The best way to deal with the problem is to propagate strict morality with a great deal of compassion. Immorality with sensitivity is destructive, even though it is sensitive.
The best way to deal with the problem is to propagate strict morality with a great deal of compassion. Immorality with sensitivity is destructive, even though it is sensitive.
/strawman
I never said any of those problems were new. However, the changes that were made in society as a result of this completely bogus study have greatly exacerbated the problems. I must have pumped myself full of lies by actually reading his studies critically and realizing what a crock they are. Countless similar studies have been published since and have completely debunked nearly everything in the Kinsey studies. He chose his samples to achieve his results rather than allowing random sampling to give real observations. If he tried to get them published today in a peer-reviewed journal, he would get laughed out of the business.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
With all due respect Sir Cad, you're becoming a total idiot. No, it's not trolling, not in the least. I was simply addressing the topic of this thread (though I'm not at all surprised this concept befuddles you).Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah, so you were trolling... figures.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I see neither of you has found a fix for your reading comprehension impairment. You won't look so foolish when attacking others if you make some attempt to understand what they're saying. It's called hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license. Sorry, I don't know how to explain it without multi-syllable words.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm wondering which puritans Bowfinger knows that get their jollies with livestock and children...Originally posted by: alchemize
Wow bowfinger classy post. Let's follow your train of thought...Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What else is new? Any time there is a suggestion that some people openly find pleasure in the human body -- or pretty much anything else for that matter -- the puritans get all hot and bothered. They prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended. :roll:Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Awww, the puritans have got their knickers in a bunch again. Poor babies.:brokenheart:
The good news is they're so predictable. The best thing can happen to controversial material is to draw the attention of those self-righteous busybodies. It means this film will get a lot of free publicity and attention it wouldn't have otherwise. By once again cramming their repressions down everyone else's throats, they sabotage themselves.
See my .sig
As opposed to liberals, who aren't ashamed of their children buggering. www.nambla.org
CsG
The point is that time and again, the most vocal, most self-righteous, self-professed guardians of others' morality are the same ones that pop up in the most lurid scandals. It's called hypocrisy, and while I'm not inclined to go look up the verse(s) at the moment, I seem to remember the Bible having a word to say about hypocrites.
CsG
Speaking of which, I note that you and the two other stooges completely ignored both the OP and the points I raised. The puritans' response to this film is just the latest example of their compulsion to impose their repressive, often hypocritical morality upon everyone else. And, once again, they are so blinded by their hate that they will hurt their own cause in the process, bringing this film a free publicity bonanza.
Please, Don - and you didn't see Bowfinger tying "purtainism" to bestiality and pedophilia? Mine was an absurd example to show his absurd example...
"they prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended."
Read the whole context before you start tossing out FU's
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
So then next time drop the trolling and stay with the point.
I don't see what the problem is with the movie, but I won't join in your bashing those that voice their opposition to it either.
CsG
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Depends on the culture, actually. 1500-1800-ish were very libertine for the upper class of Europe and America. It was expected of young men to go around fvcking whatever moved. For women it was somewhat more complicated, but even upper-class, socially accepted women could have their own affairs. It was only in the 19th century that Puritan morals seeped into the very fabric of Western culture, esp. with Victorianism. 1800-1970-ish was probably one of the most sexually screwed up eras for the dominant western culture. Subcultures, like the various Calvinast groups have their own history, of course.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
>>>
it glorifies the sex researcher they consider responsible for AIDS and the sexual revolution.
>>>
like "sexual revolution" is something bad...LOL
(Not that there *IS* one, at least in the US)
I wonder whether these dumba$$es are also sorry that women have *some* more rights now than they had, say, 50 years ago ? (More rights for women certainly is also part of the sexual revolution)
dumba$$es...
it glorifies the sex researcher they consider responsible for AIDS and the sexual revolution.
>>>
like "sexual revolution" is something bad...LOL
(Not that there *IS* one, at least in the US)
I wonder whether these dumba$$es are also sorry that women have *some* more rights now than they had, say, 50 years ago ? (More rights for women certainly is also part of the sexual revolution)
dumba$$es...
Are you joking? Kinsey was not a sloppy researcher, he was quite meticulous in his work. The main criticism of his work is that his samples were perhaps not representiative of the US population. That (possibly) limits the usefulness of his results when generalising to the population. If you are able to demonstrate that his work is "fiction", then by all means do so...
Kinsey's work is probably the most influential sex research ever done.
It was a hell of a lot more classy than YOU implying that liberals endorse the sentiments expressed at nambla.org (an organisation dedicated to promting pedophilia and hebophilia). You should be ashamed of yourself. (And you're probably an xian, right?)
Too true, sadly.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What else is new? Any time there is a suggestion that some people openly find pleasure in the human body -- or pretty much anything else for that matter -- the puritans get all hot and bothered. They prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended. :roll:Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Awww, the puritans have got their knickers in a bunch again. Poor babies.
The good news is they're so predictable. The best thing can happen to controversial material is to draw the attention of those self-righteous busybodies. It means this film will get a lot of free publicity and attention it wouldn't have otherwise. By once again cramming their repressions down everyone else's throats, they sabotage themselves.
See my .sig
Are you accusing Kinsey of fraudulent research practise? Please elaborate.
STDs, abortion, single motherhood are the price one pays for freedom.
What is required, of course, is decent public education on effective methods of avoiding or reducing unwanted pregnancy, the spread of STDs, etc., including 'fact based' sex ed. in the class-room. Puritans tend to be opposed to fact-based sexual education being given to teenagers, and prefer 'abstinence based' sex education. Interestingly, the latest research shows teenagers who get abstinence based sex ed. are MORE likely to end up having unsafe sex than the teenagers who get fact based sex ed. It would be kinda funny, if it wasn't so sad.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Funny, but I seem to have this silly notion that I was using an extreme example to show the idiocy of your extreme generaliztion (you know all those big fancy words you used to mask your hate speech). Or maybe I really believe liberals are boy-loving men? :roll:
Of course, when YOU do it, well then you are Mr. Po-et. The elitist wordsmith. But when *I * do it, well then I'm reading impaired, eh? Got it. :laugh::roll: Hard to compete with perfection like yourself. Bible had a few choice words about that also...
you america-hating genocidal pedophelial godless communists really hate the taste of your own soup, don't you
yeah, i guess the problem is your lack of skill in expressing yourself. your extreme example 'came over' as mere ignorance or stupidity.
What does the above even mean? I hope you're not assuming that "morality" is incompatible with sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, etc.
So you're asserting a causal relationship between Kinsey's published work, and the so-called sexual revolution? What evidence do you have for this bold claim?
How so?
What exactly has been debunked?
You're accusing the man of deliberately biasing his subject selection process to get the results he wanted. (I.e., you're accusing him of scientific fraud). That's a VERY serious allegation. Maybe you'd like to present the evidence you're basing this on. (We wouldn't want to trash this guy's reputation simply because we didn't like the implications of his research findings, now would we?)
It is true Kinsey's samples were perhaps not representative of the US population. That means you might want to be cautious about generalising his statistical findings to the population. This doesn't make his work worthless. His qualitative work has at least as much value as any statistic or number he came up with.
His sampling procedure completely invalidates any findings he may have had. What he essentially did is exactly analagous to a pollster going into the DNC national headquarters and taking a poll as to who would be the next president. He had his results before he started his study, whether they agreed with reality or not, and selected his sample accordingly. That is hardly a work of science. I agree that he's probably the most influential, but that doesn't mean he's right.
I'd like to see this research. I'd also like to see any study that indicates a decline in STDs or unwanted pregnancy due to 'safe sex' education. Public schools have been using this education style for decades now, so where are the results?
But he sold it as exactly that: representative of the human population. It's easily refuted. He claimed that 10% of all people are homosexuals. Every other study conducted has put that number at between 1-3%. His sampling procedure, therefore, completely invalidated any findings he might make. Same goes for the rest of his crap. I can give specific examples and more scientific works that clearly contradict his 'findings' if you're really that concerned.
So you agree that puritans have sex with small children and livestock, and that god intended that? Or does your 3 word reply mean that you lack skill in expressing yourself, probably as a result of mere ignorance or stupidity?Originally posted by: aidanjm
Too true, sadly.Originally posted by: Bowfinger
What else is new? Any time there is a suggestion that some people openly find pleasure in the human body -- or pretty much anything else for that matter -- the puritans get all hot and bothered. They prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended. :roll:Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Awww, the puritans have got their knickers in a bunch again. Poor babies.
The good news is they're so predictable. The best thing can happen to controversial material is to draw the attention of those self-righteous busybodies. It means this film will get a lot of free publicity and attention it wouldn't have otherwise. By once again cramming their repressions down everyone else's throats, they sabotage themselves.
See my .sig
I only wish the people protesting this film cared about the science behind it as much as you guys do.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 61,775
- 17,492
- 136
I, for one, thank them. I hadn't heard of the movie 'til now, and now I'll be sure to watch it, enjoying the all-too-easily-attained satisfaction I get from pissing off people who want to tell other people how to live. I'm sure even as a work of fiction, it should be an informative film.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
You sure are obsessed with that comment. I must have struck a nerve. I asked this in one of the other threads where you were stalking me, but you turned tail and ran away. Therefore, I'll ask again here: were you an alter boy, or do you not grasp that when I said livestock, I meant the literal, four-legged variety, NOT the bleating Bushie variety?
(Though even then, as I already explained, I was exaggerating to emphasize a point. Most puritans do not have sex with livestock, at least as far as I know. As an open-minded person, however, let me be clear that I do not judge what puritans do with their livestock, as long as it is consensual. Don't ask, don't bleat.)
Making a film about Kinsey as a scientist is like making a film about Hitler as a philosopher. Sure, both put forth a lot of 'material' in their fields, but it's all a bunch of crap.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter