Milo: if you are saying I’m defending it (pedophilia) because I’m certainly not

[deannalw]

A

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A 13 year old is not sexually mature. Just because their bodies may be capable of sex doesn't mean they are emotionally mature enough to realize the ramifications of a sexual relationship or even encounter. When I was in middle school there was a girl known to give it up to a guy for a sweet word or flower picked from the playground.
Was she sexually mature ior sexually active?

You are talking two different things here. Sexual maturity is post puberty. Real simple. Able to reproduce. Strictly relating to the physical.

Emotional maturity to handle a sexual relationship is a whole different ball of wax.

13 year olds are not mature enough for sex.

 

[bodecea]

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Milo is British. Hence the terminology. I've had a number of Brit freinds over the years and they have some very interesting terms.

One good friend shocked the hell out of all of us when he said he needed to step outside and suck on a fag.

There was dead freaking silence.



In Britain, a cigarette is a fag. We had to straighten him out right away.

Wait....are you saying that Milo was referring to underage cigarettes?

 

[bodecea]

A

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

You haven't read the transcript,idiot

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature.

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A 13 year old is not sexually mature. Just because their bodies may be capable of sex doesn't mean they are emotionally mature enough to realize the ramifications of a sexual relationship or even encounter. When I was in middle school there was a girl known to give it up to a guy for a sweet word or flower picked from the playground.
Was she sexually mature ior sexually active?

You are talking two different things here. Sexual maturity is post puberty. Real simple. Able to reproduce. Strictly relating to the physical.

Emotional maturity to handle a sexual relationship is a whole different ball of wax.

Keep digging.

BTW...a couple of us posters you made threatening comments to yesterday had our Malware warnings go off afterwards........that's kind of odd, don't you think?

 

[deannalw]

I see... the Brits do have some different words.
Bu as I said before... never heard of Milo till the left tried to burn Berkely down. All I know is what words of his y'all have shared that he's said and your own words. Still have the same opinion.

 

[deannalw]

I'm weary of this thread now.

 

[irosie91]

Yes but in this case, even MILO was adamantly
reiterating he was against and repulsed by pedophilia as one of the worst evils.

There was no relativity about it where he is concerned,
and he is the one under attack and accusations here.

Ironically if you are saying the "liberal secular" approach
is what opened the door to relativism on this pedophile issue as "normal"
well, Milo is coming from the right that is attacking the left for this, and
undercutting the real norms in society for selfish or political agenda.

It's just really strange how this got completely twisted around so backwards.

I guess it shows
1. the rightwing WILL defend a gay man and won't bash and reject
him just because he is gay. so they don't judge all gay people the same.
2. the left WON'T just roll over and trumpet any LGBT person
and defend their rights just because they are gay
3. the left ISN'T jumping to the defense of pedophilia but
actually attacking someone for being targeted as promoting it,
(so this seems to go against the assumption that the left promoting
LGBT means tolerating or opening the door to pedophilia)
4. but what if it were the other way around, what if Milo had
been a liberal caught in this situation. wouldn't the left be rallying
for his defense and the right taking every opportunity to slam him?

Odd that he only proclaimed his opposition to it after he got into trouble for saying it was a good thing. Amazing how quickly he changed his mind on something like that. No he didn't just misspeak.

You're the one spreading lies and propaganda.

Here is a direct quote. Which part do you think I made up?

"some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys"

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

ok----16 seems old enough to me------assuming the teen is reasonably intelligent and not------like under the "control" of the older man.

 

[tinydancer]

Odd that he only proclaimed his opposition to it after he got into trouble for saying it was a good thing. Amazing how quickly he changed his mind on something like that. No he didn't just misspeak.
Here is a direct quote. Which part do you think I made up?

"some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys"

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

ok----16 seems old enough to me------assuming the teen is reasonably intelligent and not------like under the "control" of the older man.

I'm not happy with low age of consent because I don't believe that in this day and age young people are maturing at the rate they did in the past.

I really really don't like the Romeo and Juliet laws that allow for sex between say a 14 and a 15 year old.

