America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

Has he offered his support in the same manner he did in regard to Berkeley?

Do you have any proof that he has offered support privately (and the burden would be on you to prove it, by asking me to disprove it would be a logical fallacy, see Russell's Teapot).

I was quite clearly referring to public support, hence the reason I have mentioned Berkeley pretty much every time. The accusation I'm dancing around is a bit base considering you are reaching to the unknown to try and suggest Trump has offered support in a manner you conveniently attempt to make me prove.

You suggested he had offered support, you back the claim up.

And it's still not a character assassination, it's free speech. Why do you uphold Milo's right to say anything he wants as a champion of free speech, and then when anyone else does the same in return use negative language?

So character assassination and free speech are mutually exclusive?

That's a good way to avoid the point: only allow dialogue with your list of pre-approved members of the Opinions forum.

I asked Scaff a direct question about something he wrote. I did not realize the two of you were interchangeable. I'll take it into consideration the next time

 

[McLaren]

There's been an interesting comparison brought up regarding Milo & Lena Dunham, and how the Left/Right reacted to both: Dunham was supported on stage by the Democrats during Hillary's campaign & a figure for feminism despite writing in her book that she committed pedophilia yet Milo is the one being attacked for commenting about pedophilia b/c he supports/jokes about it.

 

[Imari]

There's been an interesting comparison brought up regarding Milo & Lena Dunham, and how the Left/Right reacted to both: Dunham was supported on stage by the Democrats during Hillary's campaign & a figure for feminism despite writing in her book that she committed pedophilia yet Milo is the one being attacked for commenting about pedophilia b/c he supports/jokes about it.

I'm really not sure that one can commit pedophilia as a child. One can certainly sexually assault another child, but it's hardly pedophilia in any but the broadest strokes. Generally the term is used to describe sexually mature adults who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

 

[Scaff]

So character assassination and free speech are mutually exclusive?

I've never said they were. What I said was that this is not character assassination (in my opinion in case the rather obvious needs clarification), I asked a direct question about the seeming double standard of anything Milo says being an exercise of free speech, but when the same is done to him it's character assassination.

The question was around the seeming bias in terms of how two examples of free speech were used.

I asked Scaff a direct question about something he wrote. I did not realize the two of you were interchangeable. I'll take it into consideration the next time

Other people are allowed to reply to posts that do not quote them, direct questions in them or not. You of all people should know that.

There's been an interesting comparison brought up regarding Milo & Lena Dunham, and how the Left/Right reacted to both: Dunham was supported on stage by the Democrats during Hillary's campaign & a figure for feminism despite writing in her book that she committed pedophilia yet Milo is the one being attacked for commenting about pedophilia b/c he supports/jokes about it.

I'm surprised @Johnnypenso hasn't jumped all over this, he came across as quite concerned when the word pedophilia was used incorrectly earlier.

In other news, idiots shoot each other and attempt to blame illegal immigrants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-each-other-a7591471.html?cmpid=facebook-post

 

[McLaren]

I'm really not sure that one can commit pedophilia as a child. One can certainly sexually assault another child, but it's hardly pedophilia in any but the broadest strokes. Generally the term is used to describe sexually mature adults who are attracted to pre-pubescent children.

This is still pretty disturbing stuff.

As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.

I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out.

Like Milo who claimed to be joking, Lena claims she was also joking about being a sexual predator.

Childhood sexual abuse is a life-shattering event for so many, and I have been vocal about the rights of survivors. If the situations described in my book have been painful or triggering for people to read, I am sorry, as that was never my intention. I am also aware that the comic use of the term “sexual predator” was insensitive, and I’m sorry for that as well.

Why was Lena given a pass and invited to spread feminism or brought on stage to be paraded by Democrats despite actually committing questionable acts against her sister & claiming she was "joking", but Milo who jokes about his own experience as a victim is dismissed & seen as condoning pedophilia.

 

[Carbonox]

This is still pretty disturbing stuff.



Like Milo who claimed to be joking, Lena claims she was also joking about being a sexual predator.


Why was Lena given a pass and invited to spread feminism or brought on stage to be paraded by Democrats despite actually committing questionable acts against her sister & claiming she was "joking", but Milo who jokes about his own experience as a victim is dismissed & seen as condoning pedophilia.

I'm not sure if these are the exact same people as those responsible for the Women's March, but certainly they're equally willing to overlook irredeemable qualities in their speakers. I recall a certain Donna Hylton getting paraded and praised as well.

 

[Scaff]

This is still pretty disturbing stuff.



Like Milo who claimed to be joking, Lena claims she was also joking about being a sexual predator.


Why was Lena given a pass and invited to spread feminism or brought on stage to be paraded by Democrats despite actually committing questionable acts against her sister & claiming she was "joking", but Milo who jokes about his own experience as a victim is dismissed & seen as condoning pedophilia.

Milo was not only talking about his own experiences.

I'm not sure if these are the exact same people as those responsible for the Women's March, but certainly they're equally willing to overlook irredeemable qualities in their speakers. I recall a certain Donna Hylton getting paraded and praised as well.

Do you believe that people who have served a sentance can ever be rehabilitated and return to society?

Your wording also needs some clarification, when you say they paraded and praised her was it for the act that she was imprisoned for (which quite rightly should be condemned) or for her work following her serving her sentance (which appears to be not something in need of condemnation unless you can show otherwise).

I ask because these are two very different things to praise, yet your post is very ambiguous.

 

[Imari]

This is still pretty disturbing stuff.

It certainly is. But it's not pedophilia, and comparing it to real pedophilia is simply trying to attach a label that makes most people react with little consideration to an act that doesn't rate it.

There's plenty of room to discuss these things rationally without falsely labelling them as pedophilia to try and exploit the disgust that is attached to that word.

Like Milo who claimed to be joking, Lena claims she was also joking about being a sexual predator.

I think in both cases we don't need to listen to their claims of joking. We can judge just fine by what they've said and done. There's clearly enough truth in the events that it's at best something to be considered additionally for certain parts, like Milo claiming that he performs a certain action with more skill thanks to his priest.

Why was Lena given a pass and invited to spread feminism or brought on stage to be paraded by Democrats despite actually committing questionable acts against her sister & claiming she was "joking", but Milo who jokes about his own experience as a victim is dismissed & seen as condoning pedophilia.

I don't know. Humans are weird sometimes. Personally I find the Lena Dunham story more disturbing than anything Milo said, especially given the experiences he's had to shape those views. Then again, the things that Dunham did are not particularly uncommon or harmful from the descriptions I've read, the disturbing part is her calm acceptance of herself as a sexual predator.

To me, Milo doesn't seem to have that. He goes out of his way to decry pedophilia, but is aware enough of his own experience and those in other marginalised communities to recognise that hebephilic relationships can have some nuance. Even ones with significantly older partners.

He's aware that there's a line in the sand as far as age of consent and it is what it is for good reasons, but the reality is also that some people are mature enough to make "adult" decisions earlier than others. People have different opinions as to when that is, but there's certainly evidence in many countries that having it around 14 is unlikely to be massively harmful.

 

[Carbonox]

Do you believe that people who have served a sentance can ever be rehabilitated and return to society?

Your wording also needs some clarification, when you say they paraded and praised her was it for the act that she was imprisoned for (which quite rightly should be condemned) or for her work following her serving her sentance (which appears to be not something in need of condemnation unless you can show otherwise).

I ask because these are two very different things to praise, yet your post is very ambiguous.

Picking a cold-blooded murderer to speak for your cause is an incredibly reprehensible thing to do. The smart thing for them would've been refusal to associate with someone like that.

Just because she's "served her sentence" doesn't mean she's entitled to be forgiven by society and accepted as a speaker in widely attended events.

 

[Scaff]

Picking a cold-blooded murderer to speak for your cause is an incredibly reprehensible thing to do. The smart thing for them would've been refusal to associate with someone like that.

That depends on what they are talking about and why.

Just because she's "served her sentence" doesn't mean she's entitled to be forgiven by society and accepted as a speaker in widely attended events.

Actually yes it does, that's part of the point of incarceration and rehabilitation.

 

[Liquid]

I remember when this thread didn't get much attention. For better or worse, people's interest in politics and society has certainly been galvanised over the last few years.

Anyway, I present to you some of the alternative stuff I used to post here for all you United Statesmen: infomaps!

I can't believe that a drive-through off licence is a thing in eastern Virginia.

 

[TheCracker]

I can't believe that a drive-through off licence is a thing in eastern Virginia.

Especially since they have [citation needed] strict laws about transporting alcohol in vehicles.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Especially since they have [citation needed] strict laws about transporting alcohol in vehicles.

No, they don't. Passengers are even allowed to drink in a moving vehicle.

 

[TheCracker]

No, they don't. Passengers are even allowed to drink in a moving vehicle.

It's state dependent.

To comply with the TEA-21 rules of the federal Department of Transportation, a state's motor vehicle open container laws must:

• Prohibit both possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle;[18]
• Cover the passenger area of any motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any other areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats;[18]
• Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and all alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and spirits that contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume;[18]
• Apply to all vehicle occupants except for passengers of vehicles designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of people for compensation (such as buses, taxi cabs, and limousines) or the living quarters of motor homes;[18]
• Apply to all vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the shoulder) of a public highway;[18]
• Require primary enforcement of the law, rather than requiring probable cause that another violation had been committed before allowing enforcement of the open container law.[18]

Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in compliance.

 

[BobK]

Transporting alcoholic beverages in a car is no big deal. After all, how are you going to get your six-pack home from the packie? Having an opened alcoholic beverage in a moving auto, however, is a big no-no. Doesn't matter if it's passengers (and not the driver) or not.[/b][/b]

Edit: Treed rather thoroughly by @TheCracker

 

[mister dog]

Do you have any proof that he has offered support privately (and the burden would be on you to prove it, by asking me to disprove it would be a logical fallacy, see Russell's Teapot).

Did I say he offered support privately? Don't put words in my mouth.

The accusation I'm dancing around is a bit base considering you are reaching to the unknown to try and suggest Trump has offered support in a manner you conveniently attempt to make me prove.

Again stop the BS, you are the one suggesting Trump does not support him with this latest case whilst you have 0 proof. I never stated that Trump does support him!

You suggested he had offered support, you back the claim up.

You see me 'suggesting something' and all of a sudden it's a claim I made which i have to proof?

And it's still not a character assassination, it's free speech. Why do you uphold Milo's right to say anything he wants as a champion of free speech, and then when anyone else does the same in return use negative language?

Where did I use negative language on someone's right to free speech? Anyhow stop wasting my time with all this nonsense.

 

[andrea]

 

[Scaff]

Did I say he offered support privately? Don't put words in my mouth.


Again stop the BS, you are the one suggesting Trump does not support him with this latest case whilst you have 0 proof. I never stated that Trump does support him!


You see me 'suggesting something' and all of a sudden it's a claim I made which i have to proof?

What are you on about?

No evidence at all of Trump supporting Milo in this case exists, as such should you disagree with that you will have no problem providing evidence that he has done so.

Where did I use negative language on someone's right to free speech?

Character assassination is positive language?

Anyhow stop wasting my time with all this nonsense.

Not your call. Do you need a safe space?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've never said they were. What I said was that this is not character assassination (in my opinion in case the rather obvious needs clarification), I asked a direct question about the seeming double standard of anything Milo says being an exercise of free speech, but when the same is done to him it's character assassination.

It's not character assassination it's free speech sounds an awful lot like an either/or scenario. It's not this, it's that. Maybe we should ask the professor.

Other people are allowed to reply to posts that do not quote them, direct questions in them or not. You of all people should know that.

They are, but I asked you a specific question about your thoughts, hence my reaction.

I'm surprised @Johnnypenso hasn't jumped all over this, he came across as quite concerned when the word pedophilia was used incorrectly earlier.

The post stands on it's own merit. I don't need to pile on to make it more valid.

Transporting alcoholic beverages in a car is no big deal. After all, how are you going to get your six-pack home from the packie? Having an opened alcoholic beverage in a moving auto, however, is a big no-no. Doesn't matter if it's passengers (and not the driver) or not.[/b][/b]

Edit: Treed rather thoroughly by @TheCracker

I was in Switzerland this summer. Pretty hot. We stopped at a gas station in Lichtenstein and I said to my gf's brother-in-law, "why do all these gas stations sell single beers if you can't drink and drive". He says, "Oh you can, you just can't drive drunk. Open containers are fine too". Genius:idea:. Needless to say, it put a whole new slant on driving through Europe for me, the passenger.

 

[TheCracker]

I was in Switzerland this summer. Pretty hot. We stopped at a gas station in Lichtenstein and I said to my gf's brother-in-law, "why do all these gas stations sell single beers if you can't drink and drive". He says, "Oh you can, you just can't drive drunk. Open containers are fine too". Genius:idea:. Needless to say, it put a whole new slant on driving through Europe for me, the passenger.

I guess for a European, the Closed Container laws seem really odd for a non-Muslim country. Down to North America's puritanical roots i suppose.

 

[IforceV8]

They almost had him but the Spanish Police showed up with their own warrant. http://abc7chicago.com/news/court-approves-extradition-of-ukrainian-oligarch-to-chicago/1765189/

B-Roll

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's state dependent.

Yes, and in a story about Virginia you said "they have strict laws etc. etc.". Which they don't. Taking alcohol across the border could be a different matter anyway, right?

 

[TheCracker]

Yes, and in a story about Virginia you said "they have strict laws etc. etc.". Which they don't. Taking alcohol across the border could be a different matter anyway, right?

Well that's certainly true 👍 - but the diagram also shows North Carolina to have 'Brew Thru's' and they do have the Closed Container laws. In fact, plenty of states allow drive-through liquor stores but also comply with the Closed Container laws.

My comment was about the hypocrisy of selling alcohol directly to the passengers of a vehicle who can't then even open the bottle within the vehicle. From the standpoint of coming from a country where it's totally fine to have open alcohol in a vehicle (as long as the driver isn't consuming it over the given limit) but you'll have to park up and get out of it to go and buy the alcohol.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Well that's certainly true 👍 - but the diagram also shows North Carolina to have 'Brew Thru's' and they do have the Closed Container laws. In fact, plenty of states allow drive-through liquor stores but also comply with the Closed Container laws.

My comment was about the hypocrisy of selling alcohol directly to the passengers of a vehicle who can't then even open the bottle within the vehicle. From the standpoint of coming from a country where it's totally fine to have open alcohol in a vehicle (as long as the driver isn't consuming it over the given limit) but you'll have to park up and get out of it to go and buy the alcohol.

Point taken. Personally I'm from Britain where it isn't illegal to drink alcohol as you drive... the only offence you're likely to be nabbed for (providing you remain under the legal alcohol limit) is Driving Without Due Care and Attention, pretty much the same kind of case as eating a sandwich.

 

[mister dog]

 

[BobK]

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure what's funnier, the crazy lady or the "news" guy who looks like he's struggling to understand anything at all. I mean... I'm sure we've all had a flashback and weren't sure where we were for a minute, but fancy finding out you're live on the gogglebox!

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Let me say first, I am a fan of Milo. I think what he has said was blown way out of proportion. He was not condoning anything.

But, this guy makes a very compelling argument. It takes him nearly 30 minutes to get to the point, but what he says is that Milo should name names of abusers, and I agree.

 

[Imari]

It takes him nearly 30 minutes to get to the point, but what he says is that Milo should name names of abusers, and I agree.

Why? Surely it's Milo's choice as the victim. And I rather suspect that if he was going to do so then he would have by now.

On the other hand, it's probably not exactly a secret from anyone close to him. I'm sure they all have a pretty good guess at who "Father Michael" is.

Just because Milo's in the media doesn't give everyone the right to know who has been teaching him certain life skills, even if that teaching would be classed as abuse.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Why? Surely it's Milo's choice as the victim. And I rather suspect that if he was going to do so then he would have by now.

On the other hand, it's probably not exactly a secret from anyone close to him. I'm sure they all have a pretty good guess at who "Father Michael" is.

Just because Milo's in the media doesn't give everyone the right to know who has been teaching him certain life skills, even if that teaching would be classed as abuse.

It is not just "Father Michael", but those at the partys he said he attended.