I find it ironic, well not really, that when you have an argument to make you are very quick to quote a literal definition, but when you don't agree with the argument, you ignore definitions completely. Pedophilia has a definition, and it involves pubescence, so a relationship between an "adult" and a child that has cross the puberty threshold is, by definition, not pedophilia. Whether that relationship you refer to is child abuse or inappropriate is probably where Milo's discussion about consent laws being arbitrary comes in.
For 140ish years in Canada it was ok for a 20 year old to have a relationship with a 14 year old but overnight it made him/her a child molestor. Ironically, the case that prompted the change involved an older adult man convincing a 14 year old boy over the interwebs, into sneaking away from the parental home to have sex with him. When caught, the boy insisted the act was consensual. Also ironic is the fact that, while now 14 and 15 year olds can have consensual relations, anyone that has anal sex before they are 18 is a sodomist by definition.
Which would be why I asked:
"Do you agree that if a child (in legal terms) reaches puberty at 11 (which is more than possible) and gives consent then a relationship with an adult is not
pedophilia, child abuse or at the very least inappropriate? As that's what he is advocating, and not just for himself."
It's why I also mentioned repeatedly that it was a discussion around an arbitrary subject, and also have pointed out in two separate posts that Milo's has every right to say what he said.
I'm not disputing the absolute definition here at all, I pointed out that he was not talking only about himself, as was claimed. I agreed that its a subject based around a partially arbitrary age (and explained why), agreed that he has the right to say it and under the ideals of free speech has done nothing wrong in doing so.
I then went on to point out that just as he is free to do so, other organisations are free to cancel his appearances at events, his book deal, and as may happen, look at his employment being terminated!
As such I have no idea why you seem to be arguing a point I've not questioned?
Well about Trump, I agree that statements like these open the door for people abusing them (like Tucker Carlson says in the video, a president should be clear at all times), but we already know how Trump talks to people, it's like the guy next to you in the bar would do it sometimes. That's the way he is and it isn't anything like the presidents before that who just read politically correct statements of the autocue.
But! It is not appropriate for the media to make it look like he was referring to an attack in Sweden, without him literally saying so. Same with Milo they look over anything which is said just so they can pull things out of context and make a whole media frenzy about it. Downside of being a public figure yes but the media shouldn't misrepresent the truth neither.
The media isn't misrepresenting anything. He included Sweden in a list of locations of terror attacks, as such the context was set by Trump, not by the media.
Now I would have agreed it was an unfortunate slip, were it not for the case that this is now the third time the administration has done this.
It's a shame it cost Milo his speech and his book deal, hope this did not silence him and he goes out, keeps going and is louder than ever (whilst watching out with his statements as the vultures are looking). We need figures like him who kick in open doors others are afraid to touch. And that goes for Trump too IMO.
Odd because in this case the vultures seem to be those you normally admire.
Its not a liberal, left-wing bunch of snowflakes who cancelled his appearance, its conservatives. I also note that Trump is not decrying it, as he did when Berkeley cancelled his speech.
We will see what happens at 3pm New York time, which is when Breitbart are, I believe, scheduled to comment on the situation. With rumours (and that is all they are now) that he will lose his job.
