• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Milo Yiannopoulos, Frequent Defender of Pedophilia

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ratrat

Member
PhilOsophy what the hell are you doing man?

I don't think calling Mess out on his religion on public forum is the right thing. I'm a Christian but it doesn't mean I believe gay people are a sin. If you wanted to ask him something like that a PM would have been much better if understanding is what you seek.
I dont think you are a Christian then. Sorry.
 
Just out of curiousity Mess, you are a Muslim, is that correct? Well didn't the prophet Muhammed enter into marriage with a 7 year old? Do you yourself condemn that behaviour as well?

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

Can you state the inaccuracies in that for me please if there is any?^

I'm not a Muslim but I'll chime in here. Your trying to judge previous cultures and civilizations on modern standards of living. Therefore, if marriage to a 9 year old was a normative practice throughout various civilisations over 14 centuries ago, then it is just as valid as current legislation in the UK etc... Also your source is anti-islamic as fuck. Jesus.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Aaaand derail complete. Well done.

Now we can stop talking about how Milo is a goddamn child molestation apologist.
 
Is there a short summary of the timeline for this right now or did everything happen within the last 24 hours?

He's now attacking Republicans as well?
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Again, taking my post completely out of context to try and start a dogpile, the question is relevant in regards to Islam as mess is condemning pedophilia and I want his stance on it
Then literally PM him about it instead of randomly bringing up a user's religion! It's not that hard a thought process goddamn.
 

Boem

Member
I dont think you are a Christian then. Sorry.

I dont think you are a good person then. Sorry.





Seriously, wtf at this post, and wtf at this entire thread? Bunch of religious experts in here, trying to define how others should or shouldn't practice their religion. It's not like there are thousands of branches of Christianity or Islam all with their own interpretations let alone whatever someone on their own makes of it ooooh wait

You can believe in God or Allah without prescribing to everything else every other person believing in God or Allah believes in. This is elementary school stuff guys, come on.

My girlfriend is Muslim. Doesn't eat pork. Prays sometimes. Drinks Alcohol. Doesn't wear a headscarf. Loves gay people and doesn't want to convert/blow up infidels.

Now tell me she isn't a real Muslim. I dare you.
 

Ratrat

Member
Is there a short summary of the timeline for this right now or did everything happen within the last 24 hours?

He's now attacking Republicans as well?
From what I gather he made these statements on some Republican show and they outted him on twitter. Yes, in the last 24 hours. The fallout is going to be delicious.

what are you even doing
Its in the Bible ain't it? I was raised Christian which didn't make being gay very nice. Actually I still haven't come out to my family as I know the consequences.
Yay, Im a bad person!
 
I have already made abundantly clear I am not defending Milo, so please stop with that, it's disingenuous, I have questioned WHY Milo is defending it however.

I am asking questions, why is it considered an "attack" to question the scripture of an ideology and individuals who follow it? I want to know how he feels about it, the questions spoke for themselves.

YOU are the one taking offense to it right now, I didn't assume he was ok with Pedophilia, that's why I asked him "Do you yourself condemn that behaviour as well?"

And if he doesn't, then what? Are you fishing for some sort of gotcha moment here?

Edit: Good. Jeez that was stupid.
 

RM8

Member
For better or worse, people don't adhere 100% percent to their respective religious texts.

Was it really necessary to derail the thread like that?
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Here's a post about you agreeing with Richard Dawkins, who once defended pedophilia.

You have no problem with this being brought up, right? Since this forum encourages any and all avenues of discussion apparently, regardless of how relevant it is to the topic at hand?

The point you are trying to make, I think is the same as philosophy tried to make, being:
It is a faulty claim to say that agreeing to a person on matter A means to also agree with him on unrelated matter B, or the converse, for a person to be wrong on matter B necessarily means the person must also be wrong on matter A. He accused Mess of using this line of argument, which he wanted to demonstrate to be faulty by showing to him that Mess himself agrees on many points with a person that also happens to be an unagreeable position on the very topic, pedophilia, discussed in this topic. So your post is actually supporting philosophy's point as I understand it.

And let me add to this: I agree on many many points with Richard Dawkins, but not on pedophilia or monarchy. I don't know a single thing that I agree with Milo on, but there might be some things I agree with him on, independent of what else he thinks.
 

Sou Da

Member
I have already made abundantly clear I am not defending Milo, so please stop with that, it's disingenuous, I have questioned WHY Milo is defending it however.

