Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Victim Blaming

Milo did NOT say he was a pedophile. He said he was a victim of pedophilia, and yet he apparently accepted part of the blame. By saying that the situation was complex he admitted that, as a child, his behavior was confused, confusing, perhaps even sexual in nature. We don't know what happened.

Milo's Unpardonable Sin was to discuss it at all. The affect of pedophilia on the victim apparently may not be discussed.

I seriously hope that Milo regains his composure and fights back. The despicable shrieking field marshals of the Left have been circling him for a very long time, looking for the slightest crack in his seemingly impregnable persona. The false attack on pedophilia which does not exist in Milo (who outed at least three pedophiles, himself) has allowed them to point, scream, and to influence those who fear the pointing and screaming to run away and abandon him.

This entire display of Shrieking Virtue Signaling is obscene, especially being based purely on Victim Blaming. The onerous behavior of the "Conservatives" is especially vile.

We will find out whether the point-and-shriek offense is still effective enough to destroy their victim.

Personally, I support Milo.


ShadowWhoWalks said...

Milo is at least an apologist for child grooming. Making a career out of provocation and trolling the left (unfortunately antagonizing them is all it takes to become Conservative icon) doesn't mean you are consistent or a deep thinker; in fact intellectuals are satisfied with making people think deeply.

It is not accurate to say he is a pedophile (or Hebephile if we want to be technical on definitions of the subject matter. He is however a defender of them. He said that 13-25, 13-28 sexual relationships can happen perfectly consensually, and that the younger boy can often be the predator and the adults the victims.

I believe that it is quite clear that in the context of modern society claiming that 13 years olds can engage in sexual relationships with adults, or that they are ready to take responsibility, is simply enabling and defending sexual abuse.

It is true that Milo is a victim of a pedophile that raped him as a young man. However, he also defends the rape and subjugation of other children. Perhaps as a coping mechanism, but that doesn't excuse placing other children at risk by justifying the actions of dangerous men and women.


It is curious how Milo tries to hide what he really said, and that he profoundly apologies, yet insists at the end that he did nothing wrong. No matter how horny and egoistic he was; he slept with a man who took advantage of him which is not acceptable contrary to what he said.

Stan said...

"No matter how horny and egoistic he was; he slept with a man who took advantage of him which is not acceptable contrary to what he said."

Sooo - Do I have this right: the child actually IS to blame, then? That makes the child a perpetrator, rather than a victim, right? It means that the child does in fact possess self-responsibility, and should be prosecuted for his own rape? Which in turn means that the adult doesn't bear full responsibility, because the child is partly responsible... maybe even mostly responsible?

That seems a little dicey.

ShadowWhoWalks said...

Nope, your reading comprehension has room for improvement. The existance of blame was affirmed, which was then placed onto the predator who took advantage of the child.
This is, of course, contrary to Milo's position that there is no blame, as he asserts that children are perfectly capable of giving consent. In fact, Milo has made the claim that children can often be the predators instead, and the adults the victims. Needless to say, this radical and abuse-enabling view from Milo has sparked and outrage, and I hope your personal support of Milo is based on something better than that.

Steven Satak said...

I support Milo. For that matter, I support Bill Cosby, too. Getting it right most of the time does not imply that you are a perfect human being. Implying that Milo's got this wrong somehow invalidates everything else he's done? No. I am NOT throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Stan said...

Anyone who starts a comment with a cheesy, childish insult is not worth talking to: too immature. Too immature Leftist.

The tapes were obviously edited, cut and pasted to create statements not made. What Milo admits is that his wording was poor. He denies any pedophilic traits and he has outed three pedophiles with his journalism. The evidence is certainly in Milo's favor.

Yck said...

"Anyone who starts a comment with a cheesy, childish insult is not worth talking to: too immature. Too immature Leftist."

This is what you do most if the time you moronic piece of shit.

Robert Coble said...

DISQUALIFIED: failed to insert the obligatory "fuck" after every other word to demonstrate logical reasoning.

That's certainly an excellent display of "Ycky". It is always amazing that the pinnacles of Leftist virtue start and end with "shit."

Hey Yck: how about trying for a logical refutation of a position, any position, that Stan or others here have taken, rather than going straight to the Ad Hominem Abusive fallacy?

Yck said...

Why don't you ask Stan to do that!?! He spits out pointless attacks on everyone he disagrees with!! There's no rational argument to reply to!

ShadowWhoWalks said...

Reading comprehension is very relevant to discussion, even if I had to paint it in a negative light. To be honest I am bewildered by how you came with that conclusion about my position. Even if we assume the my last paragraph was ambiguous (which I believe it isn't), the previous paragraphs makes my position crystal clear.
You on the other hand attempt to guilt me by association, in essence the modus operandi is that if there is anything similar between the opponent and a commonly disliked group/movement, the arguer will disingenuously claim it is caused by the opponent's similarity. Not glorifying Milo doesn't mean I affiliate or even like the Left. You also attempt to avoid addressing the argument by attacking your perception of my tone; which is a classic ad hominem.

You can argue edited tapes, and yes there appear to be some deceptively edited footage. However that does not nearly answers all of the criticisms made against Milo. We should discuss the points made and not irrelevant footage not brought up in our conversation.


Yes, a case can be made that Milo is not pro-pedophilia on principle. The problem is that he praises specific forms of pedophilia. Milo defined pedophilia as attraction to those who haven't reached puberty and don't have functioning sex organs and are not able to understand; he excludes things such as 13 years old having sex with priests or teachers from the definition. Here we have a problem; according to Milo, a 13 years old being groomed to have sex with an adult is not pedophilia. Sure, it is illegal and considered pedophilia for just about anyone (good luck changing their definition), but it is not pedophilia to Milo. Apparently, it is also a good thing if it is consensual.
Do you not see any problem in Milo discussing how wonderful child molestation was for him and that it could be for other people? Who such statements can serve? Indeed, Milo glowingly claiming that a 13 years old child can be a sexual predator and give his full consent to a sexual relationship with an adult priest is a hard pill to swallow.


If you are praising someone's pedophilia, you can't simultaneously condemn pedophilia. For instance, when Rogan said that he was lucky he wasn't sexually abused when he attended Catholic school, Milo objected:
[i]"What do you mean you got lucky? You got unlucky! You didn’t get that taste of… Like I said earlier, if it weren’t for Father Michael, I would have given far less good head."[/i]

He also said that Father Michael was "a great priest. Honestly he was," and that he have "never had a better singing tutor," and that "he was great." Milo also insists that Father Michael didn't make him do anything and that he was actually enthusiastic [about getting molested]. This sounds very much so like a toxic NAMBLA argument, that the child wanted it and treasures the abuse.

Milo also refuses to divulge Father Michael's identity. He described him as attractive so he was probably young at the time; so how many children is he capable of grooming and abusing, how many have he groomed and abused over the years?
Milo also said that he knows famous Hollywood figures, that he doesn't want to name, involved with parties that have "very young boys" taking drugs and having unsafe sex with older men. He is apparently ok with being silent about that and not attempting to offer refuge to children getting drugged and ravished.

It is one thing to have sympathy since Milo clearly didn't get through his abuse. It is an other to stand with what he stands for.