Hey NathanJ,
"The facts are he is inciting violence. Violent protesters come into that fact, because their activities are simply violent."
That's total nonsense as well.
He's not forcing anyone to come out onto the streets it engage in violent behavior.
Each and every individual that does so made their own conscious decision to do that.
It's called 'taking responsibility for one's own actions'
- So I can go out onto the streets and wreck up the place, smash stuff up and attack people and as long as I say
'Well NathanJ said things that both offended and angered me so I have a legitimate right to cause mayhem'?

"It must be noted, that via many youtubes I have seen Milo Yiannopoulos with religious individuals, aim to show his clear goal to make these people angry or upset and in one case I saw people leaving one of his speeches and others applauded that."

Yes that's right, and he explained his reasoning for doing so clearly in the Bolt interview.
http://youtu.be/OqCxWk-xMA4?t=6m45s

I think you completely fail to see the bigger picture.

Democracy thrives on civilised disagreement, it's how we move our thinking forward. Brute force used by either Right or what passes these days for a 'Left' stunts that process. Essentially, it's fascist bullying, either way. Smashing people with lumps of wood, or drowning out what others are saying, are on the same spectrum, verging on fascism. It's bullying at the very least.

Of course Milo is a joke, he's a caricature, deliberately outraging and provoking all and sundry. If he has a genuine side, does he raise genuine issues, which have to be rebutted by argument rather than punch in the face ?

We're living in a strange new world, in which it is legitimate for someone to scream at, threaten and assault anyone who disagrees with them, on both sides. What's the point, ultimately?

If you or I have a genuine point to make, surely we have a right to put our point of view, and to be criticised, even utterly demolished, by better counter-arguments, without any threat of bullying ? Or is bullying something only the other side does ?

Joe

AJ Philips "the discomfort of their bodies. Society alone doesn't influence that part"

Only society (i.e. environment) can be responsible for that "discomfort".
No person is *born* disliking their body.
That disconnect must have been *induced* by experience.

"I even provided you with a link explaining these."

Yes, hormones in the womb can cause an *spectrum* of outcomes, not a duality of outcomes. My point and position.

Most of these studies show the subjects as "in between" or "intermediate", not the "opposite" of the expected.

So yes, genes and social experiences can cause all kinds of fuzzy outcomes. Agreed. So you're a little weird. Accept yourself and move on.

I note there are NO studies of "Androphilic female-to-male transsexuals". NONE!
Why is that AJ, if people are *born* like this, and it's not socially motivated/constructed?

Is it because there's no *social* motive to transition?
If you're born female and are a tomboy, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a female who wears pants and has short hair, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a tomboy who likes having sex with men, nobody bats an eye.
If you're a feminine boy who grows up to be gay, nobody bats an eye.

So if you're a masculine female or feminine male who likes having sex with men, there is no *social* incentive or motivation to change identity or surgically alter your body.
And that's why there are no studies of androphilic female-to-male transsexuals.

"Sing it, brother!"

I prefer the neuter term sibling, please.

Strange how our units seem to be turning out total Marxist thugs or snowflakes who are deeply offended by words (often truthful ones). This Milo or isn't chocolate character has certainly shown that.

//This Milo or isn't chocolate character has certainly shown that.//

Character. What an apt way of putting it.

<<I'm finding that your responses are just becoming idiotic>>

With definition of style, please note there are 'various' definitions of style, such as:

a: The state of being popular: fashion clothes that are always in style;

b: Fashionable elegance;

c: Beauty, grace, or ease of manner or technique an awkward moment she handled with style.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/style

From that also comes definitions such as:

a: A distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech), writes with more attention to style than to content and the flowery style of 18th century prose.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/style

One can therefore easily argue with what Milo Yiannopoulos says, does (and wears) easily fits into the above definitions.

<<Milo has never incited violence.>>

To incite is to cause to act or occur. Violent words can incite violent actions which, in turn, might incite public outcry against violence. Incite comes from a Latin verb meaning "to move into action" and if you incite someone to do something, that is exactly how to describe it.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/incite

The origin and Etymology of incite:

"Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion — more at cite"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incite

So to put it simply, if someone says something that say for example is overtly, somewhat or very controversial, this can as per the above, "incite violence".

How much simpler does that have to be in definition?