What? His statement wasn't abhorrable? He's trying to redefine pedophilia as being attracted to someone who hasn't hit puberty instead of being attracted to a child. He argues that once they've hit puberty, all bets are off. They're an "adult" and can "consent" (even though we have age of consent laws specifically because while you hit puberty at young age, you're still a child). Bear in mind that some kids hit puberty at 9 or 10. In Milo's world, it's ok to fuck them.

You're abhorrable for deflecting and, dare I say, defending Milo and his comment and calling it a "witch hunt". 

So, in essence, what he said was ok, because we aren't discussing the right terminology? Ok, He's not defending pedophilia then. He's still saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty. Forget putting a "term" on it, and then parsing words over that term so that he's "technically right". He's saying it's ok to fuck a child as long as they've hit puberty.

That. Is. Wrong. 

And not only that, it's disgusting. 

The same way you uninvite him from the Conference and fire him from breitbart.

Multiple people threatened to quit if he didn't leave -and he left.

You can't claim it was the "evil liberal media" or anything like that.

The conversatives uploaded the movies. The conseratives uninvited him. And the most conservative website possible just fired him.

There is no witch hunt, just a lot of disgust for pedophiles.

As far as the Lena Dunham scandal. Do you mean the story of her touching her sister.. when she was 7?

Can't really call that a scandal when you have no clue what you are doing, thinking, or even feeling at 7.

Although reading that passage in the book was rather disgusting, but when put into context of 7 year old - it is more strange/odd than pedophilia.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. From what I'm hearing, he is a disgusting pig, and deserves this. Promoting pedophilia is a horrific thing to do, and I can't see why anyone who stand up for him. 

What, Breitbart fired him already?

That's sad.

When at least 6 people threaten to quit unless he is fired  - he was fired. You can argue semantics of "He was fired", "he was let go", "they let him quit" etc.

If he actually had the support of the peers and website he wouldn't have quit. He would have written article after article. Constantly attacked the evil liberal, and basically done what he has constantly done.

Yet here he is - without a job. They most likely let him keep a little bit of his dignity by letting him quit. But let's not be fooled - if he didn't quit, he would have been fired.

The witchhunt against Milo is a disgrace for Western democracy.

How can you cancel a whole book because of just one statement even if it was abhorrable (it wasn't). Scandal.