Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart News

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Yes it is. I already gave my reason.

Which "reasoning" is vapid. You compared a crime to a legal act.

Didn't say it wasn't.

One which you'd deny to women, but not men.  Got it.

No, I wouldn't.

Gee, I wonder why you think nothing of letting the government in on a woman's medical decision, but not a man's.

Of course I have to. There are strict limits to bodily autonomy. I cannot use my bodily autonomy to hurt or cause distress to someone or something. As a matter of fact I cannot even use bodily autonomy to cause harm/kill myself, it is either considered illegal or mentally unstable.

You can and do use your bodily autonomy to distress things all the time. It's illegal to assault a person. It's also illegal to take a person and hold their body captive to your whim for nine months at a time.

You are making my point for me; you value a fetus, who legally is not a person, over a living woman. How is this not misogynist?

You're wrong but I would've still liked to see your answer to that.

Read the above and get back to me.

No, it's not. You hitting someone with your body is you exercising bodily autonomy but your government has given you strict instructions about what you can or cannot do with your own body.

You've already written that you would deny the government the power to forcibly conduct a medical procedure on you, yet you have no problem with the government forcing not just a medical procedure, but a lifetime of motherhood, on a woman. Somehow you don't mind that.

It is not allowed to use your bodily autonomy to cause harm or distress to someone or something and this largely depends on different countries and their laws.

Then kindly keep your idiotic, backward opinions in your shithole of a country. You have no problem with a fetus using its bodily autonomy to siphon energy and nutrients from a woman's body. Probably because it's a woman who is being treated in such a manner, amirite?

Blindly following laws are a bit idiotic. Always question everything and try to find the reasons as to why. Being a good boy that yells "Yes sir!" will get you points in your classroom but in the real world you'll get ridiculed.

... says the idiot who just got done talking about how the law doesn't permit bodily autonomy to mean assault (as if that's germane to a medical conversation anyway).

The decision, by the way, says that woman can have abortions, not that women must. It is not an imperative.

Also, I got a good laugh at you, a college kid who hasn't had to pay his own way in the world, telling me about how the real world works. This is how uninsightful you are, Pool.

I am owning it.

No, you're not. You're denying the obvious.

Who's whining? Me myself have already repeated countless times I'm against feminism in this very own thread alone.

That wasn't the whining I was referencing. You're not terribly smart, are you?

Nope. I'm a nice person and I don't have to prove it to you.

That's a good thing, because after all the shitty things you've written, I don't think you could demonstrate goodness to many folks here.

I striked it out because I made a mistake while typing it out but please, you continue telling me what I believe. Straw manning seems the only way you can display yourself as being in the right, I don't blame you.

The strike-out doesn't occur in the original post, which happened at 12:30 pm by the forum clock. It only appears in a post timed 9:37 pm by the same clock.

It also bears note that the essence of the strike means that you could in certain instances support endangering the life of the mother in your stance against abortion. I'm unsure how this makes you less misogynist ... but no doubt you've concocted more horseshit to convince yourself of your own rectitude.

Also, I don't think you know what straw-manning is. I'd suggest learning about it before tossing it around. You only look dumber (and that's quite the trick!) when you use words you obviously don't understand. It's not telling someone what they believe. It's constructing an argument they haven't made, and then treating the negation of that constructed argument as the negation of their actual argument.

That hasn't happened here, and I ain't telling you what you believe. I'm feeding back to you the impression that your posts leave. That impression is that you think women are lesser beings who can't even be trusted with the responsibility to decide where to sit in a cinema. If that's not the message you want to get across, perhaps you should stop propagating it?

This is not a safe-zone, and your opinions do not get a free pass from critique. Don't like it? Tough shit.

It seems I'll really have to spell this out for you sigh: 

Bodily autonomy is not a gendered issue.

---

Noone shuts anyone down. They just judge you on what you're running your mouth. Which is not infringing on free speech, but the exercise thereoff.

New ideas, different opinions, unconventional solutions - all of these should be judged not on an emotional level but on a rational level. 
Different opinions by principle should not be able to hurt someone's feelings but in this day and age that is a rare sight - it is because people emotionally invest too much on ideas. Free speech doesn't hurt unless you are emotionally invested in your ideas. 

Take Milo's case for example. People seem to think he is an awful idiot, pokes fun at him and conducts riots at his events. From an outsiders perspective, if Milo's opinions were so wrong why aren't you engaging him on a rational level? Why do people engage him on an emotional level? Every opinion is first engaged on a rational level and when that fails it is engaged on an emotional level, it's simply another way of saying you've been proved false but simply can't accept it. That's why "TRIGGERED" is a running joke.

If you're going to promote group think and judge individual thinking you're only going to drive your society back to the stone age because some of THE most if not most all advancements of our society was possible solely because people decided to be unconventional.

[abaris]

New ideas, different opinions, unconventional solutions - all of these should be judged not on an emotional level but on a rational level. 

New ideas?



Well, I guess they were new at some time.

[Amarok]

What's old is new apparently . Sorry  we have been there. And  done that.



A new idea (which it's not) in this case that is utterly absurd and evil on every level

---

What's old is new apparently . Sorry  we have been there. And  done that.







