Since apparently, I keep having to explain this to so many people after purging the Milo faggots from the page, here’s a transcript of Milo’s own words. Edited only where he keeps “uhm, uhh”-ing as if he’s a Jew being discovered.
Guilty part starts at 1:02:11 and ends at 1:05:14
PaulsEgo (bald guy with glasses): The reason these age-of-consent laws exist is because we have to set some kind of a barometer here. We’ve gotta pick an age where [we can say]: “Look, this is the age where we can reasonably be assured you’re an adult, you can give informed consent, you understand the risks, the pregnancy risks, and I think—
Milo: I think the law is probably about right. It’s probably roughly the right age. I think it’s probably about ok.
But, there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them. People who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way.
And in many cases, actually – those relationships between older– this is one of the reasons why I hate the left. This sort of stupid “one-size-fits-all” policing of culture, this sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent. ( c|:^) )
Which totally destroys the understanding that many of us have of the complexities and subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships. You know, people are messy and complex.
And actually (in the homosexual world particularly), some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of “coming-of-age” relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those younger boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and provide them with a reliable rock where they can’t [unintelligible – speak?] to their parents.
The guy with the Luchador mask (can’t be bothered to look up who he is): That sounds like catholic priest molestation to me.
Milo: Yeah, but you know what? I’m grateful for father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him. [inb4 it was just a joke – look further]
PaulsEgo: You’re talking about how transgenderism is the new “frontier” of “rights” – my wording is bad here – and the next thing in line is gonna be pedophilia. Yet here you are talking about how: “You know, some of these kids that get diddled by these priests, I mean, it’s a good thing for them. They’re getting this “love.”
Milo: You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is an attraction to children – to children who have not reached puberty.
[SSAdmin edit: so children who have hit puberty are totally fair game lol]
Pedophilia is the attraction to people who don’t have functioning sex organs yet, who have not gone through puberty, who are too young to understand the way their bodies work.
That is not what we’re talking about. You don’t understand what pedophilia is if you think that I’m defending it.
So there you have it. Milo is not a pedophile. But as Nick Griffin put it in one of his podcasts (which has now been shoah’d from Jewtube otherwise I’d link it), he is a PEDERAST.
In any case, people are still out defending a flamboyant coal-burning sodomite. And most importantly – DEFENDING A JEW.
Later edit: Also, if I hear that fucking “hebephilia” argument one more time you’re getting zucced like this ching chong.