I am asking questions, why is it considered an "attack" to question the scripture of an ideology and individuals who follow it? I want to know how he feels about it, the questions spoke for themselves.

YOU are the one taking offense to it right now, I didn't assume he was ok with Pedophilia, that's why I asked him "Do you yourself condemn that behaviour as well?"

Clearly you were unclear about it before this thread that has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. If that's the case, then why did you not ask him about privately before this thread?

Why did you come to this thread, single him out, and say "hey your prophet was probably a pedophile, why are you okay with that and not this?" Do you genuinely expect to believe that the ideas of Islam and pedophilia never crossed your mind until this thread?

Do you actually think I'm that gullible?

EDIT: I didn't see the ban, gonna stay on topic now.
 
So, I heard that that British troll who claims to be a journalist regularly defends pedophilia?

It might be interesting to hear about that.
 

Zen Aku

Member
Its in the Bible ain't it? I was raised Christian which didn't make being gay very nice. Actually I still haven't come out to my family as I know the consequences.
Yay, Im a bad person!
The Bible like any other religious text (any text really) has different translation depends on the person.

It's a shame you were raised to fear and shunned people such as yourself but it doesn't mean every Christian believe in the same thing you or your family do. To be honest, if your family doesn't truly accept you for who you are, then they don't deserve you anyway.


And that's the last I'll say about that.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
For better or worse, people don't adhere 100% percent to their respective religious texts.

Was it really necessary to derail the thread like that?
Considering that dude was one of the "nowthetimetobereasonable™" people in the other Milo thread, seems it was in his best interest to try and fuck up this one too. Good riddance, on topic, FUCK MILO, super glad this backfired on him.
 
So fucking glad that kind of attention starved derailment isn't tolerated here.

Also child rapists, which Milo is advocating here, are so goddamn digusting. Go fuck yourself Milo.
 

Boem

Member
Its in the Bible ain't it? I was raised Christian which didn't make being gay very nice. Actually I still haven't come out to my family as I know the consequences.
Yay, Im a bad person!

People can't tell your lifestory from that post you made and we commented on. As you wrote it, without context or any hint at irony, it was nothing but a rude statement where you claimed someone didn't deserve to call himself a Christian because he has his own interpretation of his religion (as many, many people do). You don't do that man.

The fact that it was a sarcastic comment coming from your own background was impossible to see. It was just a bit of a dick comment without that.

That said, good luck with your own identity and the struggles in your environment.

As someone whose girlfriend has too often been described as 'Not a real Muslim' or 'One of the good ones', that shit gets to me. Nobody gets to define another person's faith or philosophy for them.
 
The point you are trying to make, I think is the same as philosophy tried to make, being:
It is a faulty claim to say that agreeing to a person on matter A means to also agree with him on unrelated matter B, or the converse, for a person to be wrong on matter B necessarily means the person must also be wrong on matter A. He accused Mess of using this line of argument, which he wanted to demonstrate to be faulty by showing to him that Mess himself agrees on many points with a person that also happens to be an unagreeable position on the very topic, pedophilia, discussed in this topic. So your post is actually supporting philosophy's point as I understand it.

And let me add to this: I agree on many many points with Richard Dawkins, but not on pedophilia or monarchy. I don't know a single thing that I agree with Milo on, but there might be some things I agree with him on, independent of what else he thinks.

Mess didn't use that line of argument, he found it suspect that people get so bent out of shape over a blanket term. It was just a passing comment.

Phil0sophy brought up something completely unrelated as a gotcha moment, and I did the same thing to him to show him how hypocritical he was being. That doesn't support his point.
 

Gattsu25

Banned
Well, now that the baseless thread derail is averted...
When people start going into semantics about the term, and start discussing hebephilia (11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19), it's time to be really suspicious of what they're trying to normalise and it's all still sex with minors by older people.
Agreed. Also, with his last comment, he's trying to pre-prejudice people's opinions so that they don't feel the need to watch the video of him defending adult men sleeping with minors.
 

Fantastapotamus

Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
I'm shocked that it turns out that the scumbag asshole who always acted like a scumbag asshole is indeed a scumbag asshole. Fuck Milo
 
Well, now that the baseless thread derail is averted...
Agreed. Also, with his last comment, he's trying to pre-prejudice people's opinions so that they don't feel the need to watch the video of him defending adult men sleeping with minors.

While I think the younger the victim the more awful the crime and see the desire for a distinction, I'm okay with pedophilia being the blanket term.

