Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC slot amid tape controversy

Just curious but how about deciding to kill a baby that might have been created in 13 year old girl. Have their brains fully developed enough to have a consensual abortion?

 

What the hell are you even talking about?

What on God's green Earth made you think that this thread has anything to do with abortion?

But since you decided to chime in...Let's get to the actual topic, do you think that it is acceptable for a 28-year old to have sex with a 13-year old?

 

Of course there is - look up "consensual". The fact that a minor consents to sex is irrelevant under the law. Look up "statutory rape" while you are at it.

 

LOL! I just pointed out that you are either too chicken to say it - or too smart. I like to think it is the latter.

Anyone who advances malicious defamation aimed at the destruction of a successful young adult's career is on dangerous ground.
You are wise to disassociate yourself from the more libelous charges made against Milo Y.

 

Yes, Milo Y was apparently describing his own consensual sex with an adult. The adult involved committed a criminal act.

 

So, what you say implies several things.

• Most 22-year olds' and even some 25-year olds' brains are still developing. By your definition they are still children.
  Do you then argue 22-year olds cannot give consent when involved with 27-year olds?
  
• You state that unequal power dynamics negate the possibility of consent.
  Would you say that, except when we are with complete equals, consent is impossible?
  If not, how does an unequal power dynamic become irrelevant in adults?
  If so, wouldn't that imply that an employed wife could conceivably be automatically guilty of rape when having sex with her dependent and unemployed husband?
  
• As someone who had power over teenagers, both as a teacher and as a parent, I often tried to get them to do their homework.
  Would you say the 13-year olds (whose brains were not fully formed) were incapable of consenting to do their homework?
  Would you say I had excessive influence due to my fully developed brain and my position as teacher?
  If so, why did so many of these 13-year olds refuse to do their homework on so many occasions?
  If not, why is consent to do homework (which most teenagers generally do not want) so different from consent to have sex (which most teenagers - boys at least - generally want)?

Frankly, I think the problem with your argument is that you want to reduce this to absolutes. In some situations you are correct, but in some situations you are wrong. I even can understand the stance that even though some 13-year olds can consent, it is safest always to work from the assumption they cannot.

Either way, the absolutism is not supportable.

In reality,13-year olds are all different - just like everybody else. Likewise the dynamics of their relationships are also different.
Absolutely, some teenagers are manipulated by older people, pressured by the inequality of the power dynamic, etc. I see nobody arguing that it never happens.

It is equally the case that some teenagers, 13-year olds included, are on the powerful end of the relationship with an older person, and these teenagers are the ones who do the manipulating. (This is part of why I wrote in an earlier post that it is insane for anyone to be sexually intimate with a teen. Any capability to manipulate their partner is most likely untethered by insight, foresight, or scruples.)

Implicit in the absolutism of your argument is the assumption that the adult has an independent desire for the sex, but the teen does not, and as a result, the relationship must be coercive in order for the teen to participate. Again, this is unrealistic. As someone who clearly remembers being a 13-year old boy, I know I wanted sex, and I did not want it with other 13 year olds, but with many of the adults I knew. What I wanted was for the women I found attractive to consent. (They did not.) I was way past consent and moving into manipulation.

Absence of condemnation is not the equivalent of approbation.

I did not see/hear where he said it is acceptable, only that as a teen, he liked Father Michael, and that the older men in the relationship provide guidance and affection. (Please, forgive my paraphrasing.) Do you mean to say that a 13-year old cannot possibly get something positive out of the situation? That does not equate to Milo being in favor of the practice, nor does it equate to him justifying it.

Consider, I knew a guy who was a Ranger during the Viet Nam War. Ron told me he loved the non-stop adrenaline rush. He discussed the relationships he had with men in his unit, and described the closeness and support they provided each other as an absolute good, completely unavailable outside of the context of combat. He talked about how being in war developed his character in positive ways, made him stronger, more willing to sacrifice for others, and more appreciative. Ron was not expressing that he thought war is a good thing, even though he never once said it was awful.

Look, I am not in favor of 13-year olds having sexual relationships with anybody, but I am also against oversimplifying social relationships for the sake of justifying a thoughtless and unconsidered assumption or a moral judgment developed without acknowledgment of the complexities of free will.

If you want to deal with real life, even in a discussion, you need to be willing to work with its complexities in nuanced ways.

 

Cogent.

 

The point was obviously about the relationship of free will, judgment, consent, law, and irony.

 

How many different ways are right wingers going to find to excuse these pedophile remarks from this creep?

 

Then you have no buisness being within earshot of a child, much less within arm's length.

You betcher sweet bippy I do.

 

Well it's been years in the making but we finally agree on something, yguy.

 

It has to do with your stating that a child does not possess the emotional or mental maturity to make a judgement about consensual sex. I AGREE with you. So how about having an abortion, do they possess the emotional and mental maturity to make that judgement too>

Of course not as stated above, do you believe it is acceptable for that 13 to choose to have an abortion without parental notification?

 

No, they do not.

Again, this is just off topic.

 

It is amusing to watch what passes for a progressive left pretend to care about the welfare of children. They have created an America that encourages free range pedophiles with catch and release "justice". "Progressive" schools systems lock up children in schools that are built like prisons and graduate illiterates.

And you are correct to point out that a society that likes and cares about children does not abort millions of pregnancies. What is not 30 million?

 

This rings hollow coming from a guy mounting a defense for Milo Yiannopoulos and his advocacy for adult/child sex.

 

In fact, Milo Y has denounced pedophilia. OTH, in America, convicted child predators are released to prey on more children. Why do you insist on carrying on with this phony outrage act?
Your only issue with Milo is his support for Trump.

 

It specifically addresses what you stated about the mental and emotional readiness of teenagers to make such choices. Do you support parental notification?

 

Pretty sure tomfoo13ry doesn't qualify as a leftist, "progressive" or otherwise.

 

If you bothered to read my posts, (assuming you understood them and actually thought about them) you would have noticed that I have not excused Yiannapoulos. I have merely questioned the unexamined assumptions used to condemn him.

I do not care about Milo Yiannapoulos, but I care very much about whether people think, and how well they think.

Because people want to condemn without actually thinking, they assume that lack of clear condemnation is the same as approbation. This is logically faulty. Try thinking about what Ron, the Viet Nam veteran I knew, said about war, and the fact that he did not mean to say war is a good thing.

Consider that the basis for the condemnation of Yiannapoulos is a set of cultural assumptions about the age of consent, which have varied from puberty to 21, depending on culture and time period.

Surely any condemnation of the behavior must be based on some absolute and consistent moral standard, but the cultural and historical variation clearly indicates there is not.

Surely there must be some ultimate scientific or philosophical basis for the knee-jerk condemnation and moral outrage, but there are underlying questions about free will, self-determination, and what constitutes power and influence.

Let us start with a universal definition of adulthood and childhood. At what point does adulthood begin? Why then?

Let us continue with the basic question of whether people actually own themselves? If we do own ourselves, when does that start? If we do not own ourselves, then who does?
Do 5-year olds own themselves?
How would we decide?
Is there a continuum of progressive self-ownership? What things do we own on the youngest end of the continuum? What things do we own on the oldest end of the continuum?
What do we do with people of any age who disagree about whether they own themselves?
Obviously and unapologetically, we use physical control, often including violence (spankings), when a 5-year old insists he owns himself and runs toward traffic. Should we use physical restraints, and possibly violence when 13-year olds run toward the metaphoric traffic of sex?
At what point does a person own himself or herself enough that physical restraint and violence are no longer morally/ethically valid methods of control, such that we must now engage their free will by offering incentives for compliance?
Does free will automatically and necessarily imply de facto self-ownership?
Are good intentions valid moral/ethical excuse for denying (or interfering with) someone else's self-ownership?
Is love (of any kind-parental, romantic, compassion, etc.) a valid moral/ethical mandate (or excuse) for denying (or interfering with) someone else's self-ownership?
Does love (of any kind-parental, romantic, compassion, etc.) necessitate the support of someone else's self-ownership?

How would you answer these questions?

 

So what are your answers to the questions?
•Does a 5-year old own himself/herself? On what is your answer based?

By your own argument, if you cannot answer, then you have no business being within earshot of a child, much less within arm's length.

While you are at it, you may have thoughts about the rest of these questions.

•Is there a continuum of progressive self-ownership? What things do we own on the youngest end of the continuum? What things do we own on the oldest end of the continuum?
•What do we do with people of any age who disagree about whether they own themselves?
•Obviously and unapologetically, we use physical control, often including violence (spankings), when a 5-year old insists he owns himself and runs toward traffic. Should we use physical restraints, and possibly violence when 13-year olds run toward the metaphoric traffic of sex?
•At what point does a person own himself or herself enough that physical restraint and violence are no longer morally/ethically valid methods of control, such that we must now engage their free will by offering incentives for compliance?
•Does free will automatically and necessarily imply de facto self-ownership?
•Are good intentions valid moral/ethical excuse for denying (or interfering with) someone else's self-ownership?
•At what point does adulthood start?

Are you a thinking person, or do you just throw out unconsidered judgments as a knee-jerk reaction?

 

Yes, he denounced pedophilia by making a distinction between pedophilia and an adult having sex with a 13-year old. He still thinks that sex between an adult and a 13-year old child can be acceptable and beneficial to the child.

 

I don't support abortion. Never have.

Which makes it curious why you would skip over all of the comments defending Milo's disgusting position to ask me about it, when you say you agree with me.

You thought you had a gotcha' moment, eh?

 

If you bothered to read my posts, (assuming you understood them and actually thought about them) you would have noticed that I have not excused Yiannapoulos. I have merely questioned the unexamined assumptions used to condemn him.

Whether you mean to or not (and I think you mean to) you are defending his repugnant statements

 

I find it fascinating (and appalling) the Milo apologists are working the language angle of nuance that pederasty skating the razor's edge of pedophilia

is the place to plant their flag in this discussion.

 

He denounced pedophilia!!

Say the Milo defenders.

Q for you razor-edgers: Some boys will start producing sperm at 9 years old -- are they within limits for Milo, I wonder?

How about the 15 year old who is a late bloomer -- and hasn't reached puberty? Sex with him would be pedophilia, would it?