'Kinsey' draws ire

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

Put up or shut up Mr. Know It All. I am tired of your junk science. You cannot hope to match the quality of Kinsey's work. You tear down what you can not hope to do yourself to feel superior. I think you are just another ignorant Bush parrot and/or religious bigot.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eigen
I only wish the people protesting this film cared about the science behind it as much as you guys do.

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.

So don't watch it. The problem I have is with these Religious Freaks who are protesting it. WTF, are they trying to dictate to the rest of us what we can and can't watch?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
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.

Put up or shut up Mr. Know It All. I am tired of your junk science. You cannot hope to match the quality of Kinsey's work. You tear down what you can not hope to do yourself to feel superior. I think you are just another ignorant Bush parrot and/or religious bigot.

:thumbsup:

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize
So you agree that puritans have sex with small children and livestock, and that god intended that? ...

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.)

And what about children? Again I ask - isn't raping children left to liberals like NAMBLA? Is that what secular society intended?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: Vic
When it comes to the extremely important issue of sex, Americans are truly the most screwed up culture in all the history of the world. People like Kinsey tried to help, but their help was not wanted. These "Puritans" need it to be dark and dirty, they won't get off unless it's forbidden and "naughty". And they hate bitterly anyone who thinks differently. It's all really twisted IMO.

For hundreds of years sex was understood to be an act limited to marriage.

No it wasn't, it never has been and never will be.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
How did he accomplish it? By publishing 'facts' that were not facts at all. Look at what has occurred as a result of the sexual revolution in this nation. Maybe the 'puritans' had the right idea after all. Or do you consider STDs, abortion, single motherhood, and all the other goodies that come along with this to be a good thing?

You think those are new things? Not even. Those have all been with humanity for thousands of years. Someone has pumped you full of lies I think. The difference is that once it was all swept under the rug in a big "scandal" with the woman in disgrace (but never the man as long as he wasn't caught in the act).

I'm serious. NONE of these problems are new. The difference today is that we have taken the first step to trying to solve them, which began by acknowledging that the problems existed. Many missteps have been take thus far, but under no circumstances will I agree to stepping backwards to the days of secrecy and scandal where sex was repressed and naughty and filthy, and the pregnant teenager was shipped to live with her grandma in the next state (and would not be allowed to graduate school) and she would never even be allowed to see her baby before it was put up for adoption.

I agree completely.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

And what about children? Again I ask - isn't raping children left to liberals like NAMBLA? Is that what secular society intended?

[/quote]
Was your father a Liberal?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

And what about children? Again I ask - isn't raping children left to liberals like NAMBLA? Is that what secular society intended?

Was your father a Liberal?
[/quote]Are you a member of NAMBLA?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

And what about children? Again I ask - isn't raping children left to liberals like NAMBLA? Is that what secular society intended?

Was your father a Liberal?

Are you a member of NAMBLA?
[/quote]
No. Why are you so engrossed with NAMBLA? You've must have mentioned it at least a half a dozen times in this thread. What does it have to do with this movie and the Nutjobs who are protesting it?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize

And what about children? Again I ask - isn't raping children left to liberals like NAMBLA? Is that what secular society intended?

Was your father a Liberal?

Are you a member of NAMBLA?

No. Why are you so engrossed with NAMBLA? You've must have mentioned it at least a half a dozen times in this thread. What does it have to do with this movie and the Nutjobs who are protesting it?[/quote]Doesn't have a thing to do with it. Bowfinger keeps bumping his commentary, I'm merely responding. What's your obsession with my father?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Doesn't have a thing to do with it. Bowfinger keeps bumping his commentary, I'm merely responding. What's your obsession with my father?

I'm merely responding

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: alchemize
Doesn't have a thing to do with it. Bowfinger keeps bumping his commentary, I'm merely responding. What's your obsession with my father?

I'm merely responding

I see. So where in this thread was my father mentioned until you brought it up? And who were you responding to? Since I had directed no posts at you? Oh - you were merely trolling and insulting as usual...carryon.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

I see. So where in this thread was my father mentioned until you brought it up? And who were you responding to? Since I had directed no posts at you? Oh - you were merely trolling and insulting as usual...carryon.[/quote]
Sorry, I didn't know asking if your father was liberal was insulting. You seem tightly wound, take a deep breath and chill out.

 

[Moonbeam]

Dogmatic religious notions that sex is evil lead to the buggering of animals and all sorts of other perversions. When you take off the lid to a previously repressed society and abandon all moral restraints you get people who think it's OK to have sex with children. People who are healthy and unrepressed about sex aren't a part of either camp.

We have externalized morality, no morality, and morality that comes from being healthy. The externalized moralist may succeed or fail to practice morality and his moral standards may have come from health or sickness. The amoralist may be motivated by sickness or health within him or anything in between. He who is healthy can act only from health because health loves health.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Doesn't have a thing to do with it. Bowfinger keeps bumping his commentary, I'm merely responding. What's your obsession with my father?

Lay off the drugs. They're killing your brain. I've not bumped "my commentary" directly even once, and have only bumped it indirectly when replying to attacks, always within a few hours. There is one person who has bumped my commentary more than everyone else, even taking it to other threads. You can find him in a mirror.

I don't know why you continue to obsess over this. Let it go already. I apologize for rousing your inner demons. I was only trying to highlight the hypocrisy of many of the puritans who self-righteously condemn others' sexual idiosyncrasies.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

Please note I didn't claim his data was valid.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

Whether that is true or not do you think the Fund A Mental Cases are right to protest this film in hope that it will be pulled so those wanting to see it will be denied that right?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Please note I didn't claim his data was valid.

I didn't say you did Your post was a springboard.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

Anyone respectable know if there is truth in Csg's statement or is just more fanatical hatred? The sexual equivalent of creationism?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

Whether that is true or not do you think the Fund A Mental Cases are right to protest this film in hope that it will be pulled so those wanting to see it will be denied that right?

Do these people not have the right to voice their opinion and opposition?

But hey, if people want to see a film about a lying pervert(that incidentally doesn't look like it's portraying him as the pervert he was) then more power to them. kinsey was a liar, and we are still dealing with the myths he created.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Kinsey opened up a nationwide dialog on sexuality/sexual behaviors, that wasn't a bad thing...

Well, sure - If you think junk science being used to open the debate isn't a bad thing...then you are correct. Kinsey may have been "intelligent" but he really had issues with Math and/or research methodology.

Oh, and I'd like to see if Bowfinger or some other kinsey apologist would care to address this from kinsey:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having
its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts.?

Kinsey was a pervert and a liar in his "research".

CsG

Anyone respectable know if there is truth in Csg's statement or is just more fanatical hatred? The sexual equivalent of creationism?

It's in his book : "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female"

But go ahead and continue with your attempts to discredit/insult me.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Do these people not have the right to voice their opinion and opposition?

But hey, if people want to see a film about a lying pervert(that incidentally doesn't look like it's portraying him as the pervert he was) then more power to them. kinsey was a liar, and we are still dealing with the myths he created.

CsG

So what, we are still dealing with the myths created by the followers of Jesus.

 

[Red Dawn]

Before these Fundie Monkeys made a big deal out of this movie I probably would of had no interest in seeing it. Now it's on my must watch list as soon as it hits HBO. I bet it helps the sales of this Movie.