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

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hello?

Ffs. Milo has intimated clearly that as a 13 year old he did not obey the age of consent laws.

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

A grown man having sex with a 13 year old boy is illegal. Milo clearly said he thought it was often a good thing. I'm not sure how you can't understand that. His remarks were so offensive till CPAC uninvited him and Breitbart fired him. How long have you supported Milo's type of pedophilia?

Notorious ‘Never Trump’ Org Funded Group Behind Milo Controversy

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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"

 

[emilynghiem]

The attention whore is twisting to try to stay in crazy right winger's minds, and they will twist with him

What the hell are you talking about? That quote is in the original interview. There's no twisting involved. All the other reports I have seen has that part of the quote edited out.

It was edited out for the hit pieces on Milo.

If you're good with grown men and 13 year old boys, that is supporting pedophilia.

He never said he condoned any illegal activity and certainly not pedophilia. Milo was clearly expressing that sexual maturity comes at different ages.

Some early, some later. But Milo sticks with the age of consent laws. He clearly states that.

A grown man having sex with a 13 year old boy is illegal. Milo clearly said he thought it was often a good thing. I'm not sure how you can't understand that. His remarks were so offensive till CPAC uninvited him and Breitbart fired him. How long have you supported Milo's type of pedophilia?

Dear BULLDOG
1. My understanding of what he meant -- even though he was unlawfully abused by an older man who was a priest, he did admit that his sexual experience served in enhancing his sex life because he had that "knowledge"

but that does NOT condone rape and abuse.

(I've also heard from more than one man that women who were abused by their dads are often known to have more intense gratifying sex, but that does NOT justify the abuse, just because the tension it creates may turn out later to affect better sex with future partners who are consensual)

Just because good can come out of awful things like abuse, rape or murder
does not make these things DESIRABLE in any way!
A woman may gain strength and become a valuable advocate against rape BECAUSE she was raped, so there was some "good" that came out of that. But that does *NOT JUSTIFY* the "rape itself as good" which remains a CRIME to be rejected and punished.

I can tell you BULLDOG my friend Juda heads a nonprofit support for rape victims who kept their babies,
and they have to constantly explain and face this dilemma that a precious child they LOVE came
from a RAPE that was BAD and remains a CRIME not to be tolerated. But out of that, they were blessed with a gift
of life they are still thankful for DESPITE THE RAPE.

Does that help explain?

2. as for his comments on young men and relations with older men to gain experience
he meant young men old enough to consent.


What happened to him was illegal.
But if the two people are of age and consent,
that is different. He never meant this to be confused
with the previous discussion of his own past where he wasn't of age.

 

[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"

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

He never said he condoned any illegal activity and certainly not pedophilia. Milo was clearly expressing that sexual maturity comes at different ages.

Some early, some later. But Milo sticks with the age of consent laws. He clearly states that.

A grown man having sex with a 13 year old boy is illegal. Milo clearly said he thought it was often a good thing. I'm not sure how you can't understand that. His remarks were so offensive till CPAC uninvited him and Breitbart fired him. How long have you supported Milo's type of pedophilia?

Notorious ‘Never Trump’ Org Funded Group Behind Milo Controversy

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

I don't seem to remember Milio admitting to be a pedophile I do however remember him saying he was abused.

 

[koshergrl]

It is a confusing subject to those that have the silly, knees-bent, running-about, advancing behavior

Judging from your avatar it would seem you would enjoy said behavior.

At least we now know what is in the recesses of your mind..

My mind is 100% recessed...as in out to play recess, lol.

Just waiting for the monkey's bar to open...

I live in the Monkey Bars.

But I am not the Monkey King. There is only one Monkey King.

 

[bodecea]

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

How real is #pizzagate?

And every gay I know strongly condemns what Milo said. We can't say that about every RWr here.

Just curious why did y'all wait so long to bring this offense you all claim out into the light?

Wait so long? As soon as I heard.....how about you?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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"

What ?

 

[Lilah]

Hello?

Ffs. Milo has intimated clearly that as a 13 year old he did not obey the age of consent laws.

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

Notorious ‘Never Trump’ Org Funded Group Behind Milo Controversy

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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?

 

[bodecea]

The attention whore is twisting to try to stay in crazy right winger's minds, and they will twist with him

Is that what it is, Herr Goebbels? It's not you Soros Soldiers digging dirt and hyping it beyond all recognition?

So, do you contend that Milo makes Matzo from the blood of gentile babies as well?

More "Soros" squawking. I've asked you before where is the link between Soros and this topic of Milo? How does Soros fit into the topic of this thread?

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
I get it, You think it's fine to accuse me of all kinds of horrible things with nothing to back any of those things up, but it hurts your feelings if I point out the self pronounced pedophilia of a RWNJ.

The issue is that you're lying, and you KNOW you're lying, but you think it's okay because the target of your lies is hated by the party leaders, specifically your Fuhrer.

Milo CONDEMNED pedophiles, as you well know. Yet you claim otherwise because you care only about the party.

 

[koshergrl]

Hello?

Ffs. Milo has intimated clearly that as a 13 year old he did not obey the age of consent laws.

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

Notorious ‘Never Trump’ Org Funded Group Behind Milo Controversy

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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"

"boy" is a homo term used to reference young men.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The attention whore is twisting to try to stay in crazy right winger's minds, and they will twist with him

Is that what it is, Herr Goebbels? It's not you Soros Soldiers digging dirt and hyping it beyond all recognition?

So, do you contend that Milo makes Matzo from the blood of gentile babies as well?

More "Soros" squawking. I've asked you before where is the link between Soros and this topic of Milo? How does Soros fit into the topic of this thread?

Shortbus, does your Furher tell you that Milo make matzo from the blood of gentile babies? Are you just rehashing the same scripts your type have been using for a century?

