matter to people.

    Just the childers.


  • Options
    #649
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I'd say his parents (who were the complainants btw) would have used the word assault.:rolleyes:
    Show Time wrote: »
    He has to be trolling.

    Sorry, but there's clearly a difference between ASSAULTING someone sexually and having sex with them if they agree, even if they are younger than they should, and both of you have continually ignored when I pointed out in some european countries the age of consent is even lower, leading to many such cases of "assault". Or is it only morally wrong when it's illegal? Or am I just 100% correct in saying you only care about what the media tells you to?

    Yet you still act as if you have some kind of bull**** highground?


  • Options
    #650
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I think you mean the part where he was criticising the circumstances of his arrest, disallowing him the advice of a lawyer, and that such misconduct would have had the case dismissed in an Irish court? That's not quite the same thing....

    He also criticises's the prosecution's case so clearly he does not believe, at least officially, that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    It is not a fact that he was guilty, even if he pleaded so(no doubt expecting a shorter sentence - remember he was disallowed advice from his lawyer too).

    Nowhere in the letter does he say "Ah sure, will ye let him off." He offers an intellectual and valid criticism of the circumstances surrounding the rest and the case of the prosecution, etc. not that the crime itself is excusable, if he is guilty. He does ask for him not to be sent to prison - which isn't really all that unreasonable given what he's known for - his reasoning given was the likelihood of him attempting suicide, which may well be the case.

    All this sort of stuff doesn't matter to the "Moral" opposition to Norris's campaign of course. The possibility of someone wrongly accused, or unfairly treated even if guilty, doesn't matter to people.

    Just the childers.
    Some one holding any sort of office in this country should never get involved in court affairs in any country. That also goes for here in Ireland as well and there are a few more cases that should be looked at and the conduct of these involved should be bought into question.


  • Options
    #651
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    Sorry, but why is it so very wrong?

    The simple answer and the one most will fall back on is that it is the law, for those of us who have matured a bit since we were 15 or have children, it is possible to see that despite what we thought at the age and probably for several years later, we were not as mature as we thought, we were not as smart or savvy as we thought. If you were/are, good for you, but you are a minority and the law must protect the majority and if that means that a few 15yos who know what they are doing cannot have sexual relations with a 40yo than so be it, it is a sacrifice that they must make. It is also a sacrifice that some 40yo who believe it is OK must make, because there is no way they can tell which 15yos are ready and which ones are not (again I believe the majority are not).
    It's very patronising to say you pity me if I can't see it.

    If you can see it then I will stop being patronising, if you can't then I apologise for what will be my continued abuse.
    As far as I can see, Norris was not condoning the act. He was seeking clemency probably largely on the base of his already shaky relationship with the Israeli authorities which were down to his politics.

    He was asking for the sentence to be suspended in a case involving a foreign state. He done so as a representative of OUR Seanad, his shaky relationship with the Isreali authority had nothing to do with it. At the very least he should have represented himself in the Seanad and asked could he undertake such an action, did he? (maybe he did, nothing would surprise me at this point). The tone of his letters inferred a power and sway that he had or would obtain, even though he hadn't and now won't. It was inappropriate at the very least.
    Not all 15 year olds are immature, and some may be capable of consenting as an adult, and even if they aren't, it's nothing like Rape with a capital R. The age of consent is even lower than that in some civilised european countries, why does nobody take offense to this?

    Read back through the thread and you will find most agree that it is not Rape with a capital R as you put it but it is illegal with a capital I and wrong with a capital W.
    Because they only care about what the media tells them to.

    I haven't read the paper in a few days, so the only basis for my reasoning are my own opinions and the letters that I was given a link to, if these letters were not in fact the letters sent then I will apologise and withdraw all commentary until I get the facts.

    I left it in because I like Faith no More


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    Sorry, but there's clearly a difference between ASSAULTING someone sexually and having sex with them if they agree, even if they are younger than they should, and both of you have continually ignored when I pointed out in some european countries the age of consent is even lower, leading to many such cases of "assault". Or is it only morally wrong when it's illegal? Or am I just 100% correct in saying you only care about what the media tells you to?

    Twisted logic. Twisting to deflect from Norris's ill judged intervention
    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    SYet you still act as if you have some kind of bull**** highground?

    I do...I have never been ambivalent about sex with minors.


  • Options
    #653
    Show Time
    Registered Users Posts: 1,637 ✭✭✭Show Time


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    Sorry, but there's clearly a difference between ASSAULTING someone sexually and having sex with them if they agree, even if they are younger than they should, and both of you have continually ignored when I pointed out in some european countries the age of consent is even lower, leading to many such cases of "assault". Or is it only morally wrong when it's illegal? Or am I just 100% correct in saying you only care about what the media tells you to?

    Yet you still act as if you have some kind of bull**** highground?
    You have a very strange view of the world.


  • Options
    #654
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Show Time wrote: »
    You have a very strange view of the world.

    I think we have indeed caught a young troll. I am off to bed.



