Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC slot amid tape controversy

So, this is the observation that I think needs to be made at this point. The left are willing to destroy Milo because he dared to snap back at the plantation he was supposed to serve. Conservative bigots are happy to oblige because, well, they're bigots.

So, we have an unholy union of liberals enabling bigoted conservatives to denigrate the rights of someone who didn't support the breathless mothership of liberal unity.

The best part of all of this is that it is such a wonderful example of a) how liberals really aren't all that supportive of LGBT rights and issues, and b) how terrified of bad press conservatives are.

In the end, liberals are undone by their willingness to defend folks like Kevin Jennings and Roman Polanski. Conservatives just reinforce the idea that they are bigots. And really, no one wins.

 

All this because I asked you a direct question? Your answer proves my point. Milo Y has not endorsed pedophilia - in fact he has denounced it - and you know it.

 

https://youtu.be/jAZauKY4004

He was 13...but he does mention young boys.

- - - Updated - - -

JFC...have I said otherwise? Read MY words not YOUR assumptions.

 

Stop pretending that you do not know that teenagers have consensual sex - consensual sex that is *illegal*.

Is it your position that Milo Y endorses pedophilia? Or are you just blowing smoke?

 

“We’re talking about 13/25, 13/28, these things do happen perfectly consensually." -Milo Yiannopoulos

He then went on to say that in the case of a 13-year old male and a 28-year old female it is usually the child who is the "sexual predator" and the adult female is the victim.

He also had this to say:

“You know people are messy and complex and actually, in the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, that sort of coming of age relationships. The relationships with those with older men have helped those young boys discover who they are. And give them security and safety, provide them with love and reliable and sort of a rock." -Milo Yiannopoulos

He then adds that he is thankful for the priest who sexually abused him when he was 13-years old because it taught him how to properly suck dick.

And that's the guy who you are defending.

 

The point of disagreement. You are convinced because Milo referred to his experience of a teen being with an older man / priest as disgusting and some misinterpreted reference that he endorsed pedophilia or something close to that as to what he said or meant. Not so.

You are having a field day with this one engagement of his as though you have the guy all sized up and a total deviant. Not unlike how the worthless MSM went ga-ga when they heard that recording of Trump on the bus years ago talking about grabbing a crotch. Oh, how the nation ran with that for a million miles and those on the left showed their true colors --- total jackasses.

That is my point. The left is as disingenuous as anyone can be. They lie, they pretend, they cover up, they are thoughtless, they do not care about what is truth or godly or moral. Worst of all, they do not care how despicable is their own. They are dishonest and will do anything unscrupulous to win an election. They care more about power and egos than the common good. So have fun with Milo, just the latest distraction for the left to fool themselves to thinking they are good people.

 

Ugh. They will now make excuses for this, too.

 

There is no such thing as consensual sex between a 13-year old child and a 28-year old adult. I shouldn't have to tell you this.

 

IOW, you will not say that Milo Y has endorsed pedophilia. In fact, you know that he has denounced pedophilia. Still you enter a thread on the side of those who have tarred Milo Y with the NAMBLA label.

 

Lmao. You wanted to bring up others? Let's go there, shall we? Who do you suppose said, "Michelle has a dick.". Who you suppose said, " Obama is gay AND FREAKING KILLED SOMEONE." Who do you think said, "Obama's mother was a whore?". Who do you suppose said, " the White House needs fumigating when the Obama's move out."

Your little outrage and outburst? Wanh wanh wanh.

Your righties have said AND still say vile, nasty things about a good family....while holding this (*)(*)(*)(*) ant up as a good person.

Hypocrites...the lot of you.

- - - Updated - - -

Roflol. Quote me saying those things. Go ahead. This thread is about Milo's own words kicking him in the ass. I'm not responsible for the thoughts of others.

 

Good question!

Honestly, I do not know. There is a very clear reason I phrased my statement the way I did. "Nor am I advocating for the view that a 13-year old should not own his or her body, and therefor has no right to choose whether or not to have sex." is not an affirmative declaration that a 13-year old actually does own his or her body.

Regarding whether 5-year olds own themselves, a better question is why? or why not?

Other pertinent questions are:

• How would we decide?
• Is there a continuum of progressive self-ownership? What things do we own on the youngest end of the continuum? What things do we own on the oldest end of the continuum?
• What do we do with people of any age who disagree about whether they own themselves?
  
• Obviously and unapologetically, we use physical control, often including violence (spankings), when a 5-year old insists he owns himself and runs toward traffic. Should we use physical restraints, and possibly violence when 13-year olds run toward the metaphoric traffic of sex?
• At what point does a person own himself or herself enough that physical restraint and violence are no longer morally/ethically valid methods of control, such that we must now engage their free will by offering incentives for compliance?
• Does free will automatically and necessarily imply de facto self-ownership?
• Are good intentions valid moral/ethical excuse for denying (or interfering with) someone else's self-ownership?
• Is love (of any kind-parental, romantic, compassion, etc.) a valid moral/ethical mandate (or excuse) for denying (or interfering with) someone else's self-ownership?
• Does love (of any kind-parental, romantic, compassion, etc.) necessitate the support of someone else's self-ownership?

I am sure you see the problem. The whole point of my post was that the topic is complex enough and nuanced enough that most thinking people would not want to get mired in it when talking politics.

 

Wow, I feel sorry for you. You have a tough row to hoe.

You actually think you can defend that phony, liar, coward, anti-american traitor by mentioning a couple of things that he was accused of? We have a room full of documentation and evidence against this enemy of the state. And we could not care less if he was gay, but almost assuredly he was. Nor do we care if Michelle is a tranny or not, but most assuredly she is an angry, spiteful enemy of this nation as well. The mainstream media and the feckless democrats in D.C. saw to it they were protected and the public remained in the dark. It is truly amazing these con artists could get away with it for so long.

I will not bother with that criminal Hillary and her band of devils like Podesta.

So we say vile, nasty things about them do we? Well after 8 years of being played a fool and watching this nation degenerate it starts to anger one.

Hypocrites, hey? LoL. Yes, we are all hypocrites at one time or another. But I suggest you quit fooling yourself because life and death are serious matters. And there is a real difference between hypocrites and HYPOCRITES!! The left, the MSM, Obama and Hillary and a few others unnamed here are the latter. IMO.

 

cool. cant defend that (*)(*)(*)(*), huh? i didnt think so.

 

No, I guess I cannot defend "that" according to you.

But I sure have you figured out. (take comfort, you are not alone, you are one of millions)

 

I dont give two (*)(*)(*)(*)s what you THINK you have figured out. If you think Milo is an upstanding kind of guy....good for you. I happen to think otherwise. It really is that simple...no matter how much ASSuming you do.

 

Ddyad's point seems to be that there is obviously a distinction between what consent means in the context of free will, and what constitutes consent in the legal sense.

It is obviously the case that teenagers often consent to sex (engage of their own free will) despite being younger than the legal age of consent. Milo was obviously using consensually to mean "without coercion", regardless of the legal sense.

 

Likely professional protesters. Mask and costume and all.
The students and others who had been protesting for hours prior to the pro's were being peaceful.

Banned, disinvited, at any rate, he was denied his voice.
It seems possible. Both events had his speech taken away. Whatever the means were.

 

Bear in mind that different US jurisdictions and different nations have different laws regarding age of consent.

Please tell me if I have misunderstood your point, and that you really mean to say that in a 13/28 sexual relationship, the only way sex happens is that the 28-year old coerces an unwilling 13-year old.

If that is the case, who is coercing whom in a 13/13 sexual relationship?

 

Not denying this. The difference is anarchist protestors
decided for everyone Yiannopoulos would not speak while CPAC, who made his address possible to begin with, withdrew their offer when certain facts came to light and their minds were changed.

 

No, in the context of the unequal power dynamic between a 28-year old adult and a 13-year old child (and, yes, a 13-year old is a child despite your protests), whose brain hasn't fully developed yet, consensual sex is not possible.

Besides that, it is very clear that Yiannopoulos said sex between such an adult and child is not only acceptable but can be beneficial to the child. Do you agree with Yiannopoulos on that or not?

 

And in this case, it's the American RW.

 

*sigh* They keep making excuses for that crap.

 

Yes. Berkeley itself didn't stop his speech. Some outside force, paid professionals, did so. Berkeley had to for safety concerns.
CPAC did so, because of some perceived character flaw.

1 cancelled by force and safety, 1 cancelled because they didn't like something perceived about him.

 

I agree with him that paedophilia is attraction to a pre pubescent child. Attraction, and subsequent sexual activity, with a post pubescent child who's underage is not paedophilia. It's just illegal.

 

We're talking Trump and what is claimed he said.

Quote him admitting to a sexual assault else admitted he made no such admittance.