Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Milo resigns from Breitbart over underage sex comments

Page 7 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Feb 2017, 6:21 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
I don't think that's what they are saying. Liberals have always been advocating for new values. There is no way of knowing in the future what those values are. In the future children could be able to give consent or people could be recognized as adults younger.


I highly doubt that. There's a difference between giving equal rights to LGBT Americans, and allowing children to be victimized.
What I'm picking up here is that tolerance should be shied away from, argued from the standpoint that tolerance is a slippery slope. Then again, the same thing was said about LGBT rights twenty years ago, and interracial marriage more than fifty years ago.


Exactly my point. What's considered deplorable now, could gain tolerance later. And in the realm of sexuality, it's not finished yet is it? What's the next boundary to be broken and the next one after that? Do you really think the progressive sexual emancipation revolution is suddenly going to hold up its hands and say, "okay full stop, that's as far as this train is going". I don't think so.

That's an interesting idea, but completely wrong. The trend throughout this period of sexual liberation has been for more, not less, protection for all vulnerable people. We've poured money into victim advocacy, and the entire structure of court trials has been remade to protect the victims of sex crimes. Ages of consent have risen, as have some of the laws which allow (mostly rural, conservative) parents to sell their children like chattel into marriages. All kinds of things we today consider abuse were once considered normal within families, and the same people who fought all the cultural changes have fought against many of these laws.


But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.


Pedophile groups are nothing new, and are, have been, and always will be universally reviled.
The STD rights groups sound ridiculously irresponsible, and so I can't imagine anyone else takes them seriously.


But what people take seriously can always change.


I find that's not the case when it comes to their children.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Feb 2017, 6:33 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
I don't think that's what they are saying. Liberals have always been advocating for new values. There is no way of knowing in the future what those values are. In the future children could be able to give consent or people could be recognized as adults younger.


I highly doubt that. There's a difference between giving equal rights to LGBT Americans, and allowing children to be victimized.
What I'm picking up here is that tolerance should be shied away from, argued from the standpoint that tolerance is a slippery slope. Then again, the same thing was said about LGBT rights twenty years ago, and interracial marriage more than fifty years ago.


Exactly my point. What's considered deplorable now, could gain tolerance later. And in the realm of sexuality, it's not finished yet is it? What's the next boundary to be broken and the next one after that? Do you really think the progressive sexual emancipation revolution is suddenly going to hold up its hands and say, "okay full stop, that's as far as this train is going". I don't think so.

That's an interesting idea, but completely wrong. The trend throughout this period of sexual liberation has been for more, not less, protection for all vulnerable people. We've poured money into victim advocacy, and the entire structure of court trials has been remade to protect the victims of sex crimes. Ages of consent have risen, as have some of the laws which allow (mostly rural, conservative) parents to sell their children like chattel into marriages. All kinds of things we today consider abuse were once considered normal within families, and the same people who fought all the cultural changes have fought against many of these laws.


But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.


Pedophile groups are nothing new, and are, have been, and always will be universally reviled.
The STD rights groups sound ridiculously irresponsible, and so I can't imagine anyone else takes them seriously.


But what people take seriously can always change.


I find that's not the case when it comes to their children.


There are people who do not take their children's safety seriously. There are people who beat or molest there own children. We have already have countries where if a girl is molested she is punished. We already have countries where parents send there preteens to be married.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

27 Feb 2017, 6:55 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
I don't think that's what they are saying. Liberals have always been advocating for new values. There is no way of knowing in the future what those values are. In the future children could be able to give consent or people could be recognized as adults younger.


I highly doubt that. There's a difference between giving equal rights to LGBT Americans, and allowing children to be victimized.
What I'm picking up here is that tolerance should be shied away from, argued from the standpoint that tolerance is a slippery slope. Then again, the same thing was said about LGBT rights twenty years ago, and interracial marriage more than fifty years ago.