But the laws are what they are. And most are at 16 and 18 and it's legal for them to be considered consensual partners.

The key point here is that Milo never condoned pedophilia in the interviews. And most websites and media purposefully left the quote in my OP out.

That's flat out wrong.

 

[tinydancer]

A

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A

Oh I have read the transcript. Now let's put up the quote in context. Milo was being clinical. From a fair and balanced article...


"He said “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”

BINGO!

"He’s right. The English language has different terms – hebephilia and ephebophilia – for people attracted to post-pubescent boys.

I’m not sure why Milo didn’t use those terms to clarify his point, but he shouldn’t be condemned for having a better vocabulary than his critics."

More at link:

Attacks On Milo Yiannopoulos Are About Homophobia, Not Pedophilia

A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Sure they can be.

Our society has determined they are not LEGALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY mature. It doesn't speak to the physical aspect.

And men who find 13 year olds are pushing the envelope, but if they are attracted to young adults, that is not pedophilia.

Pedophilia is someone who is attracted by CHILDREN...i.e., there is no question of sexual maturity. It is the lack of sexual maturity that attracts pedophiles.

A 13 year old is not sexually mature. Just because their bodies may be capable of sex doesn't mean they are emotionally mature enough to realize the ramifications of a sexual relationship or even encounter. When I was in middle school there was a girl known to give it up to a guy for a sweet word or flower picked from the playground.
Was she sexually mature ior sexually active?

You are talking two different things here. Sexual maturity is post puberty. Real simple. Able to reproduce. Strictly relating to the physical.

Emotional maturity to handle a sexual relationship is a whole different ball of wax.

Keep digging.

BTW...a couple of us posters you made threatening comments to yesterday had our Malware warnings go off afterwards........that's kind of odd, don't you think?

Digging to where? My OP stands. He says in the interview he does not condone pedophilia. And I have no idea why your Malware would go off.

 

[koshergrl]

Odd that he only proclaimed his opposition to it after he got into trouble for saying it was a good thing. Amazing how quickly he changed his mind on something like that. No he didn't just misspeak.
Here is a direct quote. Which part do you think I made up?

"some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys"

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Who cares what *you consider*? We aren't talking about what you said.

We're talking about what Milo said, and the definitions of words. Yes, they actually fucking mean something.

And "boy" is not a term restricted to pre-pubescent children. PARTICULARLY in the homo world.

So move on, you fucking moron. I am so sick of you lunatics who think your ignorance and your steadfast determination never to learn defines reality for the rest of us. It doesn't.

 

[bodecea]

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Who cares what *you consider*? We aren't talking about what you said.

We're talking about what Milo said, and the definitions of words. Yes, they actually fucking mean something.

And "boy" is not a term restricted to pre-pubescent children. PARTICULARLY in the homo world.

So move on, you fucking moron. I am so sick of you lunatics who think your ignorance and your steadfast determination never to learn defines reality for the rest of us. It doesn't.

Interesting that you seem so dialed into the gay world......I'm gay and have not heard that distinction referring to the term "boy". I wonder why you are so sure what it means and I am not where you are at in that regard.

 

[tinydancer]

You are talking two different things here. Sexual maturity is post puberty. Real simple. Able to reproduce. Strictly relating to the physical.

Emotional maturity to handle a sexual relationship is a whole different ball of wax.

Keep digging.

BTW...a couple of us posters you made threatening comments to yesterday had our Malware warnings go off afterwards........that's kind of odd, don't you think?

Digging to where? My OP stands. He says in the interview he does not condone pedophilia. And I have no idea why your Malware would go off.

Well, it certainly was a puzzlement......right after your threats.....to more than one of us. Oh well.

I have no ability to mess with anyones computer. I'm on dial up for crying out loud.

As I said.....a puzzling coincidence, eh? So, what exactly WAS your threat about?

That wasn't a threat it was a promise. I'll take you on any time in the Bullring. You pick the topic. We both get to pick a judge each and have a three day rolling battle.

