Iris Robinson is an MP in Northern Ireland who has been, umm, frolicking. She was 58; she had been having an adulterous affair with a 19 year old. Eh, that’s a private matter between her and her husband, you’re thinking, and we shouldn’t care about it, as long as it doesn’t affect her performance in her job.
Except…
She’s been using her government connections to funnel money to her boy toy. Lots of money.
He [the young man] said Iris Robinson, now 60, gave him two checks for 25,000 pounds ($40,000) each, but she then asked him for 5,000 pounds ($8,000) back, possibly to donate to the evangelical Protestant church she attends.
Wow. Teen-aged lovers cost $80,000 now? Even with the 10% rebate, that’s way out of my price range.
But wait…she needed the money back to give to her church? That’s a bit hypocritical, I think, unless this is the Church of Free (or Not-So-Free) Love. It’s not though; she actually has a reputation as a conservative freak about sex. She doesn’t like homosexuals at all.
There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.
There must be sufficient confidence that the community has the best possible protection against such perverts.
…
What I say I base on biblical pronouncements, based on God’s word. I am amazed that people are surprised when I quote from scriptures. It shows the churches either aren’t preaching God’s word or are watering it down.
I cannot think of anything more sickening than a child being abused. It is comparable to the act of homosexuality. I think they are all comparable. I feel totally repulsed by both.
Get that? Consensual homosexual behavior: more vile than raping children! And she isn’t even Catholic.
She may have been boinking a youngster 40 years her junior and barely above the age of consent, but at least she wasn’t cavorting with a peer and an equal with similar backgrounds and interests and the same sexual organs! That would be bad.
You will know they are Christians by their
lovemoral cluelessness, screaming hypocrisy and demonstrated embezzling.Honey, you know that £50,000 bribe I gave you to keep you in my bed? Can I have £5,000 back?
Well here’s to you Mrs. Robinson – Jesus loves you more than you will know – oh oh oh.
I, on the other hand, think you’re a thieving, homophobic bitch.
So much for the bible and moral guidance. Of course you already knew that. I think I’ll just follow biblical precedents and go out and smite someone. Especially if he is on some land I want. I know it’s moral – right out of the “good book.
I really hate having to give moral deference to these frauds in the name of religion.
Sorry, something I’m missing…
Whose money was this? If it was her own then how do her “government connections” fit into the picture?
Incidentally does she happen to be familiar with the word “prostitution”?
It would just be worth briefly noting that the affair came out (at least as far as her husband is concerned) after a suicide attempt and extended depression.
How long was the “affair” going on? Can an hourly rate be computed for his time? Sounds like really nice work for a horny teen-ager.
I sure hope Mrs. Robinson wasn’t engaging in any back door shenanigans with her young lover. If she was, she’s going to have to an awful *lot* of hail marys.
From the article referring to her husband:
Hehehehe.
BS
Yep, the UK press are all over this. It might not be as juicy as the Ted Haggard fall from grace. But is there anything more satisfying than a “guardian of the nation´s morals” getting what was coming to ´em?
I can hear the good xtian now:
“Ooooh yes Kirk – BANG ME! Bang me like a screen door in a hurricane! Ohhh YESSS!!!!” – “…oh, and here’s some extra scratch for when you need an new car or something”.
That’s OK then…
What is it with the screwed up sign in, and now links don’t work in blockquotes?
The ref on the above…
Firstly, age of consent in Northern Ireland is 16, so he’s not that close to it, secondly, is it that hard to use a £ symbol?
Obligatory culture reference: (Simon & Garfunkel)
“And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson.
Jesus loves you more than you will know.
Woah, woah, woah.
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson.
Heaven holds a place for those who pray.
Hey hey hey, Hey hey hey.”
From the BBC article linked to in #6:
Canadian readers may be familiar with the children’s television show Polka Dot Door, in which live actors would hold up a stuffed animal as if it were whispering in their ear, and deliver lines like “What’s that Marigold? You say it’s time to ride the tricycle? Okay then, here you go!” I am reminded of the show whenever these twits claim to speak for god. (Unlike these twits however, the Polka Dot Door was educational and thus useful.)
“What’s that God? You say you’ve forgiven me? Oh, that’s wonderful.” [Pauses to look as if she’s listening intently to something.] “What’s that? You say you still hate the gays though? Don’t worry, I’ll tell ’em.”
Oh wait, quote fail. Wrong thread.
I live in Northern Ireland. Having had to endure Mrs. Robinson’s pontificating for a number of years, I have to say that these revealations brought a bigger smile to my face than that time Ted Haggard was caught doing you-know-what.
You really have to hear the BBC Stephen Nolan Interview with her wherein the gay-bashing was spouted. The steady, calm and cold bigotry that woman came off with still gives me chills.
In all fairness, she got the money for the kid from investors so that he could open a restaurant – which he did, and which is evidently thriving. I would assume that the investors are making – or will make – some money on the deal. Especially as the curious will probably flock to the place for a few weeks and may become regular customers.
It must be difficult for her husband – first, everyone knows that he never gets a blowjob [the legal definition of “sodomy” includes oral sex] and now everyone knows the guy’s wife felt the need to get her needs met elsewhere, with a much younger stud.
That S&G song is so apropos that one might think they’d time-travelled to get the inspiration.
We are truly an insane species. It’s really sad that sanity is views as less sane than insanity.
On the other hand, it’s Elvis’s birthday. Happy 75th, Elvis! Maybe you could hook up with a younger woman. Say, Mrs. Robinson.
PS: The husband remark was snarky, not sympathetic.
And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home
And here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It’s a little secret, just the Robinsons’ affair
Most of all, you’ve got to hide it from the kids
Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mrs Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know (Wo, wo, wo)
God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Ev’ry way you look at it, you lose
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)
What’s that you say, Mrs. Robinson
Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
I like that there’s a push to get the 1968 Simon & Garfunkel classic, Mrs. Robinson to number 1 in the UK pop chart. And that a gay glossy magazine has offered up its front page for the 21 year old “incredibly hot” guy. Plus of course this facebook page
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=415667265334
Its always good to tear someone from their high horse.
God hates fags but he doesn’t mind if a woman cheats on her husband. Ask Iris Robinson, she’ll explain it to you.
I take it Wowbagger read Dan Savage. I approve wholeheartedly.
I don’t quite get what it is young men see in older women, but YKAMKBTOK.
In this case, £50,000.
WTF?
Oi! The hypocrisy, it burns! Truthfully, though, I don’t care who or how many she sleeps with or how many years they are apart or how good or bad her relationships are. It is her bigoted remarks and destructive political actions that irk me.
Man, this thread and that linked Facebook group really made my night. Here’s to you Mrs. Robinson!
You know i find that very offensive.
When a old guy “gets” a young lass he is heralded as something. But when a older woman dates a young lad you get this shit.
I have a great aunt who has a 17 year younger husband and a ex-collegue has a simmilar older girlfriend. When asked why he had an older partner he said he didn’t want children, but it’s stupid that he had to defend his choice!
I’ve been in a very dysfunctional relationship with a 14 year older male and there was scarsly a word, while THAT was really bad for me and i still wear the scars of it.
Stupid sexism. (not defending mrs robinson btw!)
I can only assume he meant YKINMKBYKIOK
Sili wrote:
I did what now?
I live in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and I know the guy she had the affair with (reasonably small city). I feel sorry for him, but not for her. She has a well-deserved reputation for being a hateful homophobe (claiming gays can be ‘cured’) and, now, a raging hypocrite.
People are calling for her to resign as MP and in my opinion it can’t happen soon enough. Her husband needs to step down as First Minister too as he was well aware of the money dealings.
Oh, and the Robinsons topped the list in the MPs’ expenses scandal, falsely claiming more government money than any other MP in the UK. Give ’em the boot already.
plien
In the Dungeon you’ll find an entry for Alan Clarke. He was bounced from here because he bragged about his preference for young girls:
As for a possible reason young men might want older women, I’ve heard that men reach their sexual peak at age 18 and women at age 32. My instinct is to say that’s not true though since women wanting more sex after their most fertile days are ending doesn’t make evolutionary sense to me.
While there’s definitely a patriarchy thing going on, (young women wanting a sugar daddy for financial security they can’t get on their own) mostly I think young women date older men because they tend to mature faster emotionally. For the most part, young women take less risks, and get in fewer accidents than young men. I think you need a very immature person to be on an equal emotional level with someone so much younger than you.
I don’t quite get what it is young men see in older women,
Tsk, tsk. Unless you’re willing to apply that standard to older men dating younger women, you’re being sexist.
Desperation? Now or never?
Oh but it does make evolutionary sense. Sex also keeps the hunter around bringing home the bacon (obligatory reference) long enough for the kiddies to grow old enough to make on their own.
BS
This is a little more subtle than just a sugar mommy slipping a little cash for her young lover. It turns out she was also a member of the city council that let the lease to the kid and she did not disclose her interest in the contract. She and her husband are also among the most highly paid politicians in Northern Ireland.
And while we’re on the subject of hypocritical religionists let’s not forget the Catholic’s Gerry Adams whose brother abused the brother’s daughter for many years and Gerry did not report it.
Ain’t religion wonderful?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/08/northern-ireland-iris-robinson-michael-white
And you just have to hear this rendition of the old Simon and Garfunkel song.
Themselves?
What is this moron blathering on about? Is she really so far sunk in fundie hatred that she really sees an expression of homosexual intimacy as worse than an abominable act of child abuse?
I am actually rather saddened that a British MP issued such vile, homophobic effluvia from her rancid cake-hole. I was trying to pretend (without much success, I fear) that this kind of nasty, woo-fuelled bigotry was mostly confined to the US of Xianity, and only darkened the shores of dear old Blighty but rarely. I am ashamed that such a hypocritical, corrupt, gay-bashing excuse for a human being should be an elected representative in the UK legislature.
In short, although I have never met her, I have a sneaking suspicion that I would not like this woman. Not even one little bit. While I have nothing against relationships with older women in principle, £50,000 would be nowhere near enough to even get me to voluntarily enter the same room as this particular person. It is a strange personality quirk of mine that I like my women sane and humane, not woo-addled and hate-filled.
My instinct is to say that’s not true though since women wanting more sex after their most fertile days are ending doesn’t make evolutionary sense to me
Au contraire – it makes perfect sense: If a woman is less fertile, more sex = greater chance of getting pregnant.
As to why we elderly persons [over 32] want sex – well, if I have to explain that to you, you aren’t doing it right.
It is worse than you think…Edwin Poots is a DUP politician, and was on the radio today toeing the party line on this matter…he is also A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST!!!! Coincidence? I don’t think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Poots
He seems to be pretty cosy with Ken Ham too…
http://www.cloudsoup.com/weblog/2008/01/01/edwin-poots-the-universe-is-6-thousand-years-old/
PatF, that’s a beaut of a parody, its inevitability notwithstanding!
I stand corrected about the sexual peak of women. Apparently my sex life has yet to reach its peak.
And at #42- of course non fertile and people who don’t want a baby still want sex and intimacy. But you can’t deny that the desire for sex and pair bonding was selected by evolution for the purpose of making and raising babies. The sexuality still exists when separated from its main purpose, and knowing the main purpose doesn’t make sex any less awesome.
First off, it’s legal.
The issue is the bigotry, and the abuse of political power and influence.
So grill her for that, but not for having extra-marital sex.
Always nice to see another xtian bigot be exposed..:-)
I have no problems with sex between people of differing age, as long as it’s legal, consensual and there is no dependency or mental abuse going on.Seems a clear-cut case of older X wanted some younger Y, nothing wrong with that.
For the classic heterosexual boy-girl relationship, I actually think a 10-15 year age difference(say, she 25, he 40) is going to be much more frequent in the future, because it fits with both person’s requirements at that age and in the years to come.
So here’s to you Mrs. Robinson
People love you more oh nevermind
Oh nevermind
In fucking fact Mrs. Robinson
The world won’t care whether you live or die
(You live or die)
In fucking fact Mrs. Robinson
They probably hate to see your stupid face
(Your stupid face)
So here’s to you Mrs. Robinson
You live in an unforgiving place
Unless you’re ageist or have a problem with relationships with big age differences, what the fuck has their ages got to do with anything, PZ?
Because evolutionary psychology is bullshit. Pass the word to your instinct.
id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQmVelK-U8LVLTYeA: Did you read the post?
Quite apart from her hypocrisy, PZ wrote this:
There’s a word for that: ‘Corruption’.
Evolution aims to describe and explain how something got to be what it is, not what it’s going to be like in the future.
In that sense, if I woman age 58 or 73 wants to have sex 3 times a day, it doesn’t have to make “evolutionary sense”.
Oh, and wb Nancy !
;)
Yes, and it’s equally corrupt no matter what their ages are. Please tell me why PZ felt it necessary to even mention their ages, let alone several times?
What you described has already been done frequently in the past (and the present, especially in countries where women are forced into marriage) – the future is women hooking up with much younger men, once no longer prevented from doing so by economic constraints – and the social conventions that grew out of the economic constraints.
I’m sure looking forward to my 19-year-old guy when I’m 60.
id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQmVelK-U8LVLTYeA:
Why do you think it was necessary, rather than incongruous? :)
I guess the major reason is the hypocritical aspect: Again, from PZ’s post, where he quotes Mrs. Robinson:
OK, 19 is not a child; innocence is subjective and relative.
Still… 58 years old! 19 years old!
Do you have any children? Would you consider it meet for them to have a sexual and financial relationship with someone nearly 40 years their senior? How does it square with Mrs Robinson’s ostensible views?
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQm::
It specifically highlights her hypocrisy in regard to her views on homosexuality, equating it to the sexual abuse of children. Mrs. Robinson would screech her head right off her shoulders at the notion of a 19 year old in a gay relationship; she’d be trying to behead people if it were a gay relationship involving a 58 year old and a 19 year old in a gay relationship.
It is legal if the kid is over the age of consent, age 18 in most US states.
It can be moral and ethical. However Mrs. Robinson is a member of a Protestant Xian sect and married. Most people from her subculture consider adultry to be a big sin. In the bible, they stoned adultresses to death.
That $80,000 payment is noteworthy too. Sex for money is called “prostitution” and it isn’t exactly legal in many places. The money wasn’t even hers, that is known as “corruption”.
So OK she is an adulterer, a hypocrit, and guilty of using government money to pay for sex. Xian morality is a myth, doesn’t exist.
She is guilty of violating most moral codes and overwhelming hypocrisy. The age difference is merely unusual and adds to the tabloid value. 19 year guy goes out with 19 year old girl, no big deal. 19 year old guy goes out with 59 year old MP unusual. I would add here that a 59 year old male MP with a 19 year old girl friend would be equally newsworthy.
In a lot of US states, she would be looking at criminal charges for misusing a public office and government money for private reasons. She would also find it hard to get reelected. The GOP tried to impeach Bill Clinton for less. Governor Sanford and the fleet of GOP hypocrits anyone?
The age difference makes it highly inappropriate; there is a clear and overwhelming difference in the relative power of the two individuals, made even worse by the fact that she was an MP and he was a struggling nobody.
A romantic relationship should involve near-equals.That clearly was not.
Well, i wouldnt call it a romantic relationship, and therefore don’t quite see the power angle here.
The prostitution argument might have some merit, if he only fucked her for promise of help with his restaurant or the like, but that’s a slippery slope, what do you call the dinner or the gift for a “romantic” interest then ?
@PZ: Well he still got his fill out of this. After all, he didn’t exactly return the sex bribe money (Beyond that jesus 5000 cashback.). And she seems to be rather good looking. I bet he had some good fun.
Not saying I’m not irked at it, but he’s an adult. He can make his own decisions. He does not have big responsibilities, and he had ambitions.
Now the woman… She did plenty things that makes her a filthy hypocrite, a monstrous homophobe, a thief and a crook.
You know I wouldn’t be surprised if her highness blames her affair on the gay people of Ireland. I can just picture her now.
“It wasn’t me. It was, it was, it was, the sodomite agenda, they’re trying to cover up their filthy agenda by singling me out. How do you know it wasn’t a homosexual disguised as me trying to shame my crystal clear reputation. I’m Ireland’s version of Sarah Palin.”
I think it’s clear what she did was wrong and she should do something about it. The extent to which she can recover seems to me depends on her faith. She is said to be a Christian. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of E-meters to clear engrams that is offered by Scientology. So, my message to Mrs. Robinson is, ‘Mrs. Robinson, turn to Scientology and be audited, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world in the Sea Org.’
@56: Actually, the age of consent is 16 in most US states (31 states, plus DC).
The age of consent in Northern Ireland is also 16, so I wouldn’t call a 19 year old “barely above the age of consent”.
That’s a horrible and evil thing to say. Mrs. Robinson has done many terrible things, but she does not by stretch of the imagination deserve to become a Sea Org member.
(Hi Rorschach)
******
Not a big fan of the movie Harold and Maude, are you?
You say there is an overwhelming power difference – made worse by the MP/nobody aspect.
What is the existing condition of power imbalance made worse by? Her being older than him? Is that your definition of power – age?
“Should”? Really? You’re also not a fan of the movie “Love, Actually” in which Hugh Grant as the British PM hooks up with one of his staff.
Actually I hated “Love, Actually” but not for that reason.
I hated it because I hate being made to cry by schmalzy movies…
I was gagging too much to cry.
The NYTimes had an excellent analysis of the suckitude.
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9804E3D7153BF934A35752C1A9659C8B63
Their ages are definitely relevant. As the mother of a 20yr old son I can say without hesitation that I’d be appalled if he was being preyed upon by a harpy old enough to be his grandmother! There is no way that the disparity in their situations doesn’t add up to exploitation. Probably of each of them by the other! The whole thing is tasteless and disgraceful.
Eeeewwww, I say, eeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww!
I wonder if he has an agent yet?
Janet @ 67,
Beware of the prejudice that comes from personal investment in a matter….
Uhm, wouldn’t that kinda make them more, you know, equal ? Call me a cynic, but a lot of relationships, forget the age for a moment, seem to work on the basis that each party has something the other wants.
Did anyone notice that in one of the other articles:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13970.html/
it mentions her son was photographed kissing another guy.
HA HA HA.
Damn. Was going to reference the Jesus line in the Simon and Garfunkel song but I see I was waaay too late. You have to either be really quick or creative here.
When in a rebellious mood, I plan my 60th birthday holiday on a big high-class cruise ship with a 20 year old boy toy on my arm. I figure I’d probably have to hire someone to act the part, but I’d love to do it, just to see the impact.
To my fellow Americans who are confused about the money side of this scandal, my impression (correct me if I’m wrong) is that previously, MP expense accounts were one of those state secrets more closely-guarded than the CIA budget, but, quite recently, all was revealed and the pols are scurrying like cockroaches before the kitchen light.
So, yes, we ARE talking about government money, scads of it.
One issue that does not seem to have been touched on much is how Mrs Robinson managed to raise the £50,000.
At least one of the people she got the money from did not want the money back. Given the people giving the money are property developers there would seem to be a very obvious potential conflict.
I have no legal problems with prostitution. The unfortunate issue is this young man will have some notoriety, but he might be able to turn it to his favor somewhat. (It’s good that he’s running his own business because something like that hurts one’s job prospects with certain employers.)
I’m not sure I understand where the concern trolling about PZ’s initial post is coming from. The age difference is one of those juicy details (we’re primates around here… at least, I assume most of us are) that speaks to this woman’s enormous hypocrisy. Which is entirely to the point. It also is fecking funny and certainly makes my evening more enjoyable. (The exposure of her hypocrisy, not the age difference, which doesn’t matter to me.)
The poster who pointed out how Robinson would foam at the mouth at the idea of a same-sex relationship with the same ages involved gets it. Think about it: she has an illicit affair with a very beautiful man, then screams bloody murder at gay men for being attracted to beautiful men? “It’s okay if it’s me–God personally told me he forgives me, after all–but YOU!!! WORSE THAN CHILD ABUSE!!111ELEVENTY”
For the record, I hate any movie with Hugh Grant in it. Romantic comedies with rich men marrying their subordinates really make me want to retch.
To the real life examples: work it baby, and make sure you have a good lawyer before you sign the pre-nup. I hope you’ve already worked out in your personal values constellation that material things (let’s not say “money,” as many rich husbands won’t give you access to actual cash) are more important than fulfilling personal relationships. Hey, that’s exactly what some people want in life. Sign on the dotted line.
Northern Ireland is not at all like the rest of the UK, culturally or politically. It’s still a very conservative religious society, and its politics are traditionally defined by the violent conflict between Protestant Unionists and Catholic Nationalists. Hardline Unionist leaders like Ian Paisley are at least as insane as someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, and tend to have strong links with their American fundie Protestant brethren (indeed, IIRC, Paisley has a correspondence degree in theology from Bob Jones University).
It was reported a few days ago that Iris Robinson tried to kill herself last year (other articles say in March), apparently after Mr Robinson found out about an affair:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/06/peter-robinson-iris-robinson-affair
In that article, there’s no mention of a young lover, only of “a prominent Ulster businessman.” I have no idea if there were two affairs here, or if the young man and prominent businessman are the same person? Other, later articles seem to suggest it’s just the one affair, but this isn’t entirely clear (albeit I wouldn’t read much into this and suspect it’s confusing only because of the time-pressure reporters and editors work under):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/08/iris-robinson-kirk-mccambley-belfast
Actually this is pretty good news for Nothern Ireland.
Political scandals used to be all gun running and links to terrorist organisations; politicians merely embezzling funds and diddling some young thing on the side while simultaneously being a raging religious fanatic in public is something of a step up.
Well done! Northern Ireland is now almost as normal as the US.
Unfortunately, Iris Robinson is not the only politician in Northern Ireland with these views on homosexuality.
And that’s why I’ve been a staunch republican for years. So here’s to a United Ireland, in which the faithhead bigots are someone else’s problem. Cheers!
This isn’t straight-up prostitution, with a direct connection between a sex act and payment. It’s being a sugar momma – providing gifts, support etc. in exchange for an ongoing relationship. And until recently, it was the basis of most hetero relationships – although it was always the man providing the goods in exchange for sex.
As for anybody having a problem with this relationship purely for the age difference – get over your ageism. While I certainly don’t like to think about a young woman with a much older man (and yes, I don’t mind the reverse – it’s a personal taste/aspirational thing) I would never in a million years dream of suggesting that two legal adults in a freely chosen arrangement shouldn’t be together purely on the grounds of age difference. That’s bigotry, straight up.
She’s a hypocrite, she’s a bigot, she’s a cheater and a liar. There are plenty of reasons to disdain this woman – hooking up with a much younger man is not one of them.
And yes, as an added bonus, it’s one more bit of proof against the evolutionary psychology claim that women innately prefer older, wealthier males as mates. Not that this one example is going to make them drop that claim – but at some point, when enough women have taken advantage of changing socio-economic conditions and shown that they prefer youth and beauty as much as men do, the Ev-Psychs will have to either explain why so women defy their “natural” inclinations or STFU.
Goodness.I’m agreeing with Nancy ! Better go watch some Hitchens to purify…:-)
Ah thank god, I can disagree with Nancy on this one ! As I said upthread, evolution and EP aim to explain how things got to be what they are, they dont try to extrapolate what’s going to happen in the future.
So, it doesn’t falsify EP if women in 2010 and beyond start dating younger men.
