Milo is Broke, Sad, and Lonely

[JasperL]

You know, the Jewish Nazi the left likes to talk about.

Only when he wants to be, other times he claims to be a practicing Catholic.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/

A practicing Catholic (though he likes to mention that his maternal grandmother was Jewish when he’s accused of anti-Semitism), he wrote for England’s the Catholic Herald and was later fired as a tech writer for the Daily Telegraph.

 

[Ikari]

If the House of Cards is being targeted from the top by Mueller, the foundation Trump built (and he's not very good at doing that either) is sinking into the Earth never to be seen again. If any DP members wanted to fund this troll for $750 a month, I guess you could always try to find his venmo.



Yiannopoulos kicked off of fundraising website after single day

I don't think that guy's broke, he had a ton of money from everything he did previously. Though he is pretty well off the circuit now, as it were. He was never all that great anyway.

 

[Excon]

Point noted and disregarded.

It is sad that you disregard reality and fail to criticize the wrong use of pedophile.

WTF are you talking about? I very explicitly tried to look at this through his eyes, the victim of sexual abuse by an authority figure.

No, you clearly did not try to look at it through his eyes. You looked at it through your own.

If you looked at it through his eyes, as you were already told, it would be that he was capable of consenting and was the predator. That is looking at it though his eyes.

And Milo doesn't say it was JUST for him - he generalizes about at least some gay people in the broader sense. He doesn't even condemn the sorry POS priest who had sex with a 14 year old BOY. It doesn't matter if Milo initiated the sex - any responsible adult serving as an authority figure in a school turns down the 'advance' because it's illegal, immoral, unconscionable.

Your commentary totally ignores what was already said to it.

So I was correct. There clearly is no discussion to be had here. You have judged his experience through your eyes while ignoring what he himself says it was for him.

There is no justifiable argument that a priest in a boarding school for young BOYS should be allowed to have sex with his 14 year old students. This is the excuse of perpetrators of child sexual assault, scum like Jeff Epstein or hundreds/thousands of priests like the man who sexually assaulted Milo, who could also claim that the sex with young girls/boys was "consensual" or that the kids wanted it. It's a disgusting attempt to rationalize sexual abuse of children. There's also a good reason why vermin like the priests and Epstein prey on vulnerable, troubled young people and it's because they make pliable victims, who are unlikely to complain or be believed if they do complain.

You are not even addressing the argument or acknowledging what was said. So I was correct. There clearly is no discussion to be had here.

 

[JasperL]

It is sad that you disregard reality and fail to criticize the wrong use of pedophile.

No, you clearly did not try to look at it through his eyes. You looked at it through your own.

If you looked at it through his eyes, as you were already told, it would be that he was capable of consenting and was the predator. That is looking at it though his eyes.

Your commentary totally ignores what was already said to it.

So I was correct. There clearly is no discussion to be had here. You have judged his experience through your eyes while ignoring what he himself says it was for him.

You are not even addressing the argument or acknowledging what was said. So I was correct. There clearly is no discussion to be had here.

Shorter: if the kids want it, it's OK for adult men to have sex with children.

 

[Beaudreaux]

But God CHOSE trump to lead the country. Not some leftwing liberal socialist communist tree hugger who - GASP! - CARES about people, animals and the environment.

What?

 

[Excon]

Shorter: if the kids want it, it's OK for adult men to have sex with children.

Your reply is wrong and just shows you have not paid attention to anything said and still confirm you are seeing things through your eyes and not his.