Defence of principles vs ends justify the means.

The views aren't identified by the person. It's the other way around. That's my point. Lots of conservatives articulate views that Milo, a non conservative, articulated. It's okay to agree with someone on one point and disagree with them on another. It shouldn't matter who it is that says a horrible thing or an amazing thing. What should matter is the thing being said. And so when someone says great thing A, great thing A should still remain great regardless of the fact that that same person said horrible thing B.

In our current culture there appears to be a desire to form this pure society that is completely a self contradictory homogeneous mix of heterogeneousness. Ethnic group X all have to believe the same thing, or else they aren't a "real" ethic X. Gender A has to all believe that Gender A is oppressed by Gender B or else they've internalized their oppression etc...

It's a bogus way to argue.

 

The entire point is that it's possible to achieve a good end through bad means. It doesn't mean the end is bad. It means it's bad to do good things in bad ways.

Like my kidney example. Is it ethical to save a life by stealing a kidney? Is the saved life a good end?

 

Does your principle include punishing rape victims for the effects of their trauma?

See, two can play this stupid character assassination game. It's not going to convince either of us the other is right about all of the views that Milo expressed.