capitalcrew
.44 mag
How does anyone not like this guy? I don't get it.
Milo gets assassinated
- Thread starter Frankly
- Start date
John Stark
.44 mag
Its apparent from this thread that the excusers of pedophiles are not limited to this Milo character.
I've actually watched the uncut interview wherein he admits that his sexual dalliance with a catholic priest, and later admits attending parties in Hollywood with "big names," admits that there were lots of drugs to fuel the "very young boys" to go along with the perverted desires of the "older men" at those parties.
When asked who the catholic priest was, and how old he was when it happened (when asked if he was 14 he responded "about that") he was demure and refused to answer the question, insisting it was consensual and that he was the "predator." When asked about the big names in Hollywood who were giving lots of drugs to young boys for sex, he insisted he did not want to be "indiscreet."
And his defense now is that he's "outed" pedophiles three different times, so he's not a proponent of pedophilia.
There are victims who are so hurt and broken that they never come forward with their crimes, and I can understand that, particularly when the perpetrator is a family member or other loved-one; however, when they do so, it is their responsibility to name their accusers so it can be investigated and further child rape crimes are not perpetrated by those same predators.
It does not matter whether he liked the catholic priest, or thought that the priest who was abusing him as a teen was "hot," that priest is a criminal. With the scale of the catholic priest pedophile abuses and cover ups that have gone on, this Milo character ought to be forthright about who the priest was, especially since he has in the past decried the crimes of other priests and that church's handling of it.
It certainly doesn't matter that he does not want to be "indiscreet" when it comes to the Hollywood big names he insisted he saw raping "very young boys" after feeding them lots of drugs. And make no mistake, feeding "young boys" lots of drugs to get them to have sex with adults IS rape.
Crying wolf is part and parcel of the Oprah society that we've allowed to fester; if someone has been abused and goes public with it, they have a responsibility to expose the abusers so that they are stopped. If the abused refuses to do so, they are either lying to get attention, or allowing those abusers to abuse others.
Furthermore, lets understand that this is the same guy who said that pedophilia has nothing to do with children who "have working sex organs," but rather is limited only to prepubescent children that have sex organs that are not functional. "If it bleeds it can breed," as the old mantra goes.
By that definition, a 13 year old one day or week or month would be off the table for sex, because their sex organs do not work yet, but be the next day or week or month when their sex organs are then functional and thus, when targeted for sex, it would no longer be pedophilia. What utter depraved rubbish!
Anyone who thinks that an adult man or woman who even wants, let alone has, sex with ANY 13 year old is NOT a pedophile, is at best, a depraved individual, and might in fact be a monster in waiting.
And anyone who agrees with him or lets him slide on that definition of pedophilia is just as depraved.
There are girls as young as 11 (even 10!) who have their first menstruation, and boys that young who have their first arousal. That does NOT make them "fair game" or meat on the table. That does NOT mean that an adult preying upon this is not a pedophile. Any adult having sex with a child simply because they are no longer "prepubescent" is a predator and ought to be hung by their neck until they're dead.
Anyone who covers for depraved adults who lust for children are no better.
I've actually watched the uncut interview wherein he admits that his sexual dalliance with a catholic priest, and later admits attending parties in Hollywood with "big names," admits that there were lots of drugs to fuel the "very young boys" to go along with the perverted desires of the "older men" at those parties.
When asked who the catholic priest was, and how old he was when it happened (when asked if he was 14 he responded "about that") he was demure and refused to answer the question, insisting it was consensual and that he was the "predator." When asked about the big names in Hollywood who were giving lots of drugs to young boys for sex, he insisted he did not want to be "indiscreet."
And his defense now is that he's "outed" pedophiles three different times, so he's not a proponent of pedophilia.
There are victims who are so hurt and broken that they never come forward with their crimes, and I can understand that, particularly when the perpetrator is a family member or other loved-one; however, when they do so, it is their responsibility to name their accusers so it can be investigated and further child rape crimes are not perpetrated by those same predators.
It does not matter whether he liked the catholic priest, or thought that the priest who was abusing him as a teen was "hot," that priest is a criminal. With the scale of the catholic priest pedophile abuses and cover ups that have gone on, this Milo character ought to be forthright about who the priest was, especially since he has in the past decried the crimes of other priests and that church's handling of it.
It certainly doesn't matter that he does not want to be "indiscreet" when it comes to the Hollywood big names he insisted he saw raping "very young boys" after feeding them lots of drugs. And make no mistake, feeding "young boys" lots of drugs to get them to have sex with adults IS rape.
Crying wolf is part and parcel of the Oprah society that we've allowed to fester; if someone has been abused and goes public with it, they have a responsibility to expose the abusers so that they are stopped. If the abused refuses to do so, they are either lying to get attention, or allowing those abusers to abuse others.
Furthermore, lets understand that this is the same guy who said that pedophilia has nothing to do with children who "have working sex organs," but rather is limited only to prepubescent children that have sex organs that are not functional. "If it bleeds it can breed," as the old mantra goes.
By that definition, a 13 year old one day or week or month would be off the table for sex, because their sex organs do not work yet, but be the next day or week or month when their sex organs are then functional and thus, when targeted for sex, it would no longer be pedophilia. What utter depraved rubbish!
Anyone who thinks that an adult man or woman who even wants, let alone has, sex with ANY 13 year old is NOT a pedophile, is at best, a depraved individual, and might in fact be a monster in waiting.
And anyone who agrees with him or lets him slide on that definition of pedophilia is just as depraved.
There are girls as young as 11 (even 10!) who have their first menstruation, and boys that young who have their first arousal. That does NOT make them "fair game" or meat on the table. That does NOT mean that an adult preying upon this is not a pedophile. Any adult having sex with a child simply because they are no longer "prepubescent" is a predator and ought to be hung by their neck until they're dead.
Anyone who covers for depraved adults who lust for children are no better.