Exactly my point. What's considered deplorable now, could gain tolerance later. And in the realm of sexuality, it's not finished yet is it? What's the next boundary to be broken and the next one after that? Do you really think the progressive sexual emancipation revolution is suddenly going to hold up its hands and say, "okay full stop, that's as far as this train is going". I don't think so.

That's an interesting idea, but completely wrong. The trend throughout this period of sexual liberation has been for more, not less, protection for all vulnerable people. We've poured money into victim advocacy, and the entire structure of court trials has been remade to protect the victims of sex crimes. Ages of consent have risen, as have some of the laws which allow (mostly rural, conservative) parents to sell their children like chattel into marriages. All kinds of things we today consider abuse were once considered normal within families, and the same people who fought all the cultural changes have fought against many of these laws.


But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.


Pedophile groups are nothing new, and are, have been, and always will be universally reviled.
The STD rights groups sound ridiculously irresponsible, and so I can't imagine anyone else takes them seriously.


But what people take seriously can always change.


I find that's not the case when it comes to their children.


There are people who do not take their children's safety seriously. There are people who beat or molest there own children. We have already have countries where if a girl is molested she is punished. We already have countries where parents send there preteens to be married.


Sure, there are are always the terrible parents who beat their kids, or worse, molest them. But far more parents are perfectly great with their kids.
And as we are discussing America, I doubt those third world countries that allow pedophilia is irrelevant.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Feb 2017, 7:46 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
jrjones9933 wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
I don't think that's what they are saying. Liberals have always been advocating for new values. There is no way of knowing in the future what those values are. In the future children could be able to give consent or people could be recognized as adults younger.


I highly doubt that. There's a difference between giving equal rights to LGBT Americans, and allowing children to be victimized.
What I'm picking up here is that tolerance should be shied away from, argued from the standpoint that tolerance is a slippery slope. Then again, the same thing was said about LGBT rights twenty years ago, and interracial marriage more than fifty years ago.


Exactly my point. What's considered deplorable now, could gain tolerance later. And in the realm of sexuality, it's not finished yet is it? What's the next boundary to be broken and the next one after that? Do you really think the progressive sexual emancipation revolution is suddenly going to hold up its hands and say, "okay full stop, that's as far as this train is going". I don't think so.

That's an interesting idea, but completely wrong. The trend throughout this period of sexual liberation has been for more, not less, protection for all vulnerable people. We've poured money into victim advocacy, and the entire structure of court trials has been remade to protect the victims of sex crimes. Ages of consent have risen, as have some of the laws which allow (mostly rural, conservative) parents to sell their children like chattel into marriages. All kinds of things we today consider abuse were once considered normal within families, and the same people who fought all the cultural changes have fought against many of these laws.


But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.


Pedophile groups are nothing new, and are, have been, and always will be universally reviled.
The STD rights groups sound ridiculously irresponsible, and so I can't imagine anyone else takes them seriously.




But what people take seriously can always change.


I find that's not the case when it comes to their children.


There are people who do not take their children's safety seriously. There are people who beat or molest there own children. We have already have countries where if a girl is molested she is punished. We already have countries where parents send there preteens to be married.


Sure, there are are always the terrible parents who beat their kids, or worse, molest them. But far more parents are perfectly great with their kids.
And as we are discussing America, I doubt those third world countries that allow pedophilia is irrelevant.


But in the future their cultural values could be imported into our values or our children's children's values. Just like many western values make there way go non devolved countries, there values could come to America. Another pissiblity is what is a children could change in a society where children are treated as adults pedophilia could be legal. To a very limited extent pedophila is legal. Many states have age difference rules where say a 19 year old can have a relationship with a 16 year old. I know that is pedophila to such a mild extent, but if those age ranges change then pedophilia could be legal.

