Apparently this is the Twitter feed that ‘broke’ the story - by posting a few year old video from the net. Looks to be a neverTrumper feed:
https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/833724032319107073
It’s arguable Milo was talking about his own sexual history. He was 17 and had a sexual relationship (age of consent is 16 in England). Or the age at which he lost his virginity (13).
But, yeah, pedophilia is sick and not something to celebrate. Most homosexuals are victims of child sex abuse, thus disorienting them sexually.
Interesting to see the Leftists bash Milo and go after him on this topic. Flip the political leanings and they’d be screaming ‘homophobe!’
Exactly.
I haven’t listened to the video, but I’d wager anything you said addressing your own tragic experience could be manipulated to make it sound like you believed things you don’t.
I don’t think Milo approves of the raping of minor boys. I do think he would urge them to deal with it, and not let it consume them. I don’t think there’s much to be gained by suicide or holding hate inside for decades.
There are some very sick people out there, but we should not become sick to counter them.
Milo had to deal with what happened to him. I am sorry about that.
I believe that sexual encounters of young boys by abusive adults has destroyed their ability to enter adulthood in a normal healthy manner.
I think Milo knows this.
If I’m not mistaken, he addresses the numbers of homosexuals who can’t to that lifestyle due to abuse.
If the guy doesn’t get it on certain levels, I think that is unfortunate.
I have appreciated his defense of Conservatism from a good perspective, thus making it reasoned for other homosexuals to challenge their own beliefs.
Not so much when they are supporting a Shara supporting Muslim to be DNC chair.
TigerClaws wrote: "Apparently this is the Twitter feed that ‘broke’ the story "
FWIW, I haven't read all the comments yet, but here are a few points to consider:
From Drudge:
FF 2:00
"I don't want to blame anyone because I've said the things that you've seen. Some of them were very stupidly worded. Some of the wording that I used was dumb. If I could go back, in most cases, you guys know, if I say something outrageous or offensive, in most cases my only regret is that I didn't piss off more people. But in this case, if I could do it again, I wouldn't phrase things the same way because it's led to confusions. For instance, I was told that one of the numbers that people are fixating on is 13 and the implication that I was advocating for sex between 13 year olds .Well, the video that came out was edited to include a section where I said that consent was arbitrary and oppressive. But that was from a discussion about affirmative consent on college campuses. That was placed next to a section about 13 year olds to make it look like I was saying that consent with 13 year olds was arbitrary and oppressive. That's not the case.