ADVERTISEMENT

Milo's views on pedophilia

Well that was fun.
Sorry. Only thing I will say is that people who have followed milo for awhile may not have the same reactions as a typical conservative or typical liberal. He's very much a whore it's just this time he took it too far.

I've watched quite a bit of Milo. I'm probably one of the very few "liberals" that actually kinda like(ed) the dude. Milo has said some horrific things, and I rarely held then against him because I didn't believe he means hardly any of it, he just does it to get a reaction and show that words are just words and we shouldn't be as afraid our hurt by then as we are in today's society. I think he does a poor job of delivering the message and dips too deeply into being a political mouthpiece...but still.

That's why I was very disappointed in the video. I think this was one of the few times you saw Milo actually giving his true opinion on something....and it was a pretty disturbing opinion.
 
I've watched quite a bit of Milo. I'm probably one of the very few "liberals" that actually kinda like(ed) the dude. Milo has said some horrific things, and I rarely held then against him because I didn't believe he means hardly any of it, he just does it to get a reaction and show that words are just words and we shouldn't be as afraid our hurt by then as we are in today's society. I think he does a poor job of delivering the message and dips too deeply into being a political mouthpiece...but still.

That's why I was very disappointed in the video. I think this was one of the few times you saw Milo actually giving his true opinion on something....and it was a pretty disturbing opinion.
I respect that and you may be right.
 
you are probably right but that is a cultural issue. If you and I had been born in Ancient Greece we would be banging kids as casually as we drink coffee. If we were born in Shakespeare's time 14 year olds would be the norm. My wife's great uncle was 19 when he married his fourteen year old bride. They have been married 60 years and seem to have a great time together.

Are we evolved into a perfectly civilized culture that has hit the nail on the head with the 18 year old birthday being the benchmark? Given our late blooming adolescents and inability to socialize face to face we should probably raise the age of consent to 21. The human brain on average isn't fully formed until we are 25. There is probably a test we can take that gives our actual maturity to handle adult situations like war or sex or marriage.

I read one of the worst articles in my life a couple weeks ago about a man and a six year old boy. Those kind of people need to just be killed. I also know a man who molested all three of his daughters. Again someone like that should just be killed and forgotten as quickly as possible.



I dont really have an argument just stream of conscience tonight.

I'll load your gun for you in regard to the molesters.

Where age of consent goes from here is an interesting topic. It's interesting also that even in western society age of consent varies a fair amount. Culture obviously had an impact on where it should be set.... But I wonder also if the age of consent itself impacts culture. Do we as Americans avoid allowing our kids access to sex ed, or watch sexual material in movies and such till a later age, partly BECAUSE the age of consent is 2 years later than other areas?
 
You are right even in our country across state borders can open a lot of opportunities for sexually active adults.

The age of consent is only a factor to those that get caught. Watching the dateline to catch a predator it took like five minutes to get a full show of pervs. And how many teachers don't get caught or told on? We had a football coach banging a high school senior and the coach was fired but the police were never involved. He had a job the next school year and I actually ran into him when I was doing observations for my teaching certificate at osu. His eyes got real big when he saw me. I was in 8th grade when he got fired.

I think there is a ton of post puberty/pre 18 sex going on with "adults." We often think of Sandusky but I think what milo is talking about is culturally normal in the gay community. Like I said they are all super horny pervs because they are all testosterone fueled men. No estrogen or self conscience females to slow the base rounding process.
 
"My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, “advocacy.” I am horrified by that impression.

I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. "


He should have just stopped there.... That's a believable apology.

But no, he had to go on from there and finger point, spin and make excuses. Nothing has changed in his mind, and unfortunately, I doubt much has changed in many of his fan's minds. He's casting himself as a wichunt victim and most of his fans will eat it up after a 2 or 3 day pause.

He is a witch hunt target. Not debatable.

not mutually exclusive to his culpability in his current predicament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyomingosualum
The Dixie Chicks were a witch hunt target after comments about Bush during an overseas concert.

Not debateable.

Not mutually exclusive to their culpability in that predicament.
 
Milo isn't going away. He'll find a publisher for his book, or else he'll self-publish and earn even more. He'll still speak out and if he's smart he'll turn down the flamboyance button and try to shock a little less. The American people are a forgiving people and have forgiven a lot worse.
 
The Dixie Chicks were a witch hunt target after comments about Bush during an overseas concert.

Not debateable.

Not mutually exclusive to their culpability in that predicament.
Wrong. The country music audience simply turned on the Dixie Chicks. At the time, I thought it was a damn shame because I like the music of the Dixie Chicks then and I like it now. I will listen to their music any day over that crap on the radio that passes for country music these days. What's funny is Donald Trump probably agreed with the Dixie Chicks at the time, that we should have not interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a great illustration of how entertainers should really stick to entertaining and not alienate their audience. I wish Natalie had kept her mouth shut and kept on playing they're great music. And, in hindsight, I wish Natalie had gotten her way and we had stayed out of any further involvement militarily in the Middle East. The region would be no worse off and thousands of young men and women in uniform would still be alive.
 
Wrong. The country music audience simply turned on the Dixie Chicks. At the time, I thought it was a damn shame because I like the music of the Dixie Chicks then and I like it now. I will listen to their music any day over that crap on the radio that passes for country music these days. What's funny is Donald Trump probably agreed with the Dixie Chicks at the time, that we should have not interfered in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a great illustration of how entertainers should really stick to entertaining and not alienate their audience. I wish Natalie had kept her mouth shut and kept on playing they're great music. And, in hindsight, I wish Natalie had gotten her way and we had stayed out of any further involvement militarily in the Middle East. The region would be no worse off and thousands of young men and women in uniform would still be alive.

Take your same response and apply it to Milo.

Milo is the victim of a witch hunt.

It's not debatable.

Got it.

:rolleyes:
 
The human brain on average isn't fully formed until we are 25. There is probably a test we can take that gives our actual maturity to handle adult situations like war or sex or marriage.

I dont really have an argument just stream of conscience tonight.
Even later for some...
 
Not debatable?

Wow.

Again with the wow.

Are we now going to parse the semantics of witch hunt?

Do you not believe there were people waiting to pounce on this low hanging fruit (heh...) for political reasons more than ethical outrage, in order to silence him?

I suppose a master debater can debate anything, but it's self evident that he has political enemies who are only outraged because off his politics.

I've said nothing in defense of Milo on this topic, by the way. It is in fact indefensible, what he said.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Would Milo be receiving the same treatment if he were liberal espousing liberal views? I only became familiar with him when he was denied the opportunity to speak at Cornell (I believe) last year. Before then, I had never heard of him.
 
A gay conservative who fights dirty is a huge weapon out of our arsenal. Milo through his own view of self importance was blinded to how important he was to have under the group's umbrella. He let a lot of people down. Most importantly young sexually active gay males who need a responsible voice.

Hopefully he sees this and works to take himself and his mission whatever that is a little more seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Again with the wow.

Are we now going to parse the semantics of witch hunt?

Do you not believe there were people waiting to pounce on this low hanging fruit (heh...) for political reasons more than ethical outrage, in order to silence him?

I suppose a master debater can debate anything, but it's self evident that he has political enemies who are only outraged because off his politics.

I've said nothing in defense of Milo on this topic, by the way. It is in fact indefensible, what he said.

Pouncing on the morally indefensible things he said when they also think his political statements are also morally indefensible ain't a witch hunt. What's the alternative? Giving him a pass and not pouncing on the morally indefensible things BECAUSE they disagree with him politically.
 
Pouncing on the morally indefensible things he said when they also think his political statements are also morally indefensible ain't a witch hunt. What's the alternative? Giving him a pass and not pouncing on the morally indefensible things BECAUSE they disagree with him politically.

The alternative would be being consistent in expressing outrage over pedophelia or when it's not a political enemy who's said or done something unseemly.

It IS a witch hunt when you dogpile a guy you hate because the appearance of pedophelia endorsement is a handy pitchfork.

And I'm not referring to anyone on this board. Just pointing out the collective hypocrisy. If it makes you feel better - I feel the same way about people excusing him too easily because of his politics.

Neither are debatable. And again - I'm very disappointed in Milo over this. I love his basic anti-pc, f*** your feelings message. But this really caused me to lose respect for him.
 
Since no one seems to be willing to answer the questions I posed earlier, I will ask again.

Please defend Milo - based on his own claims of attending a Hollywood party where he says "very young boys" were made available for sex - and his inaction in not reporting what he witnessed to police.

IMHO, he's even far worse than McQueary at Penn State. At least McQueary reported what he witnessed to someone he thought had authority to do something about it.