We can take each other on solo or if you want you can have a tag team partner. I'm in the process of finishing up judging points for the battle between Coyote and TN Harley.

And I'm booked for a battle with Camp. But pick a time and we'll go head to head. No trolling by other people.

One on one or tag team. Your choice.

 

[irosie91]

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

ok----16 seems old enough to me------assuming the teen is reasonably intelligent and not------like under the "control" of the older man.

I'm not happy with low age of consent because I don't believe that in this day and age young people are maturing at the rate they did in the past.

I really really don't like the Romeo and Juliet laws that allow for sex between say a 14 and a 15 year old.

But the laws are what they are. And most are at 16 and 18 and it's legal for them to be considered consensual partners.

The key point here is that Milo never condoned pedophilia in the interviews. And most websites and media purposefully left the quote in my OP out.

That's flat out wrong.

when reading that which journalists write---always remember----they write th which SELLS

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Stick to the topic or risk being thread banned, maybe worse.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Who cares what *you consider*? We aren't talking about what you said.

We're talking about what Milo said, and the definitions of words. Yes, they actually fucking mean something.

And "boy" is not a term restricted to pre-pubescent children. PARTICULARLY in the homo world.

So move on, you fucking moron. I am so sick of you lunatics who think your ignorance and your steadfast determination never to learn defines reality for the rest of us. It doesn't.

In the real murkan world of the good ole days the term boy meant a negro.

 

[BULLDOG]

A
A 13year old is not sexually mature.

Apparently from what I am reading as of late that depends on who yer asking, what their religion and all that is.

Th law isn't so wishey washey.

Actually each state sets their own law concerning minors. Some states do in fact have an age scale for an eighteen year old sleeping with a sixteen year.... so on and so forth depending on ages of the ones involved in a span of just a few years are not convicted of statutory rape. I think there was a conversation on this forum about that years ago.

That's not what he was talking about. He was specifically talking about older men, and 13 year old boys. What about a grown man and a 13 year old girl? Would that be acceptable?

From what I read was he said this in the context of first being a victim.

Grownups need to leave teenagers alone. That is why we have laws on the books.

Part of this whole bunch of crap is everyone wanted this open sexual society. It was like opening pandora's box and now there is all this fanfare over one person called Milo. Another part of the problem is certain people in various places political, church. etc... tried to cover up their own abusers of children and young people. I have to give Milo credit for at the very least bringing this all out and showing people how confusing these mixed messages are for young people. That is not justifying any bad behavior he has it is merely stating what it is.

IMO at this point if news monkeys want to use this to further their own agendas to discredit or change peoples minds about other alternative news sources they will just be putting that shit on their own faces. While they are doing that they will also disenfranchising young people who are already very confused. < who knows maybe some want that to happen.

Trying to blame society for Milo supporting pedophilia? That's just pathetic.

 

[BULLDOG]

I found this gem. Same interview as being reported on. But gee. That part of the quote seems to be missing in many reports.

Here's the segment. Sort of a biggie to leave out, but then in the quest to destroy someone I guess you could leave it out.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…

That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

READ: Transcript of Milo Yiannopoulos Video on Pedophilia

Liberals expect certain groups to religiously follow progressive dogma if they do not this is the result.

A lot like the bank robber that said "But look at all the banks I didn't rob"

Dear BULLDOG it was more like he was arguing legalistically
what types of robberies constitute: misdemeanors, petty theft, grand theft, felony, etc.

And someone took the fact he was saying "stealing less than 50 dollars is NOT literally a felony"
to mean he tolerates or promotes stealing since it doesn't count to him as serious as a felony.

Doesn't matter what he considers. A grown man having sex with a 13 year old is pedophilia.

Would you say Mary Kay Letourneau is a pedophile?

Of course. The courts thought so too.

 

[bodecea]

Keep digging.

BTW...a couple of us posters you made threatening comments to yesterday had our Malware warnings go off afterwards........that's kind of odd, don't you think?

Digging to where? My OP stands. He says in the interview he does not condone pedophilia. And I have no idea why your Malware would go off.

