Censorship? CPAC axes Milo from speaking

[NED funded]

I have not seen anyone either in the video or within the comments in this thread defend paedophilia. Yet somehow all conservatives and anyone defending Milo are now paedophile apologists. This is classic leftist public shaming bullshit used to shut down anyone they disagree with.

Defending Milo in this case is defending Milo's position. Milo argues for hebephilia (I have to really check that term).

[anyaka21]

I'm sorry but your theory is patently false as Milo has been known to be quite the raging twatwaffle since before he came to the US.

I know plenty of openly gay "conservatives" and they are a small sub-section of the LGBT community who seem to worship the ground Milo walks on. A lot of their views seem to revolve around trying to desperately find acceptance in the conservative/republican crowd in an attempt to win validation from peers and conservative family members. They also happen to be overwhelmingly white gay men for some reason who seem to think I will start chucking them off the nearest roof in the near future with my sharia powers.

It would be one thing if Milo advocated more for conservative fiscal or social values but he doesn't. His viewpoints are not cohesive as he's this weird blend of a self-loathing gay man/MRA activist/anti-feminist/anti-trans rights/anti-SJW/ basically saying whatever his audience wants to hear or saying the most controversial thing he can think of to troll Liberals or even members of his own "community".

While I think his views are asinine I can't fault him for abusing an easily entertained audience that earns him money in the process. It's a marketing gimmick and he's milking it hard.

Not that I completely disagree with you, but peoples beliefs or values, or whatever you want to call it, many times do not tow party lines. You can we a conservative and be for gay rights, for gay marriage, etc... You can be a liberal but against immigration, or whatever values you throw out there.

But I think it's disingenuous to call someone not cohesive because he doesn't necessarily follow the the so-called strict republican agenda.

[Mormolyce]

LOL wtf is that supposed to mean? All conservatives are paedophiles now? Along with being sexist misogynists and racists?

You lefties so desperately love your labels.

You guys sound tired. It's exhausting keeping up with the amount of apologising you have to do for these people, isn't it?

[alexw]

Seriously, you guys on the left are unbelievable. So by your reasoning, Democrats are all paedophiles because Anthony Weiner?

Where the fuck did I say all republicans are pedophiles?

My comments were 100% about their defending it. Which is what they were doing.

Oh and Antony Weiner is a fantastic example of the sort of thing I mean. I have not seen any left-wingers on these boards defend what he did. None. Zero. Zilch. Yet this thread is chock full of right-wingers defending Milo's comments in one form or other. It just shows how loathsome they have become, that they will defend pedophilia.

[Torto]

Where the fuck did I say all republicans are pedophiles?

My comments were 100% about their defending it. Which is what they were doing.

Oh and Antony Weiner is a fantastic example of the sort of thing I mean. I have not seen any left-wingers on these boards defend what he did. None. Zero. Zilch. Yet this thread is chock full of right-wingers defending Milo's comments in one form or other. It just shows how loathsome they have become, that they will defend pedophilia.

Okay, lets break it down. You say this:

So another conservative defending pedophilia. Can't say I'm surprised.

So you're either not surprised that conservatives defend paedophiles or that paedophiles are all conservatives. Nice one. I'm a conservative, are you going to accuse me of supporting paedophilia?

If you had said "Anyone defending Milo's comments are supporting paedophilia" then that's different. But no you didn't go there, you wanted to paint your ideological opponents with the same disgusting brush. It's a common leftist tactic and it's as dishonest as it is pathetic. Me saying all lefties support paedophilia because of Weiner makes about as much sense as your comment.

[PosPosPos]

Okay, lets break it down. You say this:



So you're either not surprised that conservatives defend paedophiles or that paedophiles are all conservatives. Nice one. I'm a conservative, are you going to accuse me of supporting paedophilia?

If you had said "Anyone defending Milo's comments are supporting paedophilia" then that's different. But no you didn't go there, you wanted to paint your ideological opponents with the same disgusting brush. It's a common leftist tactic and it's as dishonest as it is pathetic. Me saying all lefties support paedophilia because of Weiner makes about as much sense as your comment.

Do you not understand that just because conservatives are known to defend sexual predators does not equate to all of them do? Now you are making things up.

[alexw]

Okay, lets break it down. You say this:



So you're either not surprised that conservatives defend paedophiles or that paedophiles are all conservatives. Nice one. I'm a conservative, are you going to accuse me of supporting paedophilia?

If you had said "Anyone defending Milo's comments are supporting paedophilia" then that's different. But no you didn't go there, you wanted to paint your ideological opponents with the same disgusting brush. It's a common leftist tactic and it's as dishonest as it is pathetic. Me saying all lefties support paedophilia because of Weiner makes about as much sense as your comment.

In the context of this thread.

I saw conservatives defending Milo's comments about pedophilia.

Then another conservative comes along and defends his comments.

I reply "So another conservative defending pedophilia. Can't say I'm surprised."

And I'm not because there has been plenty of them doing it.

Nowhere have I said they are pedophiles.

Nowhere have I said ALL conservatives defend pedophilia.

Now whether you yourself want to defend pedophilia, that's entirely up to you.

[Torto]

Do you not understand that just because conservatives are known to defend sexual predators does not equate to all of them do? Now you are making things up.

Omfg what? Did just claim that conservatives defend sexual predators then accuse me of making things up? That would have to be the most deliciously ironic thing I've read on these forums yet.

- - - Updated - - -

In the context of this thread.

I saw conservatives defending Milo's comments about pedophilia.

Then another conservative comes along and defends his comments.

I reply "So another conservative defending pedophilia. Can't say I'm surprised."

And I'm not because there has been plenty of them doing it.

Nowhere have I said they are pedophiles.

Nowhere have I said ALL conservatives defend pedophilia.

Now whether you yourself want to defend pedophilia, that's entirely up to you.

Yes I understand the context in which you made the comment. Yet it doesn't change the fact that there is still implied connotations in your comment. You keep using the word paedophilia even tho that is the wrong terminology, but it suits your purpose to conflate paedophiles with conservatives.

Perhaps you could tell us why were you not surprised?

[alexw]

Omfg what? Did just claim that conservatives defend sexual predators then accuse me of making things up? That would have to be the most deliciously ironic thing I've read on these forums yet.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes I understand the context in which you made the comment. Yet it doesn't change the fact that there is still implied connotations in your comment. You keep using the word paedophilia even tho that is the wrong terminology, but it suits your purpose to conflate paedophiles with conservatives.

Perhaps you could tell us why were you not surprised?

????? Did I not already do that in the above post -

Then another conservative comes along and defends his comments.

I reply "So another conservative defending pedophilia. Can't say I'm surprised."

And I'm not because there has been plenty of them doing it.

[niil945]

Yes I accept that point, both the left and right are guilty of cheering their side even if it means ignoring their principles. In your example, the left demonise Trump for his pussy grabbing antics yet cheer Bill Clinton whenever he walks on stage.

However your comment was clumsy and implied all conservatives tacitly approve of paedophilia.

Monica Lewinsky's relationship with Clinton was consensual. Even then, the right is the group that pretends to be the platform of traditional family values. I know plenty of folks with open relationships, and while it's not for me it's also not something I'm going to judge people for. The left, generally speaking, doesn't care because they don't care who sleeps with who beyond the gossip factor. They care when it's not consensual which is exactly why the left was outraged about Trumplethinskin. There is zero hypocrisy in that point of view and it's actually in support of the principles espoused by the left, and that's prettymuch what people choose to do in their personal life sexually and medically is none of the government's business.

[analmoose]

Do you think adults (18+) should be able to fuck 13 year olds?

Completely depends on the 13 year old. I know some that are sexually active, and far more intelligent / mature than the 23 year old I'm with. I was quite capable of making the decision at 13, and I had started before then, with people my own age. Age is arbitrary

[Themius]

Completely depends on the 13 year old. I know some that are sexually active, and far more intelligent / mature than the 23 year old I'm with. I was quite capable of making the decision at 13, and I had started before then, with people my own age. Age is arbitrary

... age isn't arbitrary, especially when we're fucking talking about a 13 year old.