If that alone doesn't set your hair-on-fire to condemn the guy, I don't know what would. I know what the reactions of everyone who posts here was in response to the moral failings of jo paterno and others for not reporting to police, but some of you are still going to stand in support of the guy who actually did worse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xl72qcu5isp39
Since no one seems to be willing to answer the questions I posed earlier, I will ask again.

Please defend Milo - based on his own claims of attending a Hollywood party where he says "very young boys" were made available for sex - and his inaction in not reporting what he witnessed to police.

IMHO, he's even far worse than McQueary at Penn State. At least McQueary reported what he witnessed to someone he thought had authority to do something about it.

If that alone doesn't set your hair-on-fire to condemn the guy, I don't know what would. I know what the reactions of everyone who posts here was in response to the moral failings of jo paterno and others for not reporting to police, but some of you are still going to stand in support of the guy who actually did worse?

Get a rope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xl72qcu5isp39
A gay conservative who fights dirty is a huge weapon out of our arsenal. Milo through his own view of self importance was blinded to how important he was to have under the group's umbrella. He let a lot of people down. Most importantly young sexually active gay males who need a responsible voice.

Hopefully he sees this and works to take himself and his mission whatever that is a little more seriously.

Yeah. Don't think he's explaining away his glee at giving blowjobs to a priest when he was 13 or enabling other molestations.

IMHO, he's even far worse than McQueary at Penn State. At least McQueary reported what he witnessed to someone he thought had authority to do something about it.

Yuppers. Pretty awful -- he saw it and did nothing, and was laughing/bragging about his own experiences with the priest.

The same people that have been breathlessly waiting on pizzagate to drop have this staring them in the face, now. They got their pedophile, but dadgummit it wasn't a democrat!

Also, the whole affair certainly puts a spotlight why some people are so upset and rabid about being PC. They want traditional sensitivities and values to be eroded so they can molest children. I've intuitively thought the anti-pc crowd was motivated by their own demons, but my gawd....
 
Since no one seems to be willing to answer the questions I posed earlier, I will ask again.

Please defend Milo - based on his own claims of attending a Hollywood party where he says "very young boys" were made available for sex - and his inaction in not reporting what he witnessed to police.

IMHO, he's even far worse than McQueary at Penn State. At least McQueary reported what he witnessed to someone he thought had authority to do something about it.

If that alone doesn't set your hair-on-fire to condemn the guy, I don't know what would. I know what the reactions of everyone who posts here was in response to the moral failings of jo paterno and others for not reporting to police, but some of you are still going to stand in support of the guy who actually did worse?
There is no defense in that and his attempt to say it was just bad wording rings false to me.

and there is no defense in anyone in Hollywood praising Roman Polanski .. They are worse than both of these .. Not only do they know it happened, they work with him, reward him and praise him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wyomingosualum
The alternative would be being consistent in expressing outrage over pedophelia or when it's not a political enemy who's said or done something unseemly.

It IS a witch hunt when you dogpile a guy you hate because the appearance of pedophelia endorsement is a handy pitchfork.

And I'm not referring to anyone on this board. Just pointing out the collective hypocrisy. If it makes you feel better - I feel the same way about people excusing him too easily because of his politics.

Neither are debatable. And again - I'm very disappointed in Milo over this. I love his basic anti-pc, f*** your feelings message. But this really caused me to lose respect for him.

Saying "neither is debatable" = you saying you're mind is made up.

Got it.

It is NOT a witch hunt....but duly noted as "not debatable".
 
Saying "neither is debatable" = you saying you're mind is made up.

Got it.

It is NOT a witch hunt....but duly noted as "not debatable".



So you think it is debatable? Are you saying that there are no political opportunists using Milo's self induced predicament for political capital? And are you also saying there are no Milo fanboys we're making excuses for him? Because I don't think those things are debatable at all.

I personally think you completely agree with me and are hung up on the semantics of a witchhunt
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
So you think it is debatable? Are you saying that there are no political opportunists using Milo's self induced predicament for political capital? And are you also saying there are no Milo fanboys we're making excuses for him? Because I don't think those things are debatable at all.

I personally think you completely agree with me and are hung up on the semantics of a witchhunt

Maybe I am hung up on the semantics, but semantics is the study of the meaning of words and I believe you are using a word that doesn't fit what is going on and doesn't accurately describe the actions in your first paragraph. I suspect, though certainly don't know, that you're doing it deliberately.

I am not saying that the people in your first paragraph don't exist. They do. I'm saying that's not a witch hunt. A witch hunt is victimizing an innocent individual with false and spurious accusations.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT