Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not
Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.
I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.
I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.
Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.
Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.
BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.
I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.
I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.
========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.
If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.
Some facts to consider:
1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.
(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/
(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/
(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/
2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/
3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.
4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.
5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.
6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.
7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.
8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.
9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.
10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================
NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.
If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.
If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.
If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.
I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?
Dear BULLDOG Lilah ThunderKiss1965
The last msg I was able to post on the MILO thread is above
before it digressed so much on to other people
the mods cut it off and couldn't save the thread.
I don't think this requires the BULLRING so I'll try to resolve in CDZ first.
I think MILO made it clear he caused this misunderstanding by
1. using the term "young boys" when he MEANT young men,
like 17 being in relations with "older men" a generation ahead such as 29.
2. he also was caught in some hair splitting over the term pedophilia
which he argued means children who aren't developed at all, and having
an obsessive attraction for prepubescent children. His point was to make
a DISTINCTION with teens and young adults who are sexually developed.
Both of these were taken as justifying pedophilia as in sex with
UNDERAGED minors who aren't of the age of consent as MILO meant.
Now I can understand
A. why people would read what he said in 1 and 2 as justifying and promoting pedophilia
But given Milo's history and statement of his intent he posted publicly on facebook,
I believe he is speaking the truth with integrity and not trying to cover up some other intent:
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
see especially paragraph 8 in BOLDFACE below.
BULLDOG because so many pedophiles can't be trusted and are in denial and lie to people about their problem I GET WHY nobody trusts someone like MILO they don't know and suspect they are lying and really support pedophilia regardless what they claim.
I UNDERSTAND if you think he is lying because of never meeting this guy, and even if you do know someone, good well trusted people have been known to HIDE pedophile addictions. I get it that you still wouldn't trust someone, especially someone you don't know.
I happen to trust what he says because he is honest to a fault. Even though his being abused by a priest was bad, he is brave to admit he is good at oral sex from what he learned. How honest is someone who puts themselves on the line by saying something like THAT? I don't read denial in his words. I think he is willing to disect and analyze things much deeper, down to the atoms and molecules, but that's what got him in trouble. He said things so detailed, they sounded like justifying some of this behavior he was saying fell under different categories and not pedophilia, so he sounded like he was "skirting" that.
I get it. But I don't get there is any masked desire, support or promotion of pedophilia in his words. He supports consensual relations with consenting men, and was talking about older men supporting younger men such as 17 who benefit from relations with older gay men.
========
A note for idiots (UPDATED): I do not... - Milo Yiannopoulos | Facebook
I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.
If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.
Some facts to consider:
1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.
(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/menshn-co-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/…/…/3746/luke-bozier-arrested/
(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/leading-gamergate-critic-sarah-…/
(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tech-city-darling-chris-leydon-…/
2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/heres-why-the-progressive-left-…/
3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.
4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.
5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.
6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.
7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.
8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.
9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.
10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."
=====================
NOTE: I think he is as honest as he can be. The only thing I could ask more of him and the other LGBT community on the left is to be more open to the ex gays who have gone through spiritual healing therapy, where some of them successfully transition out of stages of unwanted homosexual attractions or relations, while the ones who don't change at least become at fuller peace and no longer suffer guilt and anxiety over being born as they are. The spiritual healing therapy HELPS people, whether they change or not, whether they come out gay straight trans or whatever; this is not something to be forced on people, and the misunderstanding of therapy which has healed people is one area that we could open up and improve on instead of censoring it out of fear it means forcing or torturing people to change their orientation outside their free will.
If you want to say MILO or other LGBT advocates are "in denial" or lying to themselves about the ability some people have to HEAL of past abuses that CAN cause homosexual tendencies in SOME cases, I do believe this is one area where we could be more open, honest and more inclusive of people who HAVE HAD experiences changing their orientation WHEN IT WASN'T NATURAL but caused unnatural by external abuses and they was able to change. Not all cases are one way or the other, not all are by choice, not all are by birth. I do find both LGBT and Chriistians are in equal denial that both cases exist; and too many try to judge all homosexuality the same way. So both cause consternation to each other.
The best way I found to be fair is to be open that both types of cases exist: some people can change, some cannot. Some are caused by external factors that can be changed, some may be caused by spiritual or birth factors that may or may not be changeable.
If anyone DOESN'T believe MILO when he publicly states he does NOT condone or support pedophilia, can you show how that isn't YOUR responsibility for that belief.
What has he done to prove this to you, given the above that states otherwise.
Isn't the disbelief in him being honest about his mistakes and what he really believes and doesn't support, isn't that coming from you. I totally get how his words could only be taken to mean pedophilia. But given the above corrections, isn't it clear that's NOT WHAT HE MEANS.
If you still don't believe him, can I blame you, when pedophiles lie to themselves and others all the time? I just ask that you accept responsibility if you don't trust him and that's YOUR belief he is still lying and secretly is some kind of lech.
I just don't think it's fair to blame it on him as if he "is that thing" when that belief is coming from the perceiver who doesn't trust his corrections of his misstatement
and his explanations of what he really intends and means. This is very unfortunate and I still hope it can be resolved. The real pedophiles need help, and targeting others who aren't just makes the problem worse of hiding it. Instead of REWARDING people like MILO willing to talk openly honestly and in detail. If we shut the people down who are WILLING to be TRANSPARENT, how do we expect the people hiding their pedophilia in the closet to come out?