Another possibility is mass immigration. If huge amounts of people came to this country pedophilia could be legal. This goes back to the melting pot idea where if enough people brought their culture here it could become mainstream.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

27 Feb 2017, 8:08 pm

BettaPonic wrote:
But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.

Liberal values aren't arbitrary. They are based on moral presets of harm and fairness. Pedophilia harms children. Homosexuality or being transgender doesn't harm anyone. It's conservatives who's morals are based on arbitrary "ick" factors and arbitrary religious texts from 2000 years ago.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,828
Location: Twin Peaks

27 Feb 2017, 8:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
And as we are discussing America, I doubt those third world countries that allow pedophilia is irrelevant.


You're not getting nationalist on us are you Bill? :wink: But still perhaps America will become highly colonized by immigrants and refugees from those types of countries. And that along with liberal insistence of tolerance and calling everything racist and xenophobic, will lead to a very different America. Maybe you're just being too conservative in your views. Too old fashioned too 20th century. I think the only thing that's going to keep stuff like that in check are the conservative mores that liberalism works so hard abolishing.

marshall wrote:
Liberal values aren't arbitrary. They are based on moral presets of harm and fairness. Pedophilia harms children.


I'll bet anything there's a ton of crap that's been compiled that claims otherwise, that liberalism would eventually become persuaded into accepting and defending.



Last edited by EzraS on 27 Feb 2017, 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Feb 2017, 8:38 pm

The real truth is: we are a nation of immigrants.

This is one of the basis for our greatness---that we provided an alternative for the oppression of "the old country." We were a "new" nation, even in the early 20th century.

The same complaints were hurled at Italian, Irish, Jewish immigrants in the late 19th-early 20th centuries as Mexican/Jamaica/Muslim immigrants now. There were some Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. gangsters and criminals. There are criminals, definitely, within the ranks of the present-day immigrants.

However, the vast, vast majority of Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. immigrants encouraged the education of their children, and assimilation into what may be termed the "American" culture. It was often said of these children that they were "more American than Americans"--Americans that have been here for many generations. They were patriotic to a fault, sometimes.

Like I've said previously, we have to keep track of the immigrants--but it is the immigrants who, in at least some ways, continue to confirm America's greatness.



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Feb 2017, 8:42 pm

marshall wrote:
BettaPonic wrote:
But the future is always a shock. There is already a movement for pedophiles. There is also a movement for STD pride, people with STDs who feel that no one should refuse sex because of there STDs.

Liberal values aren't arbitrary. They are based on moral presets of harm and fairness. Pedophilia harms children. Homosexuality or being transgender doesn't harm anyone. It's conservatives who's morals are based on arbitrary "ick" factors and arbitrary religious texts from 2000 years ago.


I am using the wider term for liberalism where newer values for society. I am personally in favor of abortion, but a conservative could look at it in a way of harm and unfairness. In the future pedophilia could be seen as being non harmful. It could be an age where children being sexual is normal. In the book brace new world children in elementary school are having sex with each other.

What is harmful could be considered subjective some people consider transgender and homosexuality harmful to the person, and society. I don't though.



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Feb 2017, 8:43 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
The real truth is: we are a nation of immigrants.

This is one of the basis for our greatness---that we provided an alternative for the oppression of "the old country." We were a "new" nation, even in the early 20th century.

The same complaints were hurled at Italian, Irish, Jewish immigrants in the late 19th-early 20th centuries as Mexican/Jamaica/Muslim immigrants now. There were some Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. gangsters and criminals. There are criminals, definitely, within the ranks of the present-day immigrants.

However, the vast, vast majority of Italian, Irish, Jewish, etc. immigrants encouraged the education of their children, and assimilation into what may be termed the "American" culture. It was often said of these children that they were "more American than Americans"--Americans that have been here for many generations. They were patriotic to a fault, sometimes.

Like I've said previously, we have to keep track of the immigrants--but it is the immigrants who, in at least some ways, continue to confirm America's greatness.


