Thanks, Victor…
Re: Milo being brought down, your point is not unreasonable. The videos posted of his so-called defense of pedophilia (which really weren’t) were unleashed by neocons for a reason that I can’t fathom… of course Milo said what he said, but frankly, without knowing exactly what he was talking about in the live stream as the topic at hand… I see nothing definitive.
If you get down to it, he said that on some occasions relations with a substantial age difference that include a teen who has come to understand that they are gay, can be a good thing.
On rare occasion, probably so… because on rare occasion one might win the lottery. (in other words, anything is possible however unlikely). If a suicidal gay teen is brought back from the brink by a more mature perspective, then it’s hard to argue that death was the preferred outcome. But frankly, Milo is not seen expanding on his thought in that short clip… so I really don’t know. Probably never will.
But the truth is, the neocons went after him… using leftist rationale no less: “Milo had never been held accountable for spreading hateful views”. I don’t see evidence of “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it.” which is what I would expect from actual conservatives. As has been suggested, maybe the neocons just hate gays, and especially hate gay conservatives that are more popular than they are. It’s all unclear to me.
Of course CPAC just wanted to distance themselves from an already risky invite to an issue “too hot” to be associated with. They made the right move.
Brietbart… I hear that some threatened to resign, and I guess Milo did the gracious thing and bailed.
The funny thing is that Bill Maher is known to have actually supported pedophilia broadly (if only for women… admitting it is a double standard)
He spoke of it plainly with Playboy.
Playboy: Are you saying teachers should be allowed to have sex with their 13-year-old students, as she did, and not go to jail?
Maher: I think it’s a little offbeat, but you know, I believe in the double standard. If a 28-year-old male teacher is screwing a 13-year-old girl, that’s a crime. But with Debra Lafave [another teacher who had sex with a student] screwing her 14-year-old boy student, the crime is that we didn’t get it on videotape. Was he being taken advantage of? I wish I had been taken advantage of like that. What a memory she gave him! I would think he’s a champion among his friends. Are you kidding? Even with Michael Jackson.
I don’t know what’s happening with Maher… but I’ve not heard that he is being burned at the stake.
My take is that there is a double standard…
But ultimately you are correct… the right either worked to take him down, or didn’t do anything to defend Milo.
Nobody should be taken to task for statements they never made, and views they do not hold.
Oh, and regarding the doctors… it was not meant as an analogy for conservative/progressive approaches (though that works)… it was meant to show that even RANDOM CHANCE produces the statement that “most all progress happened because of random chance.” This is because it ignores all of the damage done by the same means. I am suggesting that it is not a strong case for progressivism, as the same statement can be made with regard to random acts, even if most of the effects were detrimental.
If you will allow me to suggest that progressive change produces results that are equally as bad as they are good, you are left with two true statements:
“Progressivism is responsible for the good things that happened”
and
“Progressivisim is responsible for the bad things that happened”
Highlighting one, whilst ignoring the other is of no value, and is deceptive.
I would argue that the net result of progressivism is a negative, but that’s just me. And of course I am right :)