Remember that many college Republican groups publicly denounced Trump. They seem cucky to me.

I think his comments were disgusting but he does bring a valuable voice to the table on many issues.

So, what's next? Going out on his own?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672274)

which comments exactly are you referring to?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672391)

Answer the question or get out of the thread, thanks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672405)

come on, ace, quit being a putz and back it up

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672576)

do you think he's right about the potential benefits of man-boy love?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672597)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672612)

The men in the joint video interview then discuss Milo’s experience at age 14.

Another man says: "The whole consent thing for me. It’s not this black and white thing that people try to paint it. Are there some 13-year-olds out there capable of giving informed consent to have sex with an adult, probably..."

The man says, “The reason these age of consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here, we’ve got to pick some kind of an age…”

Milo: “The law is probably about right, that’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about okay, but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way. In many cases actually those relationships with older men…This is one reason I hate the left. This stupid one size fits all policing of culture. (People speak over each other). This sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have. The complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex. In the homosexual world particularly. Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents. Some of those relationships are the most -”

It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me, another man says, interrupting Milo.

Milo: “And you know what, I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him.”

Other people talk. Oh my God, I can’t handle it, one man says. The next thing in line is going to be pedophilia…says another man.

Milo: “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty. Pedophilia is attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet. Who have not gone through puberty. Who are too young to be able (unclear and cut off by others)…That’s not what we are talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you are saying I’m defending it because I’m certainly not.”

Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”

Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672632)

parse it and select the comments you disagree with

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672652)

i disagree with the claim that the subtleties and gray areas involved in dividing real-life sexual encounters into consensual/non-consensual are enough to justify any of the shit he's talking about

i agree that you can distinguish between "pedophilia" and "ephebophilia" but i condemn acting on them both anyway, and he very obviously is endorsing "pedophilia" by the common-language use of the term rather than the restricted definition that for some reason only "ephebophiles" seem to care about aside from people involved in the treatment of sex offenders who find it useful to make the distinction

i condemn the suggestion that mentoring at-risk young might justifiably involve having any sort of sexual relationship with them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672683)

you're going to have to specify what you are referring to in the second paragraph because i don't see it in his comments you quoted.

can you intentionally try to misquote and misstate him anymore than you are in the 3rd paragraph? of course you can distinguish between them. and he did. clearly. unambiguously. don't resort to 'common-language' use when that's not what he meant. that's just being lazy and disingenuous.

the 4th paragraph. he acknowledges that the law should be what it is. to state that at-risk youth can reap benefits from adults who break the law is almost certainly a fact. you actually think he doesn't know what he's talking about? that there is zero chance these types of relationships can benefit the younger person? that's a stupid conclusion. of course, these types of relationships have the potential to cause great harm, as well. no one in this conversation is suggesting the law should be changed. so are you really disagreeing with him?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672764)

You've gotten this exchange alone from me, so you should be happy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672696)

CHOO CHOO

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672404)

I'm really interested to see if there's an endgame to fighting shitlibs that goes beyond Breitbart. Cucks don't count.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672431)

But is publishing like a cartel with limited members? You may not find one willing to take the easy cash, because of the adverse publicity that will ensue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672585)

Ironically it was about never backing down to SJWs, yet Milo did this by apologizing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672692)

otherwise the only way I see him being relevant ever again is if a "secret" sex tape is "leaked"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672620)

it's funny because at the end of the day, he is being vilified for letting the world in on "the family secret". no matter who you are, once you put your tribe on an island, there are repercussions. the irony being that his tribe wasn't his audience in first instance. if he were just in talking with his tribe, this would have been nbd. but here--writ large--is the danger of shunning the tribe in the first place; once you out the tribe AND alienate the external audience, you have nothing to fall back on. is how it is. self hating people would be wise to take a lesson from this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3532903&forum_id=2#32672624)