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
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As the Liverpool-turned-United supporter said...
Whatever about changing your mind, I would have thought that it behoves people who claim to be his supporters to postpone judgement until we have fully heard David's side of the story. He hasn't even given an interview since the allegations broke.pablomakaveli wrote: »I was going to respond to this guys comment and then remebered this was the same guy who started this thread.;)
There's no more to be said pablomakaveli - your right.
Where there is understanding no comment is needed, but where there's no understanding no amount of argument is convincing.
One more for the ignore function.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
On all ''Norris for President'' Facebook groups they're blaming homophobia for people being angry about this. Really? They don't think people would feel the same way if it was a straight man who wrote that letter?
I don't know why they can't just admit that Norris did something wrong instead of saying we're all homophobic. How does that even make sense to them? People were going to vote for him but now they're not. They hardly all turned homophobic over night.
Aaah......don't you just love the semantics when someone says something about the dubious conduct of someone who happens to be 'gay'? It's typical of the bullying mentality of people who simply don't know what they are saying, but prefer to use ad hominem attacks to try to reinforce their own latent bias by way of emotive duress. A 'phobia' is a mental illness, described as being 'an irrational aversion or fear of something', where there is no reasoned or objective cause for the view that something should be regarded with fear or potential for harm.
For example, a child may have a justified fear of a certain person who bullies them in school, but that is not a phobia, as it relates to actual experience. Being afraid of but never actually having being bitten by a toothless dog who is blind and has two legs would be irrational, and therefore may be justifiably classed a phobia. Therefore, not liking someone because of their mental outlook, their opinions, the colour of their shoes or dress, their way of doing things that conflict with one's personal likes or sense of morality, is an opinion, and is not a 'phobia'.
Furthermore, the Irish Constitution, biased as it may be with all its anachronistic paraphernalia, does allow for and ensures freedom of expression, link , so therefore anyone using coercion on anyone to accept things that they personally dislike or object to, are violating the Constitution itself, which is punishable by law. Therefore, I, like every other Irish citizen, am entitled to my opinion, period; but how many Irish citizens know of the protection the Constitution affords them? Very few it seems, but ignorance is a wilful choice, and so we lose out by following blind and populist ideas that are based on hearsay and lack of knowledge, just because we can't be bothered to find out the facts. Stupid is as stupid does, so maybe this could be a good time for the Irish people to take a good look at the entire spectrum of assumptions that allegedly passes for 'truth', which is paramount to the acquisition of justice, and maybe we might just be able to peer over the limited horizons of the collective sheepfold that both Church and State have so thoughtfully built for us? Or maybe we simply can't be bothered to know, and turn a blind eye and say “The wind blows not about my house”. Maybe you can't hear it today, but one day we will, and what will we have to protect us then? We can know better, but that would mean that we give up our blind beliefs in the 'it's-all-rosy-in-the-garden' outlook, and we don't want to be lose 'faith' in our beliefs, do we? Maybe we deserve nothing better? What do you think?
If my or anyone else's opinion involves the reasoned questioning of the thinking of a 'gay' politician who uses the faculties and powers of the State afforded to him by his office, which we all pay for through our taxes, to support an ex-lover who has been convicted of statutory rape of a minor, then I am rightly entitled to question that action, without being insulted by those who wish to selectively use emotive and derogatory language to make me look like a 'bad person' for asking. Does this mentality sound at all familiar? No bells ringing yet?
This same principle also applies when people claim that their notions of religious (make believe) 'laws' supersede my legal and rightful ability to question or refute propositions that are made so as to try and convince me that their opinions are more valid than mine, without giving reasoned and logical support for their opinion. I have no problem with accepting factual and accurate truths, reasoned viewpoints, logical thinking, but I do have a problem when I am asked to bend to faulted and unsound application of clichéd and populist sound-bites such as 'racist' and 'homophobe' that seek to compromise my ability to arrive at correctly formed conclusions.
So, when the bullies and users of contradiction throw words like 'homophobe' at you when you don't like the behaviour of a gay person, just ask them what medical qualification they have to allow them make a diagnosis of mental illness. It will soon stop them in their tracks, as they won't be able to back it up with anything approaching a fact, as facts don't suit believers in self-opinion.
Very often, the people who throw out such insults and non-factual slurs are not very bright themselves, and are simply using a form of emotionally derived, self-centred righteousness, to make themselves look better than the person questioning the issue. If eating babies became popular they would create some similarly nonsensical label to bully their way into suggesting you were being unreasonable for questioning it.
The same goes for slurs like 'racist', if a question is asked when a coloured person does something wrong, as though they are exempt from being a wrongdoer simply because of their skin colour. Our country is awash, some might say 'sinking', in a sea of nonsensical, 'politically correct' bull****, which is in effect a form of covert censorship, and we have addled our thinking to such a degree by unquestioned nonsense and semantics that we can no longer see the wood from the trees. Then again, this is only my 'opinion', and not a 'phobia', but at least for now, I am availing of my legal right to hold it, as many good men and women fought long and hard against those who would see such rights trampled underfoot for their own selfish and perverse objectives.0 -
-
-
-
HarryPotter41 wrote: »Good Lord Caulego
We might find something to disagree with upon analysis, but heavens, what a meaty, mighty post! 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement