Censorship? CPAC axes Milo from speaking

[Garnier Fructis]

Also, I find it hilarious that all you guys can do is throw ad-hominems. For those watching, you're embarrassing those who are on your side.

For what it's worth, I doubt the existence of an undecided crowd to which embarrassment would actually be relevant.

[KrazyK923]

Also, I find it hilarious that all you guys can do is throw ad-hominems. For those watching, you're embarrassing those who are on your side.

Probably because you've made no argument whatsoever except for trying to drive the discussion to the middle with your pseudo-philosophical bullshit about "What IS normal, man?"

[Thage]

Can I get an "Explain it to me like I'm five" of the controversy now. Milo is involved in so many I cannot keep track.

Milo defended pedophilia in his usual manner of saying incendiary things to keep himself in the spotlight and his ego fed off the attention/outrage. The ACU got wind of it and nullified his invitation because that is a hand grenade you really don't want to pull the pin on when you're already getting slammed from all directions about the Cheeto Bandito's nonstop whirlwind of controversies.

Some people, mostly Milo's boot-licking toadies, are getting outraged because a private institution is showing him the door and crying censorship like it's some inherent evil rather than part of functioning in a society (it's when he starts getting legal action for what he says that it's a bridge too far; private institutions aren't required to give anyone a platform and can remove someone for disturbing their clientele).

[Underverse]

I don't think this substantially changes the argument, given that development is clearly not a binary outcome.

Because scientifically we know that adolescents' brains haven't fully matured yet.

I think my argument here was pretty solid. You'll have to elaborate a bit.

Tangentially, the state of brain development must be justified as a requisite for sexual interactions. One can't just start with that as a premise.

[Deleted]

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

Another leftist retard making strawmen, how surprising!

[KrazyK923]

Did you watch the video? The crux of it all comes at 4:32, when he mentions that in HIS mind it wasn't an abusive relationship he had with the priest because he, personally, was into sex with older men. Right or wrong, that was his experience. And as for not naming the priest, maybe do some research on sex abuse victims.

And him then saying on Joe Rogan he's been to multiple parties where underage boys were taking drugs and having sex with older men and not reporting them to the police? How will you spin that?

[Joeygiggles]

watch both videos, the edited one and non edited one

[Underverse]

Only one of us here is suggesting fucking children is okay.

Yeah gotta protect yourself from all those irrational people who will create a witch hunt against somebody advocating 13 year olds being able to consent to fuck adults.

Dang your shining armor is blinding me.

I'll just direct these comments to this post:

Also, I find it hilarious that all you guys can do is throw ad-hominems. For those watching, you're embarrassing those who are on your side.

[Deleted]

You're comparing a matter of brain development to a matter of brain structure.

A swing and a miss.

Semantics /10chars

[Mistame]

Legally there is a difference in someone accidentally killing other individual while being drunk and doing it while consciouss and sobre.

Um, the meat of that analogy was difference between an accident and murder, but OK.

In regards to sex with individuals below the age of consent there is no difference.

Yes, there absolutely is. Sex with a teenager yields a charge of statutory rape. The accused cannot legally be charged with "pedophilia" purely based on the fact that the victim is a teenager, not yet of the legal age of consent. Pedophilia refers to a mental condition that makes one attracted to prepubescent children. One cannot be a pedophile without having this condition, both in a legal and literal sense. In fact, "child molester" and "pedophile" are legally and literally exclusive terms. A person can be one without being the other.

To expand, from Wikipedia:

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse sometimes exhibit the disorder, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and the literature indicates the existence of pedophiles who do not molest children.

This article explains the point better than I've time to.

For some reason, when a man is found to be having consenting sex with a fully developed teenaged person in the United States, police attempt to brand the accused person as a paedophile to get themselves more attention and to further vilify the accused above and beyond the truth of the case. When the allegations “go over the top”, the case becomes unwinnable.

The strange and dangerously inaccurate fail is that the crime is often described by police and local media as pedophilia to get more national attention from the shock and awe they have created, meanwhile the list of allegedly known paedophiles is further diluted by another indiscriminate skirt chaser with maybe with bad eyes or bad judgment or both. Because the hyperbolic allegations are so extreme from the outset in the hope of getting a plea bargain, any random public defender can bring the matter to trial and win.

Too many of these cases are lost after dragging witnesses and families through the sensational American media muck. But in the event the prosecutor wins because of the public’s well-placed abhorrence for paedophiles, a statutory rapist is imprisoned as a paedophile and any data collected in the treatment of pedophillia is worthless and in fact corrupts the entire databank.

[KrazyK923]

I'll just direct these comments to this post:

>Says retardedly stupid shit about 13 year olds fucking adults
>People respond
>"LOL UR JUST EMBARASSING YOURSELVES!"

You're not exactly in a spot to be talking down to people about being an embarrassment.

[Underverse]

Probably because you've made no argument whatsoever except for trying to drive the discussion to the middle with your pseudo-philosophical bullshit about "What IS normal, man?"

It's not philosophical, or pseudo-philosophical. It might seem that way to those lacking information. I presented facts.

[KrazyK923]

It's not philosophical, or pseudo-philosophical. It might seem that way to those lacking information. I presented facts.

No, you didn't. You made a bunch of stupid pseudo-philosophical bullshit comments about "what really is normal, man?"

[Underverse]

>Says retardedly stupid shit
>People respond
>"LOL UR JUST EMBARASSING YOURSELVES!"

People respond with ad-hominems, you mean. If people responded with real arguments, I wouldn't laugh them off.

It sounds like I've gotten under your skin. Maybe you should work on your susceptibility to manipulation.

[Underverse]

No, you didn't. You made a bunch of stupid pseudo-philosophical bullshit comments about "what really is normal, man?"

Quote the post I made, I dare you. I want everyone to see what you're referring to so they can pity you.

[KrazyK923]

People respond with ad-hominems, you mean. If people responded with real arguments, I wouldn't laugh them off.

It sounds like I've gotten under your skin. Maybe you should work on your susceptibility to manipulation.

Nah its fun watching you defend pedophilia with your laughable, "but what IS normal, man? shouldn't we challenge that?" bullshit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I should also point out to everyone else this is a typical defense by sycophants of somebody they agree with getting criticized:

Spinning a thread out of context with stupid bullshit so that it gets closed.

[Underverse]

"Facts" you would rather not share with people you know irl because they might "react" But yes, that is on everyone else.

Correct. I would rather not discuss some facts with people I know in real life, because I know it would be upsetting to them. Do you have none of those?

I value my social contacts, and I respect their opinions.

[Underverse]

Don't fuck children seems like a legit argument to me.

That's not an argument. I will refer you here:

http://the-difference-between.com/statement/argument

[KrazyK923]

Uh no. I don't.

You mean you don't have secret thoughts that consent laws should be changed so that 13 year olds can fuck adults and it not be illegal?

Sheesh what a weirdo! Challenge the social norms and all that.

[Underverse]

Nah its fun watching you defend pedophilia with your laughable, "but what IS normal, man? shouldn't we challenge that?" bullshit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I should also point out to everyone else this is a typical defense by sycophants of somebody they agree with getting criticized:

Spinning a thread out of context with stupid bullshit so that it gets closed.

You're the only one doing that. I wanted to have a logical debate.