Well, it certainly was a puzzlement......right after your threats.....to more than one of us. Oh well.

I have no ability to mess with anyones computer. I'm on dial up for crying out loud.

As I said.....a puzzling coincidence, eh? So, what exactly WAS your threat about?

That wasn't a threat it was a promise. I'll take you on any time in the Bullring. You pick the topic. We both get to pick a judge each and have a three day rolling battle.

We can take each other on solo or if you want you can have a tag team partner. I'm in the process of finishing up judging points for the battle between Coyote and TN Harley.

And I'm booked for a battle with Camp. But pick a time and we'll go head to head. No trolling by other people.

One on one or tag team. Your choice.

Really it was all about the Bullring?
This sound like a call to the Bullring?

Bod if you are going to go after Milo god help you.

Milo in this interview was trying to explain how an elder gay world personna could help him and others thru the ropes of being a young gay.

NOW and if you really want to go for it Bod I will take you on and fuck you big time bitch.

I don't get you here but I will, I shall Bod do you in. Ready?

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes but in this case, even MILO was adamantly
reiterating he was against and repulsed by pedophilia as one of the worst evils.

There was no relativity about it where he is concerned,
and he is the one under attack and accusations here.

Ironically if you are saying the "liberal secular" approach
is what opened the door to relativism on this pedophile issue as "normal"
well, Milo is coming from the right that is attacking the left for this, and
undercutting the real norms in society for selfish or political agenda.

It's just really strange how this got completely twisted around so backwards.

I guess it shows
1. the rightwing WILL defend a gay man and won't bash and reject
him just because he is gay. so they don't judge all gay people the same.
2. the left WON'T just roll over and trumpet any LGBT person
and defend their rights just because they are gay
3. the left ISN'T jumping to the defense of pedophilia but
actually attacking someone for being targeted as promoting it,
(so this seems to go against the assumption that the left promoting
LGBT means tolerating or opening the door to pedophilia)
4. but what if it were the other way around, what if Milo had
been a liberal caught in this situation. wouldn't the left be rallying
for his defense and the right taking every opportunity to slam him?

Odd that he only proclaimed his opposition to it after he got into trouble for saying it was a good thing. Amazing how quickly he changed his mind on something like that. No he didn't just misspeak.

You're the one spreading lies and propaganda.

Here is a direct quote. Which part do you think I made up?

"some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys"

Where in the paragraph does it mention Milo is a pedophile?

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

This isn't Britain, and what you consider doesn't overrule the law.

 

[bodecea]

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Who cares what *you consider*? We aren't talking about what you said.

We're talking about what Milo said, and the definitions of words. Yes, they actually fucking mean something.

And "boy" is not a term restricted to pre-pubescent children. PARTICULARLY in the homo world.

So move on, you fucking moron. I am so sick of you lunatics who think your ignorance and your steadfast determination never to learn defines reality for the rest of us. It doesn't.

In the real murkan world of the good ole days the term boy meant a negro.

Yep.....that too.

 

[koshergrl]

Dear Lilah and ThunderKiss1965

The paragraph that was taken to mean LITERALLY "young boys" to mean underaged kids instead of "younger men" is what caused this misperception:

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

He says and KEEPS saying younger boys. I don't believe he misspoke.

So what? I consider teenagers not to be young men but young boys. Age of consent is 16 in Britain.

Teenage boys are able to consent. Boys.

I don't .care what the age of consent is in Britain. I live here.
We obviously aren't going to come to any agreement here. I consider teen males to be young men.

Who cares what *you consider*? We aren't talking about what you said.

We're talking about what Milo said, and the definitions of words. Yes, they actually fucking mean something.

And "boy" is not a term restricted to pre-pubescent children. PARTICULARLY in the homo world.

So move on, you fucking moron. I am so sick of you lunatics who think your ignorance and your steadfast determination never to learn defines reality for the rest of us. It doesn't.

In the real murkan world of the good ole days the term boy meant a negro.

Yup.

It's a word with multiple meanings, and very few of them have to do with precise age in years.