Thinking a physically mature fifteen year old (say) is attractive is one thing. Advocating letting them get into relationship with an adult is not. We already recognize the harm of relationships with an imbalance of power (teacher / student, prison guard / inmate) and how you can't truly get consent in such situations.

Coming out of such a relationship unharmed (as troll boy evidently did) doesn't undo that the adult in the relationship had absolutely no guarantee that serious harm wouldn't occur. It's sort of like arguing that Russian roulette isn't dangerous because when you played you didn't get shot.

And yes, I don't think pedophiles choose to find young children attractive, and I can have a degree of empathy for that, but you can't budge an inch on anyone who acts on those desires, because we can't tolerate behavior that will almost certainly cause severe harm to innocents.

So sure, maybe we use lighter punishments for hebephiles that aren't likely to cause as much harm as a pedophile, but you're still talking about a high risk for harm in both cases.
 

Ratrat

Member
Fuck Milo!

People can't tell your lifestory from that post you made and we commented on. As you wrote it, without context or any hint at irony, it was nothing but a rude statement where you claimed someone didn't deserve to call himself a Christian because he has his own interpretation of his religion (as many, many people do). You don't do that man.

The fact that it was a sarcastic comment coming from your own background was impossible to see. It was just a bit of a dick comment without that.

That said, good luck with your own identity and the struggles in your environment.

As someone whose girlfriend has too often been described as 'Not a real Muslim' or 'One of the good ones', that shit gets to me. Nobody gets to define another person's faith or philosophy for them.
Dont agree with it all but thatnks for the thoughtful reply.
 

SaniOYOYOY

Member
Just out of curiousity Mess, you are a Muslim, is that correct? Well didn't the prophet Muhammed enter into marriage with a 7 year old? Do you yourself condemn that behaviour as well?

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia

Can you state the inaccuracies in that for me please if there is any?^

If you do condemn it then why are you a follower of Islam? I mean every argument I have seen lately involves 'If you agree with (insert person here) and some of their beliefs are disagreeable to the group think then you must be guilty by association' does this pattern of thinking follow in this instance as well?

Or is this different?


And before I get dogpiled, let me just say, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me here and religion is an ideology, it's free to be criticised, unless of course criticising ideas is outlawed now?

It sounds to me as well that Milo may have faced abuse himself at a young age, hence why he is trying to normalize it, sadly these things are commonplace in the world and in all religion where it is easy to hide behind faith to justify horrible behaviour.

I find it morally wrong that Milo is justifying this but I am also questioning WHY he is.

I can inform you guys about this (I also practice Islam).

Prophet Mohammad marriage to Aisha was a political one (to strengthen the bond with his ally Abu Bakr as he was Aisha's father) even the idea was suggested from one of his companion not the prophet himself . Moreover he only consummate her when she reaches puberty anyway. Fyi he stayed monogamy until his first wive dies, and attempt polygamy really just for political reason and/or freeing women from slavery. even so polygamy was considered normal back then

so yeah

edit: moreover, the age when the marriage happened was also only ever documented in Ibn Hisham's Hadist. and CIMMW : his hadist is not among the strong one (sahih), so we dont really know
 

Fuchsdh

Member
We're giving him attention, which is exactly what he wants!

Normally this may be true. It's not when we're talking about stuff he doesn't want broadcast. Try again.

I can inform you guys about this (I also practice Islam).

Prophet Mohammad marriage to Aisha was a political one (to strengthen the bond with his ally Abu Bakr as he was Aisha's father) even the idea was suggested from one of his companion not the prophet himself . Moreover he only consummate her when she reaches puberty anyway. Fyi he stayed monogamy until his first wive dies, and attempt polygamy really just for political reason and/or freeing women from slavery. even so polygamy was considered normal back then

so yeah

This isn't even a Muslim thing. When people see the ages princes and princesses were married off in the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, they tend to freak out, but they were generally political alliances and in most cases didn't even see each other until much later, let alone consummate the marriage. Don't get me wrong, to modern sensibilities it's still kind of messed up and abuse of children (leaving aside the issues institutional power have in shielding pedophiles from justice, whether in secular or religious institutions), but I'm not sure how this whole line of thought relates to Milo defending modern-day pederasty.
 

KoopaTheCasual

Junior Member
While I think the younger the victim the more awful the crime and see the desire for a distinction, I'm okay with pedophilia being the blanket term.