[Torto]

????? Did I not already do that in the above post -

Then another conservative comes along and defends his comments.

I reply "So another conservative defending pedophilia. Can't say I'm surprised."

And I'm not because there has been plenty of them doing it.

Ugh I can see this devolving into a circular conversation.

[Canpinter]

see you didn't need to riot and use violence to make milo into a joke, just needed to let him run his mouth off enough

[PosPosPos]

Ugh I can see this devolving into a circular conversation.

It's a circular argument because you refuse to apply basic comprehension. Nobody said all conversatives support sexual predators or anything remotely similar.

[NED funded]

Completely depends on the 13 year old. I know some that are sexually active, and far more intelligent / mature than the 23 year old I'm with. I was quite capable of making the decision at 13, and I had started before then, with people my own age. Age is arbitrary

Ok, whatever floats your boat man. Seems a morally bankrupt decision to me, but I'm not really into arguing why a 40 year old should not fuck a 13 year old.

[Dhrizzle]

Completely depends on the 13 year old. I know some that are sexually active, and far more intelligent / mature than the 23 year old I'm with. I was quite capable of making the decision at 13, and I had started before then, with people my own age. Age is arbitrary

Some places have laws and protections that accept that 13-year-olds may experiment with other children around the same age, but they get thrown out of the window when one person is significantly older, that's when it goes from "kids will be kids" to a predatory relationship.

[Underverse]

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to justify some fucked up thoughts you have.

What a great counterargument.

I have no desire to engage in these kinds of behaviors. Just like I have no desire to sleep with my twin brother; however I will argue in favor of legalizing incest under certain conditions.

I encourage you to try having an open mind.

[Underverse]

I don't think anything is wrong with incest between consenting adults as long as they don't have children. The reason I would never support it's legalization though is that it could encourage older family members to groom younger family members because they know when they're old enough, it'll be legal. Obviously you could make laws against that but how can you really enforce them? You can't.

Incest laws are already rarely enforced, yet grooming is essentially nonexistent. Secondly, if you can define grooming as a set of behaviors, you can legislate around it; if a family member suspects grooming, for example, they can take someone to court over it. Third, I'm not certain that grooming has so many harms associated with it as you seem to be assuming. And fourth, I think you're overestimating how easy it is to groom someone. What 15 year old listens to their parents? In fact, as soon as kids hit puberty they generally become extremely recalcitrant to parental oversight.

But yeah, not having an open mind about pedos.

You realize you ca have an open mind and still come to the same conclusion, right? Not having an open mind is like sticking your head in the sand. Maybe the answer will turn out to be what you thought it was. And maybe not.

I do agree some younger people could be mature enough for such a decision, but it's such a small number of them that it's a shit argument. We have to draw the line somewhere, so preferably the age at which at least hopefully 95%+ of the people are mature enough to make such decisions rather than <5%.

These aren't something you can evaluate on a case by case basis in any realistic sense.

Let's back up for a moment. What maturity level is required for making this kind of decision, and why? You're still making unsupported assumptions. Would it not be better for young people to be learn and understand these behaviors in a controlled setting, rather than disobeying their parents, experimenting on their own and getting diseases and pregnancies with other young folk who have equally little information?

I don't see why the blind must lead the blind.

[analmoose]

Statistically speaking, almost all people that age are not mature enough. So, better to draw the line at age where almost all of them, wouldn't you say?

I would agree, but definitely don't think that 18 is the right answer. 15 seems more appropriate, and obviously case by case basis. A 30 year old dick does the same thing as a 15 year old one. If you're being coerced into it, it is wrong regardless of age.

In reality the only time this ever matters is when something is wrong. Rape, blackmail, whatever. At least where I live, 20 year olds being in relationships with 14 year olds is quite common. The parents give their consent, as well as the two in question, and everyone lives their life. The only time anyone outside those immediately involved should stick their nose into the business is when the relationship isn't mutual