    You should go too Crystal....Tigger is waiting! :)


  • Options
    #655
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I think the reversal of opinion displayed between these threads is disgusted and I bet most of you didn't even take the time to read up on the incident. You caved into the smear campaign when this sort of things is pretty common behaviour for TDs/Senators in the first place. I'm sure you all think you're mature and doing the right thing too, like good little sheep.

    I hate the Irish people and it's disgusting that this happened.

    This kind of bull**** makes me angry -



    TDs do **** like this all the time!

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0802/1224301718769.html?via=rel

    I get tired of all this "it's not because he's gay" ****. Do you really think an openly gay man would catch no flak for it in a catholic conservative nation? Get real. It's obvious a lot of this was just because of who he was and what he stood for, they were just lucky enough to be able to dig up enough on him and twist it in the right way.

    Enjoy your no doubt morally bankrupt FF/FG alternatives. ****ing joke. Why do Irish people care about things like morals all of a sudden? I could forgive a man like Sen. Norris for making an honest human mistake(and how much of a mistake that was is debatable) but many people in this thread will have no problem with or will even defend some of the near sociopathic decisions made by those in power or have been in power.

    Everyone in this thread who changed their view so easily without properly researching the issue should be ashamed. This lack of backbone is what's wrong with this country. We hear cuts back to me made, **** has to happen, and don't question it, and even dismiss those that do. We are a corrupt people and have no right making these kinds of moral judgements on people.

    God, this type of self-righteous, self-indulgent blather is getting pretty tiresome at this stage. What Norris did was wrong. He admitted that, his supporters have admitted that- his campaign staff have admitted that. The only people who seem to have a problem with that, are people like yourself who resort to cheap jibes and slurs when people fail to concur with your opinions.

    There is another thread in AH gauging support for Norris before these recent revelations. He was the clear winner in the AH poll. AFAIR, he had almost 70% of preferences here. The poll in this thread has his support slipping to approx 30%. Is it really your contention therefore, that the 40% of people who would have voted for Norris last week, have suddenly had a Damascene-like conversion to homophobia?

    Norris is a good man- his judgement in this case was anything but, and he has rightly paid the price for his actions. It's just a pity that a hardcore rabble of intellectually and morally bankrupt supporters don't have the decency or self-awareness to accept what Norris himself, and his supporters have- that his actions were wrong. Homophobia is reprehensible, but so is this practise of dishonestly slandering that you, and a minority of Norris' supporters are engaged in, and you should be ashamed for stooping so low.


  • Options
    #656
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    The simple answer and the one most will fall back on is that it is the law, for those of us who have matured a bit since we were 15 or have children, it is possible to see that despite what we thought at the age and probably for several years later, we were not as mature as we thought, we were not as smart or savvy as we thought. If you were/are, good for you, but you are a minority and the law must protect the majority and if that means that a few 15yos who know what they are doing cannot have sexual relations with a 40yo than so be it, it is a sacrifice that they must make. It is also a sacrifice that some 40yo who believe it is OK must make, because there is no way they can tell which 15yos are ready and which ones are not (again I believe the majority are not).

    You're just babbling here. There are still countries where the age of consent is lower than that. If it's something that varies so much, then perhaps it's not something to get so offended over *until* you can provide a solid case for it.

    I'd like to point out you can't tell what 17 year olds are ready and what ones aren't. There are 30 year olds who probably shouldn't be having sex either. Where do you draw the line? This is what I mean by providing a solid case - it's such a vague thing and a hard distinction to draw, that getting so offended over it just looks silly.

    I wonder if anyone even listened to the "Victim" in this case? What if when the victim is an adult, he thinks "Well, actually, I'm quite glad I did that."
    If you can see it then I will stop being patronising, if you can't then I apologise for what will be my continued abuse.

    You do realise you just said "I'm going to be an asshole to you until you agree with me"?
    He was asking for the sentence to be suspended in a case involving a foreign state. He done so as a representative of OUR Seanad, his shaky relationship with the Isreali authority had nothing to do with it. At the very least he should have represented himself in the Seanad and asked could he undertake such an action, did he? (maybe he did, nothing would surprise me at this point). The tone of his letters inferred a power and sway that he had or would obtain, even though he hadn't and now won't. It was inappropriate at the very least.

    He probably should have. I fail to see how this is as serious issue as you're making out, however, given what we're used to in this country. He's admitted himself it wasn't a good idea. That doesn't mean it's a big enough mistake to kill his career as it has.

    It's also questionable whether what you say is true or not. If Sen. Norris really did feel that, and felt he was taking a stance to improve the treatments of peace activists or homosexuals in Israel, was he wrong to do that? Is there an absolute rule that says he can't?

    You can't just say things are wrong, that's it, because it doesn't get us anywhere. It's not that there is no right answer, it's just that if there is, it needs to be defended from the ground up. We can't assume such things.

    When you're deeming things right and wrong, you have to show exactly what they help or hurt, and I think you've failed to do this.

    Again, please read the earlier link.
    Read back through the thread and you will find most agree that it is not Rape with a capital R as you put it but it is illegal with a capital I and wrong with a capital W.

    I don't see this at all. I see people clearly saying rape.

    This is what I hate - you're accusing Norris supporters of not being able to admit to his mistake, yet you refuse to admit to the perhaps more grave sins of misrepresentation on your own side.
    I haven't read the paper in a few days, so the only basis for my reasoning are my own opinions and the letters that I was given a link to, if these letters were not in fact the letters sent then I will apologise and withdraw all commentary until I get the facts.

    But you've listened to the radio, had contact with other people, etc.

    I have read the letter too, and I think you are projecting wrongly into it.
    Twisted logic. Twisting to deflect from Norris's ill judged intervention

    Sorry, how is pointing out how ASSAULT is not the same as relations with a 15 year old? How is pointing out that the age of consent is lower in other countries "twisted logic"? It's an objective fact. What kind of reality do you live in?

    Also, please take note Cramcycle that your buddy here is doing EXACTLY what I said people were doing, that you said they weren't. Own up to this please.


  • Options
    #657
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I think you mean the part where he was criticising the circumstances of his arrest, disallowing him the advice of a lawyer, and that such misconduct would have had the case dismissed in an Irish court? That's not quite the same thing....

    Thats what he is saying, he is promoting the idea that inIreland, despite being guilty, he would have gotten away with it.
    He also criticises's the prosecution's case so clearly he does not believe, at least officially, that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    It is not a fact that he was guilty, even if he pleaded so(no doubt expecting a shorter sentence - remember he was disallowed advice from his lawyer too).
    He plead guilty. I can't really say more than that, even David admitted his guilt (or by your definition "not beyond a shadow of a doubt") today.
    Nowhere in the letter does he say "Ah sure, will ye let him off." He offers an intellectual and valid criticism of the circumstances surrounding the rest and the case of the prosecution, etc. not that the crime itself is excusable, if he is guilty. He does ask for him not to be sent to prison - which isn't really all that unreasonable given what he's known for - his reasoning given was the likelihood of him attempting suicide, which may well be the case.

    He offers a criticism of a foreign states punishment for statutory assault/rape/whatever, it is unreasonable.
    All this sort of stuff doesn't matter to the "Moral" opposition to Norris's campaign of course. The possibility of someone wrongly accused, or unfairly treated even if guilty, doesn't matter to people.

    It does matter, Norris lent the weight of the Irish people (without their permission) in a quest for leniency towards to a man who admitted the crime, a crime that Norris today admitted happened (although he wasn't there, he seems sure enough of it to make it a mater of record)
    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    Sorry, but there's clearly a difference between ASSAULTING someone sexually and having sex with them if they agree, even if they are younger than they should, and both of you have continually ignored when I pointed out in some european countries the age of consent is even lower, leading to many such cases of "assault". Or is it only morally wrong when it's illegal? Or am I just 100% correct in saying you only care about what the media tells you to?

    You are wrong as I pointed out in the case of the media (and me not reading any for a few days). It is called assault when the crime of statutory rape does not exist, it's a technicality, it still shows that a 40yo having sex with a 15yo is wrong, regardless of what either party say due to the simple fact that, in the few cases the 15yo is mature enough to make the choice, the 40yo should certainly be mature enough to realise that there is no way for them to know wether the 15yo is ready. Simple as that.


  • Options
    #658
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    You're just babbling here. There are still countries where the age of consent is lower than that. If it's something that varies so much, then perhaps it's not something to get so offended over *until* you can provide a solid case for it.
    .

    Do you support the right of adult men to have sex with underage girls too? Will you be campaigning for the cause of Tom Humphries?


  • Options
    #659
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    You do realise you just said "I'm going to be an asshole to you until you agree with me"?

    INCORRECT: I can see your point and I disagree with it, I have done so by providing in my view reasonably solid arguments. In fact I have done so by taking your posts point by point, I haven't with this one since it is treading the same ground again but if there are any points you want me to be specific about, I will do so gladly. You do not seem to understand my viewpoint and are arguing from the your point of view and seem to be unable to understand my point of view and prove it wrong.


  • Options
    #660
    CrystalLettuce
    Closed Accounts Posts: 403 ✭✭CrystalLettuce


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    Do you support the right of adult men to have sex with underage girls too? Will you be campaigning for the cause of Tom Humphries?

    I never said I supported the right for adult men to have sex with minors. I just asked a question. As it happens, I think it's highly situational, something social conservatives wouldn't understand.

    This just shows the level of dishonesty present here. Why should I even bother with someone like you?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    CrystalLettuce wrote: »
    I never said I supported the right for adult men to have sex with minors. I just asked a question. As it happens, I think it's highly situational, something social conservatives wouldn't understand.

    This just shows the level of dishonesty present here. Why should I even bother with someone like you?

    No come on now, if a 40 year old man and an underage girl consent to sex would you defend the act? Lets say the girl in the Tom Humphries case suffers no long term emotional damage, does that make what he did okay in the mind of a social liberal?


Advertisement