This episode caused me to have this reimagining of a Monty Python sketch in my head:
John Cleese: Which great opponent of cartesian dualism resists the reduction of psychological phenomena to mystical states?
Iris Robinson: I don’t know that!
JC: Well have a guess.
IR: Ooooh, Henri Bergson.
JC: Is the correct answer, ahahaha.
IR: I don’t like homos.
JC: Ahahaha, hahaha, ahahahahaha, who does? Ahahaha, hahahahaha, ahahaha. Right then Mrs Scum, you’ve won your prize, do you still want the blow on the head?
And so on an so forth. Original here.
I take the issue of the disenfranchisement of anyone (including, obviously, gay people) very seriously, but I can’t help imagining homophobes, especially hypocritical uber-moralist homophobes like Mrs Robinson as comedy characters. They are just so blatantly ridiculous.*
One good belly laugh is very effective at putting these morons in their place.
Louis
*N.B. this in no way detracts from the fact that they are fucking evil and need extensive opposition. We can laugh at them at the same time.
Ah, Louis…:-)
Good on you, btw your link was broken…
Evil and ridiculous can certainly co-exist, or there would be no Sideshow Bob.
These are fundie xians who once again have demonstrated the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their cults.
So they are scurrying around like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.
I’m sure the persecution card is next.
Hypocrisy, corruption, prostitution, hate, bigotry, murder, lies = OK.
Holding hands with a same sex friend = bad.
Shatfat @72
Yup, you have that pretty much right. There’s been a major upraor in the UK over the dpast few months after the publication of MPs’ expenses. With the state of the economy money is a very sore point and out press has been somewhat enthusiastic about publishing the gory details.
I’ve never been so proud to be from Belfast. Hah, we piss all over the rest of the world when it comes to sex scandals.
I skimmed through the comments and it seems the REALLY scuzzy details haven’t even been mentioned yet.
Allow me to clarify.
She knew this kid since he was nine years old, she was a friend of his father, and when his father had terminal cancer she made a promise to a dying man that she’d look out for the kid after his death.
She proceeded to seduce the kid then try to keep him sweet by getting him the money for the business but also demanded a straight up cash kickback of £5000 from the money she’d secured.
At the very say time period she was having sex with the young man she was on the radio calling gays an abomination, quoting from passages in Leviticus but somehow forgetting what the same book of the bible says about extra marital sex.
When the young man ended the affair she spitefully demanded the money back, intending to donate half of it to her Sister in law’s church (her sister is the pastor) in order to make herself appear pious, whilst pocketing the other half of the money for herself, since one of the businessmen who’d given it had since died.
She was a major figure in the council which awarded the young man the license to run the business and there were no other tenders for the bid.
And when it was all made public knowledge a statement was issued assuring us all that Jesus had already forgiven her.
Cruithne has updated us with more details which point to the unsavoury nature of the affair (or affaire).
In addition the £50,000 apparently came from two property developers. I make no allegation that Mrs Robinson honoured the loans with any ‘favours’ through her position on the local council, but since she declared no interest during council sessions (as required by law) she lays herself open to people wondering if there was further corruption.
Link didn’t work?
That’s the url, do with it what you will.
Louis
Oh and by the way, I have no problem with an older woman looking for “love” (read that word how you will) with a much younger man as long as she obeys the campsite rule (leave the area in a better condition than you found it). The campsite rule applies to us all btw.
I also have a great deal of sympathy for anyone, no matter how vile, who suffers/has suffered from clinical depression (or any mental illness), assuming of course that she hasn’t made that up for PR purposes (I don’t trust politicians, they sometimes lie ;-) ).
However, the homophobic moron clearly needs a sound kick in the lady garden with a hobnailed boot and the repeated tactical administration of a clue by four to the pointy end of her skull (do I need to point out the use of hypebole here?).
In sum, I have sympathy for the illness and sexual urges of this lady, but sweet fuck all sympathy for her views and politics.
So what do I do? Organise a coffee morning or a lynching? Can’t I have a coffee lynching?
Louis
How about taking a coffee break during the lynching?
You have got to be kidding. Yes, the DUP are a bunch of bigoted wingnuts. But the Catholic political elite in the Republic of Ireland are hardly that much better. The Republic of Ireland is one of the most reactionary religious nations in Europe. Don’t forget, Eire is one of the few countries in the world where abortion is not just illegal but constitutionally forbidden. Most schools in the Republic of Ireland are run by Catholic diocesan authorities. And do I need to remind you about the Oireachtas’ recent outlawing of blasphemy?
@ blf #91:
I suppose we could hold the lynching just with somber faces, quiet voices, much sympathy and a soft feeling rope.
Sure we’re an angry mob, but we’re a nice angry mob.
Louis
Louis@93, I never suggested you shouldn’t offer the lynchee a coffee. Even if you have to loosen the rope. A lynching is no reason to be impolite.
On the other hand, if she doesn’t like bacon, well, in that case, extreme impoliteness is called for. And a large arena to hold the hordes of screaming bacon-lovers (who will do wonders for the North’s economy, so I’d suggest making it a multi-day festival).
Wowbagger,
I take it I was wrong.
Dan Savage has a recurring theme of “O They Will Know We Are Christians…” much like our “I get email”.
He also has good taste in blogs. (Partly, at least.)
And that’s why I’ve been a staunch republican for years. So here’s to a United Ireland, in which the faithhead bigots are someone else’s problem. Cheers!
yeah, that’s why we’re just finding out that the leading republican in Northern Ireland knew about his brother raping his four year old daughter but kept it quiet.
Irish Republicanism is to all intents and purposes a religion to some people, and those selfsame people are so in thrall to it that they’ve been just as corrupt as the state church of that republic you’d have us all part of.
So I say Fuck Northern Ireland but fuck the corrupt monotheistic Irish republic as well, how about we jettison both options and talk about building a new country based upon tolerance and secularity?
I suppose post-menopausal women wanting food doesn’t make “evolutionary sense” to you either?
-(not that) Iris
Umm…just for everyone’s benefit, according to UK law, 19 year olds are NOT considered to be children. Please get your facts right Mr Myers rather than your inaccurate and emotional rant
Yawn, idjit troll still being idjit. It’s all about power differential, if you could read.
I think you better pass your thoughts on the topic to David Buss, one of the most prominent EPs there is. Dawkins is a big supporter of his claims.
Here we see Buss claiming that women have an evolved preference for older men because in 37 countries Buss studied – today – women prefer older men.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/evolutionist/buss.htm
Granted this article talks about his book from 1995, but as far as I know he has not repudiated this line of reasoning. If anybody knows different let me know about it.
If women begin to prefer younger men – or drop the preference for older ones, at least – in a less-than-evolutionary time frame, that would strongly suggest that the preference was not biologically innate but rather a response to socio-economic realities.
And EP SHOULD make predictions – if EPs are so certain that women innately prefer older men, then changing socio-economic conditions should never alter that preference.
I am not afraid to make a prediction – that women WILL change their preferences about older men, because the preference was never innate, biological or evolved in the first place.
This is a pretty safe prediction since the marriage and dating trends have all been going that way – increasingly women are dating younger men.
Now why would this be? Because of natural selection? In just 50 – 60 years? Or because now that women have increased economic independence from men we have the luxury to choose partners based on physical appeal rather than income? I predict that in about 20 years after women have reached economic parity with men there will be NO DIFFERENCE in age preference in mates between men and women.
It’s just the same with Steven Pinker’s claims that contemporary test scores indicate that females are innately inferior at math – because as soon as male-female test scores reach parity – there goes the evidence for his claims.
Unless he wants to come up with a theory for how, suddenly, nurture has been able to aid females in triumphing over their evolutionarily-endowed inferiority. And prove that it wasn’t nurture that was causing the illusion of inferiority in the first place.
Really, EP theories on gender are such a transparent ploy to bolster male privilege it’s funny – until some idiot tries to use EP theories as the basis for actual social policy.