Thinking a physically mature fifteen year old (say) is attractive is one thing. Advocating letting them get into relationship with an adult is not. We already recognize the harm of relationships with an imbalance of power (teacher / student, prison guard / inmate) and how you can't truly get consent in such situations.

Coming out of such a relationship unharmed (as troll boy evidently did) doesn't undo that the adult in the relationship had absolute no guarantee that serious harm wouldn't occur. It's sort of like arguing that Russian roulette isn't dangerous because when you played you didn't get shot.

And yes, I don't think pedophiles choose to find young children attractive, and I can have a degree of empathy for that, but you can't budge an inch on anyone who acts on those desires, because we can't tolerate behavior that will almost certainly cause severe harm to innocents.

So sure, maybe we use lighter punishments for hebephiles that aren't likely to cause as much harm as a pedophile, but you're still talking about a high risk for harm in both cases.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Judging by the vile self-hating being he has become, I'm willing to bet that his pastor experience at least played a part in the significant psychological damage that has afflicted him.
 

SerTapTap

Member
Normally this may be true. It's not when we're talking about stuff he doesn't want broadcast. Try again.

Yeah, as soon as he starts up with "that's not what I meant!"
A) That's what he meant
B) He realizes he fucked up and wants people to let it slide
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
The irony here is that Milo is appealing to conservatives and young bigots because he represents the stereotype they have of gay people, and part of that stereotype is gay men being broken due to things like abuse as children. He often goes on about how most gays are "confused" (he tried to start up in the Bill Maher round table) and have "issues" to work through.

So bigots can praise Milo has a rare honest gay who admits he is damaged, politely struggles with it so as to not inconvenience healthy normal people, and is not part of The Homosexual Agenda.

But Milo revealing how deep his issues go and actually kind of rationalizing child abuse, oh shit, now there is a problem. Bad optics to have a NAMBLA apologist held up as a contemporary icon for the new conservative youth.
 

aeolist

Banned
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Judging by the vile self-hating being he has become, I'm willing to bet that his pastor experience at least played a part in the significant psychological damage that has afflicted him.

it's pretty obvious that he doesn't believe much if any of the shit he's constantly spewing, so i don't think he's actually self-hating. he's just a shitty person who's found a way to promote himself.
 

Silexx

Member
If everyone just ignored this guy, he'd lose whatever power he has and disappear.

On the other hand, I would say that this current scrutiny was precisely because of his rising prominence in the public eye.

For the record, that is not to say that Bill Maher should be left off the hook for his booking, though.
 
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh....

Judging by the vile self-hating being he has become, I'm willing to bet that his pastor experience at least played a part in the significant psychological damage that has afflicted him.

Okay, good point.

Obviously he doesn't see it that way from his perspective, but yes... a very good argument can be made that he was harmed by that experience.

But I do try and make a habit out of taking people at face value on their beliefs. If he says he wasn't damaged, I won't second guess it. Just like how if someone is a member of a religion and they tell me what their beliefs are, I'm not going to go to their holy book and point to passages I think contradict that, to argue that they don't really believe what they're telling me they believe.

But I digress.

Oh, I should add, I take them at face value unless they give me reason not to.

And yes, this asshole has done that by suddenly pretending to care about the gaming community with gamergate et al.

He defended pedophiles because it was 'LOL OH SO CONTROVERSIAL' would be my best guess. Now it's coming back to hurt his 'credibility' with the right.
 

SaniOYOYOY

Member
Normally this may be true. It's not when we're talking about stuff he doesn't want broadcast. Try again.



This isn't even a Muslim thing. When people see the ages princes and princesses were married off in the Middle Ages in Europe, for example, they tend to freak out, but they were generally political alliances and in most cases didn't even see each other until much later, let alone consummate the marriage. Don't get me wrong, to modern sensibilities it's still kind of messed up and abuse of children (leaving aside the issues institutional power have in shielding pedophiles from justice, whether in secular or religious institutions), but I'm not sure how this whole line of thought relates to Milo defending modern-day pederasty.

speaking from inside, you have no idea how much they actually differs hha
 
The guy who invited Milo to keynote the CPAC conference is doubling down on that invite & the conference itself just announced that POTUS will be giving a speech.
To recap, the headliners here are Steve Bannon, a deadbeat father, woman beater and White nationalist, Donald "grab em by the pussy" Trump, and Milo, a proponent of sexual abuse of the underaged.
American conservatism has now fully ventured into Emperor Caligula territory with its moral degeneracy on full, boastful display.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom