(October 11, 2018 at 3:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: I believe the strawman was "Harvey Milk is not a scumbag." ~ All Atheists

We had a mayor here who's name I can't recall. I liked his politics, but he apparently liked young men of not lawful age to consent.

He's a scumbag, and this liberal atheist has no problem saying so.

(October 11, 2018 at 8:23 am)Grandizer Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 8:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You won't find one athiest referring to Harvey Milk as a 'scumbag' like they do with Bill Cosby.

Like I said, I'm using dbp's own logic.

I don't know who Harvey Milk is, but if he did what you said he did, he's a scumbag and a piece of shit.

So is Bill Cosby.

Happy?

Who’s Harvey Milk? He’s the first successful openly gay politician, being elected to the San Francisco board of Supervisors in 1977, assassinated the next year, and canonized by popular acclamation by the gay community, and eventually, the left.

The allegations, well, an account of a relationship he had in his thirties with a runaway of about 16, are detailed here:

https://halfabridge.wordpress.com/2011/0...-molester/

I could say It’s not questionable, at the very least, but I would be lying my ass off. I’d probably have to read The Mayor of Castro Street for more information, and I doubt we’re going to get more info about it (outside of people with an axe to grind either defaming the left in any way they can or by equating homosexuality with pederasty).

I’m not even going to pretend I know enough about this situation to make a judgment on whether it was right or wrong. At the very least, even barring the fact that even consensual homosexuality over the age of consent was illegal in most states, the fact that he was shacking up with a 16 year old may have been legally actionable even if it was a girl. It’s possible this was a loving relationship, it’s possible this was exploitation. The point is, we need to be able to examine the relationship and see judge how good or bad this would have been. To go back to Bill Cosby, a lot of his career has been scrutinized and it seems that the allegations check out. Does the same shit hold for Harvey Milk? I dunno.

But, to be totally honest, Whether it’s a history-making city supervisor or a famous comedian, to erase their accomplishments on the basis of their questionable lives off-duty strikes me as, well, this:

And here's the excerpt from Mayor of Castro Street dealng with Harvey Milk's relationship with Jack Galen McKinley, the most basis I could find for the "Harvey Milk is a Scumbag" narrative:

https://books.google.com/books?id=P_2f52...ey&f=false

And this is as much info as we're likely to get. Milk, McKinley, and biographer Shilts are all dead now, so there's not likely to be much more info coming out. That said, the fact that this was a relationship that lasted years (although tempestuous, due to McKinley's longstanding bipolar disorder and history of suicide attempts) seems to be a bit of a hole in the scumbag narrative.

Besides, it's a bit hard to treat this as a "seduction of the innocent" when the one of the first things he says to his lover is ""I came to New York so I could suck cock."

What did I tell you guys?

Rev Rye doesn't care about rape as long as the person doing the raping is gay...

from his link.

Didn't you just see a bunch of us condemn Milk? You attributed Rye's position to all atheists. That was shown to be false, conclusively.

Yeah, milk is bad.

(October 12, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: Didn't you just see a bunch of us condemn Milk? You attributed Rye's position to all atheists. That was shown to be false, conclusively.

And Even then, I took what I could find in the way of evidence for your proposition, weighed the two together, and while Milk’s not entirely morally in the clear, I’m not quite seeing the predatory behavior you claim in Milk’s case. The only other case I could find was him responding to a Minnesota teenager and telling him to move to San Francisco (when he was a famous member of the board of supervisors) and telling him to not tell his parents he was moving to a big city. The detail of “don’t tell the parents” is certainly questionable, but it’s not a silver bullet pointing to nefarious purposes.

If you can find more conclusive evidence pointing to more unambiguously predatory behavior, show me, and, if it checks out, I’ll gladly revise my view of Harvey Milk. So far, I’m getting “far from perfect, with some eyebrow-raising incidents, but not quite worthy of condemnation.”

So far, file this under “important if true.”

(October 12, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: Didn't you just see a bunch of us condemn Milk? You attributed Rye's position to all atheists. That was shown to be false, conclusively.

No, I pointed out Rev Rye specifically.

Also, you guys are condemning Milk just now, not one person condemned him then, I was mainly pointing out Downbeatplumb's hypocrisy since he started that thread, and every one in that thread, save me and GC was defending Milk.

---

(October 12, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 12:53 pm)Shell B Wrote: Didn't you just see a bunch of us condemn Milk? You attributed Rye's position to all atheists. That was shown to be false, conclusively.

And Even then, I took what I could find in the way of evidence for your proposition, weighed the two together, and while Milk’s not entirely morally in the clear, I’m not quite seeing the predatory behavior you claim in Milk’s case. The only other case I could find was him responding to a Minnesota teenager and telling him to move to San Francisco (when he was a famous member of the board of supervisors) and telling him to not tell his parents he was moving to a big city. The detail of “don’t tell the parents” is certainly questionable, but it’s not a silver bullet pointing to nefarious purposes.

If you can find more conclusive evidence pointing to more unambiguously predatory behavior, show me, and, if it checks out, I’ll gladly revise my view of Harvey Milk. So far, I’m getting “far from perfect, with some eyebrow-raising incidents, but not quite worthy of condemnation.”

So far, file this under “important if true.”

Will somebody address this fool (he has me on ignore) and explain the concept of statutory rape to him.

He makes ridiculous posts, ends up getting lambasted, then he wants to ignore somebody.

Quote:No, I pointed out Rev Rye specifically.

But, you didn't. Otherwise, I wouldn't have replied because it had fuck-all to do with me.

---

(October 11, 2018 at 8:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 7:42 am)Shell B Wrote: So all atheists would defend that? I wouldn’t.

You won't find one athiest referring to Harvey Milk as a 'scumbag' like they do with Bill Cosby.

Like I said, I'm using dbp's own logic.

(October 12, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:

Quote:No, I pointed out Rev Rye specifically.

But, you didn't. Otherwise, I wouldn't have replied because it had fuck-all to do with me.

(October 12, 2018 at 10:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: What did I tell you guys?

Rev Rye doesn't care about rape as long as the person doing the raping is gay...

---

(October 12, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(October 11, 2018 at 8:20 am)Huggy74 Wrote: You won't find one athiest referring to Harvey Milk as a 'scumbag' like they do with Bill Cosby.

Like I said, I'm using dbp's own logic.

What you are referring to is my response to Downbeatplumb, who started off by generalizing Christians, Hence why I stated I was using his logic.