 

[koshergrl]

The attention whore is twisting to try to stay in crazy right winger's minds, and they will twist with him

Is that what it is, Herr Goebbels? It's not you Soros Soldiers digging dirt and hyping it beyond all recognition?

So, do you contend that Milo makes Matzo from the blood of gentile babies as well?

More "Soros" squawking. I've asked you before where is the link between Soros and this topic of Milo? How does Soros fit into the topic of this thread?

Soros is afraid his boys are going to hear Milo and dump him.

 

[RodISHI]

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

How real is #pizzagate?

And every gay I know strongly condemns what Milo said. We can't say that about every RWr here.

Just curious why did y'all wait so long to bring this offense you all claim out into the light?

Wait so long? As soon as I heard.....how about you?

First for me.... Who instigated the initial fire storm?

 

[bodecea]

Ffs. Milo has intimated clearly that as a 13 year old he did not obey the age of consent laws.

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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"

"boy" is a homo term used to reference young men.

It is? Where did you get told that?

 

[bodecea]

The attention whore is twisting to try to stay in crazy right winger's minds, and they will twist with him

Is that what it is, Herr Goebbels? It's not you Soros Soldiers digging dirt and hyping it beyond all recognition?

So, do you contend that Milo makes Matzo from the blood of gentile babies as well?

More "Soros" squawking. I've asked you before where is the link between Soros and this topic of Milo? How does Soros fit into the topic of this thread?

Soros is afraid his boys are going to hear Milo and dump him.

Interesting......does this tie in with you telling us about your knowledge of what "boy" means to gays?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Hello?

Ffs. Milo has intimated clearly that as a 13 year old he did not obey the age of consent laws.

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

I find it deliciously ironic that the party who defends the pizza gaters, roman Polanski, and the butchers of Planned Parenthood who prey upon underaged girls....

Are all worked up that a gay journalist talked openly about the perversion of gays. It figures that they would try to change it into him *promoting* the perversion. Which is what they do.

I guess they're the only ones who are allowed to attack queers for perversion.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.

Notorious ‘Never Trump’ Org Funded Group Behind Milo Controversy

If you want to support a pedophile, that's your right, but admit what you're doing.

Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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"

Yeah you missed the part in the interview where he stated he does not condone pedofillia, of course you did it was deliberately edited out.

 

[koshergrl]

WHAT cnm it's the ADULTS who are legally responsible for respecting or violating those laws.
The underaged victims are not of legal age or competence, what are you saying am I missing something here?

From what I understand two different contexts were mixed into one.
He started talking about his own past experience abused by a priest.
so of course that wasn't consensual, it was abuse. by the priest.
it didn't respect consent or age of consent, but it's the priest who is legally responsible.

Let's NOT mix that in any way with what he was TRYING to say
about CONSENSUAL relations between "young men" say 17
with "older men" such as 29.

Running those two contexts together (plus the mixup over
terminology with what pedophilia means technically
as opposed to statutory rape, and using young boys to mean young men)
was another mistake on top of mistakes.

What a mess. No wonder Breitbart dropped this rather than
try to untangle a huge ball of twine that got twisted on itself...

Emily-----again I will bore you with my anecdotal stuff------I was in school----
when the NORM was "lets look at this stuff all over again"-------My school
was so damned ON THE EDGE that MASTERS AND JOHNSON came along
to lecture us on their theories rendering EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING ---
"normal human sexuality"------ ( I think they later divorced????) So many
of my colleagues fell for the crap so HEAVILY-----that they decided to find
relations between grandpa and little johnny ----just part of the "NORM" ----
I was a hold out in group discussions.....

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.

Attack the messenger and victim is what it appears to be. Not saying he (Milo) was my cup of tea to listen to or agree with but confusion sure seems to be the Left's game on this one. It looks like some of these big media guys are in protection mode via accusation to me.



Don't tell report whiners anything like that or you get reported. I am told that kinda thing is as good as accusing them of being one.

"Breitbart fired him" from what I read in his statement he made the call to resigned from Breibart.

Is this all you news people can find to report on. Its like you are all stuck in some sort of drama like it is scripted right out of Hollow-wood.

I'm not the one that started a thread to defend an admitted pedophile from his claims of pedophilia.

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"

"boy" is a homo term used to reference young men.

It is? Where did you get told that?

"The term boy .....most commonly applies to adult men, either considered in some way immature or inferior, in a position associated with aspects of boyhood, or even without such boyish connotation as age-indiscriminate synonym."

Boy - Wikipedia

I couldn't find a faggot dictionary, so I settled for the next best thing.
wiki:

"Many occasions occur when an adult male is commonly referred to as a boy. A person's boyfriend or loverboy may be of any age; this even applies to a 'working' call-boy, toyboy (though usually younger than the client as youth is generally considered attractive). Reflecting the general aesthetic preference for youth, one says pretty boy (e.g. in the nickname of Charles Arthur "Pretty Boy" Floyd, who committed his first bank robbery at age 30) or Adonis (name of a mythological youth) even when a male beauty is clearly of riper age. In terms (used pejoratively or neutrally) for homosexuals such as batty boy (alongside "batty man"; from "bottom") or "bum boy", age is not essential, but the connotation of immaturity can strengthen insulting use.

"A man's group of male friends etc. engaged in Male bonding are often called "the boys". It is most common to refer to men, irrespective of age or even in an adult age group, as boys in the context of a team (especially all-male), such as old boys for networking of adult men who attended the same school(s) as boys, or as professional colleagues, e.g. "the boys at the office, - police station etc." (often all adults). The members of a student fraternity can be called frat(ernity) boys, technically preferable to the pleonasm frat-bro(ther), and remain so for life as adults, after graduation."

Fucking dumbasses.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.