A new idea (which it's not) in this case that is utterly absurd and evil on every level

[paulpablo]

I'm chiming in so late into this convo.

But this Milo situation and the conversations people are looking into where he talks about pedophilia remind me so much of the conversations I had one here with someone such a long long time ago.

It was an argument about age of consent and they were saying they enjoyed sex when they were very young so they saw nothing bad about having sex with anyone of any age as long as they expressed consent.  I was basically disagreeing with them.

Which is a little along the same lines as the conversation milo seems to have had with people.

On the Joe Rogan show he's talking about a 25 year old priest who had sexual contact with him when he was 14 was a great person.  And Joe is saying how can he be a great person if he's doing that to you and Milo is saying he was mature for his age.

Joe then goes onto say that if that's true in his case that doesn't mean the priest isn't a disgusting person it just seems like he targetted the right 14 year old.  If it is right that Milo was totally willing in all of this and he enjoyed it from the start.

I still don't think that sex with people of any age is right as long as they express consent.  But I think what Milo was talking about on the Joe Rogan show is interesting because I really wanted sex when I was 14.  And If I would have got sex from a 25 year old good looking woman I don't necesserily think I'd see that woman in a bad light.
But when I was 14 I would have aggressively gone after any sex put in front of me I don't exactly know what Milo's situation was.  I don't completely overlook the possability it might be some denial.  Or some projecting his feelings he has now onto the child he was then.  It seems to be a common theme among people who were sexually abused to have some kind of mental block about the ordeal.

[account_inactive]

It's also worth noting that George Takei has said similar things.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

[Thumpalumpacus]

People shouldn't lose book deals over suggesting the age of consent be the same that it is in much of western Europe.

Businesses have the freedom of association, too. They need not support speech with which they disagree. People should lose book deals if they espouse ideals their publishers detest, if their publishers so decide.

Free speech is more then just a law. I don't think you and me are actually at a huge disagreement, but re-read the first few pages of this thread and tell me that there aren't anti-free speech sentiments in it.

I'd never advocate for Milo being shushed by the government. Free speech is just a law, but it's a law that protects both him, and the peaceful protestors, from governmental opprobrium. It doesn't mean that a private entity must give him a stage for his speech, it doesn't mean that a publisher should have to publish his book (depending on how his contract is written).

Me, I think the best antidote to obnoxious speech is more speech pointing out how obnoxious it is (which is what you're seeing in action in the tussle between Fool the Not-so-Great and myself).

It seems I'll really have to spell this out for you sigh: 

Bodily autonomy is not a gendered issue.

Then why are you all for government regulating the bodily autonomy of women, but reject it for yourself? What's the difference between you and a woman, that you'd advocate for the government requiring them to submit to a pregnancy they may not wish to carry to term?

You clearly haven't thought through this position of yours. I won't be holding my breath, either. Thinking doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Then why are you all for government regulating the bodily autonomy of women, but reject it for yourself?

You can't possibly be that stupid or are you intentionally pretending? Didn't I already tell you that nobody has absolute bodily autonomy? There are strict boundaries to bodily autonomy regardless of whether you are a man or a woman hence why it is not a gendered issue no matter how desperately you want it to be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You can't possibly be that stupid or are you intentionally pretending? Didn't I already tell you that nobody has absolute bodily autonomy? There are strict boundaries to bodily autonomy regardless of whether you are a man or a woman hence why it is not a gendered issue no matter how desperately you want it to be.

See, you've already said that you would deny the right of the government to force you to undergo a medical procedure against your will, and yet you are also on record here as saying that you're fine with the government forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure, namely, childbirth. And of course nobody has the freedom to harm another living human being; that's not the "autonomy" I'm talking about. I'm talking about the autonomy to make one's own medical decision free from government intervention. I find it hard to believe I'm having to explain this to you, but here we are. At some point you're going to have to do some thinking. Pray tell that point comes soon.

I'm pointing out an essential contradiction between your two positions. That's not "stupid". The fact that you'd wish to avoid discussing it is not my problem. Your words are in black-and-white, and you can either explain them, or continue to look like a muddled hypocrite. The choice is yours.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You can't possibly be that stupid or are you intentionally pretending? Didn't I already tell you that nobody has absolute bodily autonomy? There are strict boundaries to bodily autonomy regardless of whether you are a man or a woman hence why it is not a gendered issue no matter how desperately you want it to be.

See, you've already said that you would deny the right of the government to force you to undergo a medical procedure against your will, and yet you are also on record here as saying that you're fine with the government forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure, namely, childbirth. And of course nobody has the freedom to harm another living human being; that's not the "autonomy" I'm talking about. I'm talking about the autonomy to make one's own medical decision free from government intervention. I find it hard to believe I'm having to explain this to you, but here we are. At some point you're going to have to do some thinking. Pray tell that point comes soon.

I'm pointing out an essential contradiction between your two positions. That's not "stupid". The fact that you'd wish to avoid discussing it is not my problem. Your words are in black-and-white, and you can either explain them, or continue to look like a muddled hypocrite. The choice is yours.

Dude. You compared abortion with cutting off a wiener. How do you expect anyone to respond to that? 

As for your arguments regarding bodily autonomy - Do you or do you not believe in the bodily autonomy of a baby?