When the young man ended the affair she spitefully demanded the money back, intending to donate half of it to her Sister in law’s church…
And when it was all made public knowledge a statement was issued assuring us all that Jesus had already forgiven her. – Cruithne [emphasis added]
Well, she’d at least tried to give him his cut by that point, hadn’t he?
Is Nerd of Dickhead incapable of writing anything but personal insults?
@102 DawkinsSlayer – actually, if you want civil discourse, go check the Casey Luskin thread – civil conversation between an evolutionary skeptic and the rest of us. Or check the way theist Leigh is responded to on the latest incarnation of the Eternal Thread. You get back what you give, over here.
Dickhead selflayer, you be civil, we will. You started it by slagging PZ on another thread, and your moniker is inflammatory. Be an adult and live with your bad decisions. Or shall we call your mommy?
“Dawkins Slayer” — you’re either singularly ineffectual, or you’re the personification of old age. :)
BTW, that’s Nerd of Redhead, OM.
John Morales:
Well yeah. That and the fact that there was no sexual abuse. There’s nothing even remotely hypocritical about opposing child sexual abuse, and having an affair with a 19 year old.
Exclamation marks!! I believe this is called an argument from incredulity.
Compare and contrast:
Do you have any children? Would you consider it meet for them to have a sexual and financial relationship with someone of the same gender?
Remember, I’m the one saying that it’s wrong to be prejudiced against large age differences in relationships. Essentially you’ve just asked me if I’m prejudiced against large age differences in relationships.
And no I don’t have any children (in fact, I’m only a year older than this 19 year old), but if I did, I’d want them to be happy and be with the person they love. If that person is 40 years older than them, so be it. The age of the other person doesn’t matter, only their personality.
Caine:
So you’re another one who thinks having an affair with a 19 year old is equivalent to child sexual abuse?
raven:
I didn’t realize PZ was a tabloid columnist.
Compare and contrast:
19 year guy goes out with 19 year old girl, no big deal. 19 year old guy goes out with 19 year old guy unusual. I would add here that a 19 year old girl with a 19 year old girl friend would be equally newsworthy.
——
So far up, up until PZ’s comment, it seems that of the possible reasons given in this thread as to why we should be prejudiced against large age differences in relationships are very similar to ones used down the years by people prejudiced against gay relationships. And they are just as bad this time round.
I’ll reply to PZ in a minute.
Well said, hyptertext transport protocol address.
PZ:
So I assume that you believe that the age of consent laws (whether in the UK or anywhere in the US) need to be changed so that 19 year olds can’t be sexually involved with women 40 years older? Because the power differential is the exact argument used for an age of consent.
As I said above, I’m 20. What age of women is young enough for me to date before you wouldn’t be prejudiced by my relationship?
And PZ, you work at a university, so you must’ve seen quite a few 19 year olds. Do you really think they’re so powerless that they can’t sleep with 58 year olds with their own free volition?
MPs shouldn’t date non-MPs??
(Insert political joke about how MPs are the powerless ones)
I live in her constituency, but not for much longer as she’s resigning as MP next week. She has now been expelled from the DUP; a bunch of anti global warming rapture ready Young Earth Creotards. Compared with the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is stuck in time.
id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQmVelK-U8LVLTYeA:
There was no reported sexual abuse, to be more precise.
But I give you that, I guess it was merely sexual use. ;)
It was emphasis to my opinion, not an argument.
No.
However, I think such may be immoral if it’s due to taking advantage of the relative power relations between the parties.
I note that, though a 19-y.o. is not physiologically a child, there is generally a vast difference in experience and maturity between them and a 58-y.o.
Plus, a 19-year-old can go all night – ooooh yeah!
And, we can’t forget the hypocrisy of the bible based anti-gay rhetoric when she was definitely going against the bible with her actions. Stoning I believe is the biblical punishment for her actions…
All women are off limits to you in any moral ethical universe. You are a mentally defective troll and shouldn’t reproduce much less ruin others lives.
You are babbling and upset because once again some xians got caught looking stupid, hypocritical, and evil. This is normal for xians. All You’ve done is add another data point. Yourself.
If you weren’t stupid, you would realize that you are making xians look bad by being a boring idiot. But if you weren’t stupid, you wouldn’t be a xian.
John Morales:
Since when did we stop assuming innocence until proven guilty?
Fair enough. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Which actually describes a hefty proportion of child sexual abuse.
Compare and contrast:
*I note that, though a 29-y.o. is not physiologically a child, there is generally a vast difference in experience and maturity between them and a 58-y.o.
*I note that, though a 39-y.o. is not physiologically a child, there is generally a vast difference in experience and maturity between them and a 58-y.o.
I’ll also make it aware that if you consider 19 year olds not mature enough (which really would be an argument against this relationship, though one I still disagree with as I do think 19 year olds are mature enough), then that would an argument in favour of them not having relationships with people of any age older than them, not just 58+.
What the hell? I’m an atheist you fucking cunt. Did you have fun arguing with the voices in your head?
Sheesh, what the fuck is your problem?
Anyway…
It is now being alleged that Iris also had an affair with the young man’s father.
http://election.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/trib_jan10.jpg
I’m guessing this was a case of mistaken identity.
Janet Holmes:
Look at the language you’re using – “preyed upon”. Why describe it in such terms unless you’re already biased against it?
And as a 20 year old, I’m glad I’m not your son. You don’t seem to have much confidence in your son’s freedom to make his own decisions.
Argument by assertion.
I hear there are people who describe homosexual relationships in the same terms.
Well he already attacked me (or possibly yourself since we’re arguing the same thing) up at #85 as well, so who knows?
This was right after someone labelled one of us a concern troll. Yes, apparently pointing out other people’s possible prejudices is now “concern trolling”.
That’s probably exactly what Robinson says about gay sex. The main difference is that Robinson would like to legislate gay sex out of existence if she could. Just screaming ew at other people’s sexual preferences is relatively harmless.
I think raven mistook you for Dawkins Slayer
Harold and Maude is one of my favourite films but that doesn’t stop me from finding this situation really really icky.
Why?
Cos she knew him from he was nine years old, fucked his father then gave a promise to the dying father that she’d take care of his son, whom she proceeded to fuck as well. She is also on record as saying that the young man is the son she always wanted.
It’s just creepy and an abuse of trust on so many different levels.
id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQmVelK-U8LVLTYeA:
The contrast is clear, the lowest value represents someone just completing brain development and who’s just entered adulthood¹, the progressively higher values represent full maturity, culminating in a lifetime of experience.
—
¹ cf. Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability
“The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’ age of maturity.” [references in source]
None of which should prevent one from having hot sex at age 19 if one should so choose, with any other consenting adult.
Really, I can hardly believe people are making these bullshit maturity arguments to bolster their own visceral prejudices.
Nancy,
Agreed, in general.
What it means is that, in many cases, an experienced adult can take advantage of a callow youth.
Or a street-wise youth can take advantage of the experienced adult’s desire for sex with a hot young person.
And who do you think are the primary victims of scammers? There are plenty of clueless older people. Come on… this argument is just silly.
Nancy,
Yeah, because street-wise youth really prefer sex with (very much) older people, right?
There’s a reason ephebophilia is also known as ‘Lolita syndrome’ — and it’s to do with allocation of responsibility.
Nancy put on her thinking cap,
Scammers usually want money. Young people don’t have a lot a money. QED.
Rather, who do you think are the primary victims of online sex fiends?
Or a street-wise youth can take advantage of the experienced adult’s desire for sex with a hot young person.
Yeah, because street-wise youth really prefer sex with (very much) older people, right?
Not because they prefer it, but because they realise they have something the older person wants, which gives them power.
I agree with you as far as the maturity argument for a 19yo goes.I’m not sure whether this is to bolster prejudices tho, my impression is more that of a certain sexual conservativeness.
Exactly, and thanks for explaining. Although it’s staggering that there are people on this thread that you actually have to explain this to.
Pompous, condescending and wrong all at the same time. It’s called Lolita syndrome due to allocation of responsibility? Where did you get that from?
Lolita syndrome
Adolescentalism, ephobophilia Sexology A paraphilia deviancy in which adolescents are the focus of sexuoerotic fantasies and/or acts. See Chronophilia.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lolita+syndrome
This definition says nothing about responsibility.
Nancy, Lolita.
@97
LOL. Just had to give a round of applause to Iris for that one. Furthermore, why don’t older women just fade to invisibility so we won’t be troubled by having to look at them.
As for Mrs. Robinson, her cold email noting how determined she was to get the money back, noting that she was giving former lover-boy ’til Christmas to pay it back, andand that she wanted $20,000 of it for herself … now that sounds more venal, more desperate than the affair. The lady was screwed more ways than one. Sounds to me like she’s half off her rocker, and that Kirk should vet his objects of sexual interest more carefully in future.
I doubt that. I know a relationship that ended after several years of great love for reasons that followed directly from the fact that she was 25 and he 40. It’s quite a pity, but it just didn’t work in the long run.
This, ladies & gentlemen, belongs to her hypocrisy. Suicide, you see, is considered the ultimate blasphemy against the Lord Over Life And Death™. Until recently, and probably still in some denominations, people who had killed themselves couldn’t get a Christian burial.
:-D :-D :-D
Emphasis added, comment unnecessary.
In many (all?) of the fotos I have seen of this woman, where her neck is visible, she is wearing a cross on a necklace. I wonder if she took it off when she was ‘in congress’ with the young’un.
Its now being reported that Mrs. Robinson is now receiving “acute psychiatric treatment” at a Belfast hospital. About 20 years too late, I’ve known she’s been a crazy for years.
PZ why not stop off in Belfast on your Ireland trip and have a cup of coffee at Mrs. Robinsons lovers café?
Got a link, ciaran? The last report I read had her at the same exclusive, expensive Chamonix ski resort where Tiger Woods’ wife went to get away from the press.
Like I said – condescending. You really think I’ve never heard of the book by Nabakov? I’ve read it too.
The issue is that you don’t seem to be making any coherent point whatsoever by referencing Lolita OR Lolita syndrome OR ephebophilia.
I’m surprised no-one else posted this..
Deuteronomy 22:22
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.
I’m sure she wouldn’t want these teachings watered down.
Nancy,
I guess not… Clearly, if a child or teenager seduces an adult, the adult bears no responsibility at all.
Who in their right mind would have any issues with, say, a late-middle-aged associate professor bonking their 19-y.o. student(s), if they were willing? :)
Gerry Adams is note religiously political in the manner of the “unashamedly puritanical” Robbinsons. Sinn Fein is not a mirror version of the DUP. Sinn Fein are, in fact, quite socialist, and disagree with the Catholic Church on many issues of public policy.
Catholicism != Nationalism/Republicanism != Sinn Fein.
It’s messy.
TRiG.
John Morales in comment #123 is quite correct. While there are exceptions, it is reasonably fair to say that the evidence shows most 19 year olds are not mature enough for ongoing sexual relationships. Their hormones have not settled down, their brain development has not finished, and their life experience is certainly inadequate to have developed adequate emotional maturity.
For that matter, in the USA, they aren’t even considered mature enough to legally drink alcohol in most states.
Https… unfortunately, you gain no credibility by stating that you think you are mature enough – as even small children would say the same thing if asked (“Dad, can I drive the car?”, “No, son, you’re only 8.”)
In reality, only those who are more experienced are in a position to evaluate whether someone has the maturity or not.
I don’t think it’s ‘ageism’ to say that our cultures tend to frown on the May-December ‘relationships.’ If only from the obvious physical attraction disparity — we just don’t tend to believe that the younger person is actually sexually attracted to the older person. We tend to view it as prostitution.
That isn’t far-fetched, just ask the 19-year-old who he was dating prior to the 58-year-old. Was it someone his own age? A little younger? A little older? 20 years older? 30? It makes a difference in determining if there was actual physical/emotional attraction to the older person, or if it was going through the motions for financial gain.
Nancy, you’re acting a little bit too sensitive. Pointing out a reference when you ask for clarification isn’t being ‘condescending.’
I asked for clarification on his claim that ephebophilia was referred to as “Lolita syndrome” due to assigning of responsiblity. Which he still hasn’t addressed.
Instead, he gave me a link to the wiki for the book by Nabakov.
It’s either monumentally condescending or mind-bogglingly obtuse.
The issue there isn’t age – the issue is that the professor is in a power position over the student as far as grades. Again, do I really have to explain this stuff? How could you not get that?
I became a mother at age 17, so STFU you bleeting sheep.
But if the age thing really bothers you, why don’t you try to do something about all the societies in which 12-year-old girls are sold to old men, in perfectly legal arrangements, in order to pay off a family debt, etc?
I’ve never read such shit in all my life as the drivel written in this thread. Half truths, mis-information, bigoted and biased political comments seem to constitute the norm. As someone who lives in Northern Ireland (unlike most of the people who read about it in the trash press) it might surprise you that Iris Robinson is NOT skiing in the Alps but is undergoing acute psychiatric treatment in Belfast. It might also surprise you that the vast majority of the population (and politicians from all parties) have expressed their support and sympathy for the First Minister, Peter Robinson. To me this illustrates basic human compassion for another human being which, I’m afraid to say is sadly lacking in most of the above comments. “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” I’ll probably be described as a troll for saying this, but hey, who the fuck cares.
DS the numbskull troll @ 146,
That should have been the motivation for the first minister’s wife before she tried to advise that gays should be “cured”, and before she upheld and declared as holy the christian family values just to go off and shag a 19year-old.
It’s bigotry, mate.And that’s not even talking about the abuse of her and hubby’s political power to channel cash to the boy.
And that her cognitive dissonance finally landed her in psychiatric care is in no way unusual, your brain will only tolerate lying to yourself and suppressing your emotions and feelings for so long, before taking damage.Happens to lying bigots all the time.
I don’t think many people on this thread can lecture anyone on bigotry!
Oh ! A tu quoque ! Well, please do elaborate !
Are we forgetting that the duty of government is to “uphold God’s law”?
TRiG.
Sin only exists in the imagination of deluded theists; as a result, I’ve got a big pile of stones with your name on it, Dork-in-layers.
It might also surprise you that the vast majority of the population (and politicians from all parties) have expressed their support and sympathy for the First Minister, Peter Robinson. – Dawkins Slayer
That was when the story of Iris’s affair and alleged attempted suicide was first put out; it’s been quite different since the financial scandal, and Peter’s alleged concealment of it, came out, thanks to the BBC – hence his self-suspension for six weeks while an “independent” investigation by people he appointed whitewashes him. These are a pair of loathsome, disgusting bigots, all too keen to stir up hate against those they disapprove of. Rather like “Dawkins Slayer”, I’d guess.
I don’t think many people on this thread can lecture anyone on bigotry!
Oh ! A tu quoque ! Well, please do elaborate !
Lets look no further than the emotive bile spewed out by Mr PZ Myers at the top of this thread….
“she actually has a reputation as a conservative freak about sex”
Does she? Who says? Whats the evidence for saying this? I would suggest that the majority of people who read this pathetic little website never heard of Iris Robinson before all this furore in the press.
“She doesn’t like homosexuals at all”
Really? I challenge anyone to give me a single quote from either what she has said or what she has written to back that statement up. You won’t find one.
“There can be no viler act…… than sexually abusing innocent children” Umm…can someone tell me what innocent children were sexually abused in this whole sorry affair?
“Get that? Consensual homosexual behavior: more vile than raping children” Another example of emotive drivel demonstrating the bigotry and hatred which seems to dominate this site.
I’m certainly not condoning what Iris Robinson has done, or many of her opinions. However, like all of us, she has made mistakes, been hypocritical about things, and taken advantage of other people. It’s not right, but we’ve all done it. When we point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves.
You might want to speak for yourself there. Not everyone is as morally bancrupt as lying christian bigots, I’m afraid, even if that comes as a shock to you.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/iris-gays-more-vile-than-child-abusers-13913517.html
It is
interestingnot surprising by the way that you don’t have a problem with her calling homosexuality worse then child abuse.I would suggest that the majority of people who read this pathetic little website never heard of Iris Robinson before all this furore in the press. – Dawkins Slayer
Wrong:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/leprechauns_always_looked_susp.php .
“Get that? Consensual homosexual behavior: more vile than raping children” Another example of emotive drivel demonstrating the bigotry and hatred which seems to dominate this site. – Dawkins Slayer
This is just bizarre. Iris Robinson is the one who has shown bigotry and hatred by making the statement that “homosexuality and sodomy” are worse than child abuse, as PZ’s link shows plainly; and it seems fair to assume that someone who chooses the nym “Dawkins Slayer” is themselves consumed with hatred for Dawkins, if not for atheists in general. You’ve certainly been pretty free in casting your stones, Dawkins Slayer.
Dork-in-layers wrote (about Iris Robinson’s reputation as a conservative freak about sex):
Uh, this quote – you know, the one you paraphrased in your post #153 – ‘There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children. ‘
You do know what words mean, don’t you Dork-in-layers? Perhaps you’d better pray to your Jesus to grant you the powers of reading comprehension next time you’re on your knees to do your sucking up.
Fucking clown shoe.
Dork-in-layers has been given out
;)
However, like all of us, she has made mistakes, been hypocritical about things, and taken advantage of other people. It’s not right, but we’ve all done it. – Dawkins Slayer
While I certainly have done things I am ashamed of, I haven’t done anything that compares with deliberately stiring up hatred against a vulnerable minority, cheating on my wife, using my official position to obtain funds for my lover, or trying to rake off some of said money for my own use. However, I find it easy to accept that you have done things as vile as these, Dawkins Slayer.
Rorschach
Your link to the Belfast Telegraph confirms my view that nobody can prove that Iris Robinson hates homosexuals. I quote from the article “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.” You should try reading the article and not just the headline.
Wowbagger
Just out of curiosity, are your parents siblings?
Dawkins Slayer,
you’re not pretending to believe that crap about “hating the sin not the sinner” are you?
You do obviously have some kind of brain damage or intellectual disability.
A christian, most likely.
Dork-in-layers wrote:
Er, except the direct quote from her where she describes homosexuality as ‘a viler act than…sexually abusing innocent children‘.
Because, you know, that kind of reveals that she hates homosexuals. I don’t know what part of it you’re misunderstanding, but given the lack of insight you’ve demonstrated so far, I suspect it could be any of the words with two or more syllables. Or maybe just all of them.
No, Dork-in-layers. That’s something else – along with, as you’ve demonstrated, reading comprehension and analytical and critical thinking skills – we don’t have in common.
Dimbulb Scutter:
Hmmm… the stupid is strong in this one.
Reading comprehension? Not so much.
Yep, also the delusion that he is funny. Interesting how the two go together. Next thing he will be saying that his deity isn’t imaginary. What a loser.
LOOK OUT FOR THAT PIANO FALLING OUT OF THE BUILDING ABOVE YOU!
Dawkins Slayer, you’re not the only poster from Northern Ireland here, and my experience over the last week is that most people are disgusted with the blatant hypocrisy of Iris Robinson.
The one good thing is that the next time one of you godbotherers tries to stand up and shout about sin, you’ll be laughed at.
The dark days of Northern Ireland being in thrall to you religious nutjobs is over, welcome to the new reality.
I’m bored with this discussion. I asked a simple question and rather than somebody try to answer it in a civilised way, I get nothing but personal insults which I think reflects on the ethos of of this whole website. I guess I should have expected that when you climb into a sewer, all you get is verbal effluent. The reason why atheists are so disliked around the world is because of your sanctimonious and arrogant views you espouse to those who disagree with you. Ironically the very attitude you perceive in Christians!!!
I asked a simple question – Dawkins Slayer
No you didn’t, liar. You came here with a deliberately provocative nym, and immediately started hurling insults.
DS, the only sewer here is in your delusional mind. If you give out insults, expect to receive them in return. Otherwise, you are a fool. Which you are. Don’t worry, Xians are delusional fools since they can’t demonstrate conclusive physical evidence for their imaginary deity, or that the babble isn’t a work of myth/fiction. That means everything they do and say is cloaked in hypocrisy. So, either except that you are a delusional fool, or provide the conclusive evidence.
Posted by: Knockgoats | January 12, 2010 7:49 AM
I asked a simple question – Dawkins Slayer
No you didn’t, liar. You came here with a deliberately provocative nym, and immediately started hurling insults.
Speaking of provocative nyms (whatever they are), you’re nym suggests sexual deviancy! D’oh
Nerd of Dickhead
I have no problem receiving insults and giving them out. You ask for conclusive evidence. Its not my place to provide conclusive evidence because I have still to be convinced myself. On the other hand do you have conclusive evidence its all myth?
Dawkins Slayer,
Well, at least you don’t deny that you’re a liar.
On the other hand do you have conclusive evidence its all myth?
All myth would be an exaggeration, but pretty close. For the OT, geology, archaeology and the history of the near East as reconstructed from written records prove that the major events (creation, flood, exodus, Solomon’s huge kingdom…) are myths. For the NT, it’s quite clear that the writers expected Jesus to return very soon, and the gospels are inconsistent both with each other and with known historical facts.
Do you, by the way, have conclusive evidence that the deeds of Odin and Thor as recorded in Norse literature, or of Zeus and his relatives as recorded in Homer, are all myth?
…and further to #171, do you have any evidence that suggests we should take the Bible any more seriously than Norse or Greek myths?
I’m bored with this discussion.
Do not lie, you came did not come here for discussion, you came here for abuse.
We can’t expect any postive evidence for his inanities from DS. It appears that all he can do is the weak minded approach that tries to get us to disprove his presuppositions. But we always turn that around so he must prove his presuppositions. And doing that requires a knowledge of facts, and the ability to present them in a clear manner. But, with his mind filled with delusions of imaginary deities, and delusions of adequacy, nothing will ever be demonstrated.
Damn, that is pretty damn close to word salad. I just sit over here and be quiet.
‘Dawkins Slayer’? Srsly?
(Generic announcer voiceover voice on…)
‘Into each generation a guy lame enough to take ‘Dawkins Slayer’ as a ‘nym will be born. He will be a colossal dork, with bad breath and no social life, besides being, generally as dreadfully inadequate and disappointing a lover as you’d expect from the foregoing… He’ll whine predictably and at length about the tone of discourse. Thereby tempting the usual troublemakers to amuse themselves by attempting deliberately to lower said tone even further…’
(/Also, regrettably, his backflips will be mostly rhetorical, and in no way even remotely as hot as when Sarah Michelle Gellar performed them.)
No I don’t have any evidence to prove or disprove what you are saying. Thats my fuckin point. What I will say is that I hate fundamentalists telling me what I must believe. I hate Christian Fundamentalists shouting from a pulpit. I hate Islamic Fundamentalists shouting from my TV screen. I hate Atheistic Fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins ranting about his religion of science. I hate Gay Fundamentalists shoving their bloody gay rights down my throat.
BZZZT. It is actually because we give a damn and are willing to speak up against the worn out, sanctimonious, and arrogant idea of theism. We need more mirrors for this one! And some flea spray.
Oh, c’mon. You know you love it!
Oh… Wait… You said ‘their bloody gay rights’…
See, I just assumed…
(/Never mind. But I’m thinkin’ y’all could see how I could make that mistake, right?)
What a sad little bigoted hateful flea you are. Fuck off.
Dwakins Slayer,
I hate Gay Fundamentalists shoving their bloody gay rights down my throat.
Ah, yes, your inner bigot comes out! You hate people who demand to be treated fairly. No doubt a couple of decades ago your hate would have been directed at blacks, and a few decades before that, at Jews.
I hate Atheistic Fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins ranting about his religion of science.
Yes:
Atheism is the new fundamentalism.
War is the new peace.
Freedom is the new slavery.
Ignorance is the new strength.
Before making a further fool of yourself, I suggest you learn what the words “fundamentalism” and “religion” actually mean.
I hate Gay Fundamentalists shoving their bloody gay rights down my throat.
Two questions. One, what is a gay fundamentalists? Do we LGBT people share a common book that we find to be inerrant? Two, why do you have a problem with people demanding that they be treated like the other members of society. Or will LGBT people having equals infringe upon you?
Oh failure, let me count the ways…
Christan and Islamic fundamentalist telling you how you should live your life are not the same thing as a homosexual demanding equal treatment under the law by any rational examination of anything. That is a grade A stupid comparison.
And science is about as far from a religions you can get. Science requires evidence religion shuns it.
You really aren’t a bright sot are you?
Concise Dawkins Slayer:
Boy, what a self admitted bigot and poopyhead. Gays are people. Either your imaginary deity made them that way, and you must respect your deity, or they are people whom you should respect as you would anyone else. I still haven’t seen what the problem of the gay agenda is, other than to treat gays like anyone else.
And the old Dawkins has a religion idjit nonsense. Science is not a religion, which any school kid who is paying any attention could tell you. Science is a methodology for figuring out how the world works. It does so without the use of your imaginary deity. Science is also the body of papers that scientists write. That knowledge changes as the evidence changes. Nowhere in that body of knowledge is description of a god, a church, a rite, tithing, dogma, and other nonsense associated with religion. Rationalists look for evidence for your deity (none), evidence that your holy book isn’t basically a book of myths (none), and decide, based upon the evidence, that religion is for those who can’t face reality. Like you, weak in mind.
PS
A J Milne
You’re so funny I almost shit myself
Furthermore, I noticed DS hates most of these people simply for speaking their minds (the underlying meaning of the erotic allegory re: the gays is of yet not understood by me).
You’re so funny I almost shit myself
Wannabe murderer, you have already shown that you can shit yourself without outside stimulus.
At least the fucker admits it is a constipated piece of shit.
Aw, c’mon, lover. I mean, it ain’t like I get a straight man like you every day…
(/Wait. Let me rephrase…)
AJ, you said nothing wrong. It is the wannabe murderer who needs to rephrase his shoved down my throat statement. Or was that a Freudian slip?
This thread reminds me that it’s (somewhat past) Molly time.
Really? Are you one of those “top” only folks? I’m sure there’s a “bottom” out there for you, but with your insane rant I think you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone for you to top them.
Honestly, I hadn’t even noticed.
(/Also, it’s totally not making me hot or nothin’…)
Gyeong Hwa Pak, it has already been established that the wannabe murderer almost shits himself. What is to stop him from shitting his bottom?
(/Also, it’s totally not making me hot or nothin’…)
His total heterosexuality is almost enough to turn me.
‘snort’
Well it’s fine if he is into that . . . (*Proceeds to puke out noodles at the thought.)
Gyeong Hwa Pak, I am so very sorry.
I so knew it! I’ve been saying this for years! That Janine, she could be such a nice girl. If only she could finally meet a real man…
(/Say, one that rants semicoherently about how much he hates vocal gays and atheists on the internet. Those are the best kind.)
That isn’t anything blasphemous like puking out crackers, is it?
OMG…….have I landed in some sort of planet where queer people rule?? eeeewwwwwwwww!
Aratina Cage, you are confusing your religions.
RAmen!
Yes, you stuck piece of hardened crap, you have.
Isn’t that so revolting. Our hateful little troll troll is trying to make a funny.
Answer the question that were asked of you.
OMG…….have I landed in some sort of planet where queer people rule?? – Dawkins Slayer
Worse, DS, worse: you’ve landed among people who do not consider that your worth depends upon your sexual orientation. Gay, straight, bi, asexual, BDSM, all united in despising fuckwit bigots like you.
… and he’s shocked! Shocked and dismayed, I tell you! Shocked, dismayed, outraged, and aroused…
(/And pleasantly surprised he won’t have to pay $500 at the door for that this time…)
Whoopsie. You are right, Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM. Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology, is following the 5th I’d Really Rather You Didn’t to a T.
What’s FSM gonna do about it? Smite my next chow mein and make it saltier?
No, you’ve landed on a planet where the gays, bis, and straights alike will eat you up and chew you out for your atrocious bigotry.
Poor Delusional Sap. He’s a bigot, so he presumes everybody else must be. So he finds it surprising that at a blog devoted to rationality and science, there are people who aren’t bigots. They ignore minor matters like skin color, original language, sex, sexual orientation, and instead look at the ideas people present. DS just presents ignorance, delusions, and stupidity. No surprise he is dismayed at our response to him.
Dawkins Slayer #177 wrote:
Why?
Is it because they’re wrong? Is it because they’re making bad arguments? Is it because they’re making arguments at all? Is it because they’re not making arguments at all? Is it because their arguments carry the threat of force? Why?
And are your examples all alike?
nancymcclernan #145, how sad for you, and hopefully your offspring didn’t suffer as a result. You prove my point, I hope you see that.
Lots of anger right under the surface, buttons easily pushed, launching into irrational tirades. Perhaps you should seek counseling? Really.
I’m amazed at the vulgarity displayed by most of the comments. For people who espouse tolerance, you show a distinct lack of tolerance of people who disagree with you. By having to resort to personal insults you clearly display your lack of rational argument. The sad thing is, you actually believe you are right. I’ve had enough of this website, so I’ll leave you all to dwell in your sicko fantasy world of shit. I’ve got better things to do.
Last exit tone concern.Should make a movie out of it some day.
Take note, tolerance does not mean what you think it means. Criticism and rebuttal are not breaches of tolerance.
DS…What a wonderful xian troll…and such an original user name.
Clearly displays all the traits we so ‘lurve’ about the deluded…ignorant, homophobic, bigoted, intolerant, discriminatory, fatuous, repugnant and more stupid then a fish on a bicycle.
And they still think their nonsense should be respected.
Well unfortunately few folks hold respect for a dogma that turns out such poisonous little blow hard cretins.
‘By having to resort to personal insults you clearly display your lack of rational argument’
You of course in your wisdom DS know exactly that the word ‘rational’ means in any context…seemingly it is anything you want it to mean.
How cute!
Piece of shit troll sez:
Cue dramatic exit in 3..2..1..
So long, shitstain!
Show some rationality, cogency and back your ideas with evidence, and you will be respected. Stupidity is mocked, and you show nothing but stupidity, ignorance, insipidity, and idjiticy.
Well, speaking as a Mature, Reasonable, Thoughtful raving homophobe, I, too, must give a wag of the finger to the shocking outbursts of vulgarity on this site!
(And remember, people, telling people their views in opposition to yours constitute a ‘fantasy world of shit’ is in no way vulgar, nor an admission that you still got nothin’…. Let alone, say, a grade two vocabulary…)
Speaking of, sadly, I’m afraid I can give our latest speedbag only a paltry 3.9 for his hissyfit/flounceout here… While it was a technically sound performance, and sparely classic in conception, I’m afraid I also have to say I found it uninspired, lacking in passion… I felt like I was just watching him checking off the boxes. Yes, the standard elements are mandatory, but just hookin’ em together like so many beads on a string, without so much as a single creative flourish–and certainly nothing that rises to the level of a random demand for a Leica, nor a reference to burning livestock–well, sorry, contender, but this sport just ain’t young anymore, and we’ve all seen that routine a few too many times to consider that as making the grade anymore…
(/Also, we’ve rules, here. Traditions. Which is to say: to break 5.0, you’ve got to at least show a little leg and flirt with the judges while you’re leaving.)