I agree, I was mainly talking about how immigrants bring new values and ideas to the country they settle. The country they colonize could learn from them and they could learn from their country.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Feb 2017, 8:45 pm

Yep....that's the crux of it, really.

If America becomes too nationalistic, too isolationist, it'll lose its uniqueness.



BettaPonic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jan 2017
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 918
Location: NOVA

27 Feb 2017, 8:54 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Yep....that's the crux of it, really.

If America becomes too nationalistic, too isolationist, it'll lose its uniqueness.


I have been curious about how the influx of Spanish speakers with affect American English. I personally think in the coming decades a lot of Spanish words will enter common English and to a lesser extent maybe some Spanish grammar might enter. Do you agree? I am more thinking of this from a history perspective. In the history of English new cultures change it.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

27 Feb 2017, 9:30 pm

At this point, truthfully, the Spanish/a Hispanic influence in the US remains somewhat limited away from major cities and the southwest part of the country.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

28 Feb 2017, 12:34 am

BettaPonic wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Yep....that's the crux of it, really.

If America becomes too nationalistic, too isolationist, it'll lose its uniqueness.


I have been curious about how the influx of Spanish speakers with affect American English. I personally think in the coming decades a lot of Spanish words will enter common English and to a lesser extent maybe some Spanish grammar might enter. Do you agree? I am more thinking of this from a history perspective. In the history of English new cultures change it.

This would be the case among "mesitzo" Mexicans and Latin Americans who identify strongly with the Spanish language and hispanic culture.

But! ironically Spanish speaking people from Spain (The celebrity Estevez family) and ethnic Spanish people from Latin America (Selena Gomez, Marcus Rubio and Ted Cruz) tend to distance themselves from their Spanish roots and embrace white Anglo American identity



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

28 Feb 2017, 12:46 am

BettaPonic wrote:
But in the future their cultural values could be imported into our values or our children's children's values. Just like many western values make there way go non devolved countries, there values could come to America. Another pissiblity is what is a children could change in a society where children are treated as adults pedophilia could be legal. To a very limited extent pedophila is legal. Many states have age difference rules where say a 19 year old can have a relationship with a 16 year old. I know that is pedophila to such a mild extent, but if those age ranges change then pedophilia could be legal.

Another possibility is mass immigration. If huge amounts of people came to this country pedophilia could be legal. This goes back to the melting pot idea where if enough people brought their culture here it could become mainstream.

This sounds like racist scare tactics. I don't mean to call you racist; I mean to call you scared by racists.

Also, did I read correctly that Milo said he wasn't abused and you said he was?


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

28 Feb 2017, 12:53 am

EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And as we are discussing America, I doubt those third world countries that allow pedophilia is irrelevant.


You're not getting nationalist on us are you Bill? :wink: But still perhaps America will become highly colonized by immigrants and refugees from those types of countries. And that along with liberal insistence of tolerance and calling everything racist and xenophobic, will lead to a very different America. Maybe you're just being too conservative in your views. Too old fashioned too 20th century. I think the only thing that's going to keep stuff like that in check are the conservative mores that liberalism works so hard abolishing.

marshall wrote:
Liberal values aren't arbitrary. They are based on moral presets of harm and fairness. Pedophilia harms children.


I'll bet anything there's a ton of crap that's been compiled that claims otherwise, that liberalism would eventually become persuaded into accepting and defending.


One could argue how your warning of third world immigration is nationalist in itself. :P
As kraftiekortie said, liberalism is all about acceptance and toleration, as long as there is no harm. Children will always be harmed by pedophilia. And even in those third world societies where pedophilia has been traditionally tolerated, it's western cultural influence that is coming in and changing people's minds about it, not the other way around.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Feb 2017, 1:37 am

Can we at least clear up that no one was actually talking about pedophilia, what Milo was talking about was teens, which would be ephebophilia if it was a pathological attraction and not just a fairly normal attraction to youth.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez