David Norris and academic discussions.

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WaterWater

Registered User
Messages
509
I am not sure what an academic discussion is. On the Pat Kenny radio show David Norris used this phrase over and over when defending his interview with Helen Lucy Burke. Can anyone have an academic discussion or is it the reserved arena for those people who might have gone to university?
Also if you refer to yourself and your own personal views during the academic discussion is it still an academic discussion or is it a personal opinion?
Is there some privilege attached to an academic discussion similar to Dáil privilege?
 
Basically if you think you are an intellectual and you want to say something offensive or controversial you call it an academic conversation. Used by people like David Norris, Kevin Myers, John Walters and other deluded souls who think their opinions are somehow superior to normal peoples. And if people find them offensive, it is because we are too dumb to understand
 
Norris is in big trouble now. This is an issue that will not go away and the more he explains the bigger the hole he digs.
 
An academic discussion is a discussion that is theoretical and not expected to produce a practical result - bouncing ideas about.

Although I feel that Sunnys explanation is closer to the truth :)
 
Sunny said:
Used by people like David Norris, Kevin Myers, John Walters and other deluded souls who think their opinions are somehow superior to normal peoples.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I would call any of them deluded. Whether I agree with them or not, I'd rather attack the ball than the person.
 
A President is not a person to bounce ideas.

If Norris had problems with the article - why did he not complain at the time
 
In fairness to the guy I think he was talking about classical Greek culture where, it appears, men had ...errr...relations with younger men as a normal part of society. Thats what he meant be an academic discussion - if he were cast back a few thousand years to ancient Greece what might he have thought of the whole set up. If he called it a theoretical discussion would people let go of the chip???

Its not like Norris was advocating those ancient Greek attitudes becoming the norm in Ireland. The age of consent is whatever it is and I think at the time Norris only wanted equality in the law as between gay and straight people. I dont even know if he succeeded on the age of consent issue, but the major point is he is not a paedophilia advocate. I dont think its even fair to be casting this notion that gay = paedophile, or that gay people are less abhorred by paedophilia than anyone else.

The journalist ressurecting it seems a bit scatty - she had the tape, she didnt, she couldnt play it on her machine, oh its a different tape altogether ...FFS.
 
Betsy Og said:
In fairness to the guy I think he was talking about classical Greek culture where, it appears, men had ...errr...relations with younger men as a normal part of society. Thats what he meant be an academic discussion -
Click to expand...

No. He personalised it by saying that he would have liked if an older man had been around for him. I think it moved outside the academic discussion area when he said this or perhaps his "historical discussion" about ancient Greek culture that he was having.

I think if you drop the word academic and just call it a discussion, which the rest of us do, or even an interview that he was having or perhaps it was an academic interview?
 
Even if he did personalise it, so what? He didnt say if he was (hypothetically...lets not forget) under the age of consent when he would have welcomed that "introduction to adult life" or whatever way he phrased it. Once over the age of consent there are no rules about age gaps (whether same sex or not).

I really think people are seeing something that isnt there.
 
Betsy Og said:
Even if he did personalise it, so what? He didnt say if he was (hypothetically...lets not forget) under the age of consent when he would have welcomed that "introduction to adult life" or whatever way he phrased it. Once over the age of consent there are no rules about age gaps (whether same sex or not).

I really think people are seeing something that isnt there.
Click to expand...

I don't the vast majority of people think anything negative about David Norris after these comments. Unfortunately it is a story for the media and therefore he will have to waste time explaining it and will probably struggle to get nominated. The bit about the older man taking a younger man under his wing to introduce him to sexual realities is a bit odd but hardly enough to brand him a paedophile.

I wouldn't vote him for him as president but I was never going to even before this storm in a tea cup. (None of the candidates actually appeal to me)
 
It's like the Lyndon Johnson tactic.
Put the smear out there and lets see him deny it.
 
Bit of non story to me anyway

The real questions that should be asked is why he rushed to defend Cathal Ó Searcaigh.
And wanted the documentary film delayed until politicians could check it. Sounds like censorship to me.
 
I agree with Sunny; this is a non-story but I wouldn’t like to see him President anyway.

micmclo said:
Bit of non story to me anyway

The real questions that should be asked is why he rushed to defend Cathal Ó Searcaigh.
And wanted the documentary film delayed until politicians could check it. Sounds like censorship to me.
Click to expand...
I agree with that as well.
I am a social liberal but I find Norris very intolerant of social conservatives, so intolerant that it borders on being bigoted.
 
Firefly said:
+1 for me too. I like Kevin Norris but not for president...think we need someone a bit more refined for that. John Bruton would be my pick.
Click to expand...


Whose Kevin Norris? ;)


I don't give any credit to the story at all. But you really have to wonder about the timing of it's re-release and the motivation. I heard Norris on Kenny yesterday, and he came across as very credible, and quite upset. I felt quite sorry for him.

Also saw the woman interviewed last night now saying she doesn't now know if she has the tape etc after saying that she did. Now ye'd think she would have checked all of that before dive-bombing Norris's election chances.

I studied English and I remember laughing with friends about how sex of every description managed to creep into lectures, no matter what the lecture was ostensibly about. So Norris is right to say that academic discussions can be easily misinterpreted, and would look odd to say outside of a college context. At worst the man was foolish. I hope it does him no harm.
 
Last edited:
David Norris is finished. I would have voted for him if he was able to run but I wouldnt now.

He wrote a letter to the Isreali judge after his friend was convicted of statutory rape of a 15 year old boy. Not only is his presidential campaign finished, his political career is over. Luckily for him he was elected as a senator recently but if the senate is abolished (if the present government gets it way) then he wont be able to go back to being a TV celebrity either.

Foolish man. How did he think this would not come out?

Next there will be the witch hunt to find out which other Presidential candidate leaked the story.
 
It appears some more information is about to be leaked today/tomorrow regarding David Norris. Hence the resignations from some of his campaign people.

The presidential campaign has turned "dirty." This was always going to happen once there was going to be an election. Remember Brian Lenihan's campaign came to a halt on the Late Late Show. If I can remember the unsuccessful campaign to elect Kevin O'Higgins was not clean either. Think back to the Healy-Rae incident (I know this had nothing to do with the presidential campaign), but it was not about telephone calls to a premium number. It was all about getting him off gravy train committees.

The David Norris bad-mouthing is about something that happened in 1992. Where else would this sort of thing happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top