'Kinsey' draws ire

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

Go ahead - just keep in mind that the "man" they are making the movie about is a lying pervert, someone who was involved in pedophilia, and someone who refused to help police with an investigation of a child sex murder case because the suspect was a subject of his.

Oh, and one more thing - Make sure you realize that this was the man who testified to state legislatures that rape and sexual molestation didn?t harm victims as much as previously thought, thus penalties should be reduced for sex offenders.

But hey - have a good time watching the film

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

Go ahead - just keep in mind that the "man" they are making the movie about is a lying pervert, someone who was involved in pedophilia, and someone who refused to help police with an investigation of a child sex murder case because the suspect was a subject of his.

Oh, and one more thing - Make sure you realize that this was the man who testified to state legislatures that rape and sexual molestation didn?t harm victims as much as previously thought, thus penalties should be reduced for sex offenders.

But hey - have a good time watching the film

CsG

Oh noes, if I watch this movie I will be supporting Pedophiles and Sex Muderers!! Thanks Reverend Cad, I would have been subjected to vile filth and destined to spend enternity in hell if I watched this:roll:

 

[teiresias]

and someone who refused to help police with an investigation of a child sex murder case because the suspect was a subject of his.

Call me when you admonish Novak as harshly for not helping investigators as much as he can in the leaking of a CIA agent's identity because the suspect was a source of his.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

Go ahead - just keep in mind that the "man" they are making the movie about is a lying pervert, someone who was involved in pedophilia, and someone who refused to help police with an investigation of a child sex murder case because the suspect was a subject of his.

Oh, and one more thing - Make sure you realize that this was the man who testified to state legislatures that rape and sexual molestation didn?t harm victims as much as previously thought, thus penalties should be reduced for sex offenders.

But hey - have a good time watching the film

CsG

Oh noes, if I watch this movie I will be supporting Pedophiles and Sex Muderers!! Thanks Reverend Cad, I would have been subject to vile filth and destined to spend enternity in hell if I watched this:roll:

:roll: Nice try - but I said nothing of the sort. I just want you to remember who the "man" really was when you watch this film.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: 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

Taking a quote out of context isn't very helpful. I was thinking more about the claim that his science was bad though. You could be right, but I need more evidence that his science was bad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: 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

Taking a quote out of context isn't very helpful. I was thinking more about the claim that his science was bad though. You could be right, but I need more evidence that his science was bad.

Try reading and learning...

CsG

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

Have you read his reports? Critically? I have.

If you want your answer before 10:00 tonight or so, then you'll have to do your own legwork. Here is a good place to start. Sorry I can't get more specific just now, but I'm being paid to study by one of the finest junk science institutions in the country. So, after my junk science and mathematics classes, I'll feed you some more lines of junk science.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Try reading and learning...

CsG

LOL, just what I thought... from a Christian site. Their problems with it are evidently religious, not scientific.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

Go ahead - just keep in mind that the "man" they are making the movie about is a lying pervert, someone who was involved in pedophilia, and someone who refused to help police with an investigation of a child sex murder case because the suspect was a subject of his.

Oh, and one more thing - Make sure you realize that this was the man who testified to state legislatures that rape and sexual molestation didn?t harm victims as much as previously thought, thus penalties should be reduced for sex offenders.

But hey - have a good time watching the film

CsG

Oh noes, if I watch this movie I will be supporting Pedophiles and Sex Muderers!! Thanks Reverend Cad, I would have been subject to vile filth and destined to spend enternity in hell if I watched this:roll:

:roll: Nice try - but I said nothing of the sort. I just want you to remember who the "man" really was when you watch this film.

CsG

You know, I now will have that in the back of my mind if I watch this movie. Should make it more interesting!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Try reading and learning...

CsG

LOL, just what I thought... from a Christian site. Their problems with it are evidently religious, not scientific.

The site doesn't matter - the content of that report by ALEC does matter though. Did you read the report?

Here - try this if you refuse to read the other link - text

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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 ...

Just for the record, this is just another dishonest attack from Sir Cad. I've yet to say a single word here in defense of Kinsey. I simply pointed out that puritans (like Cad?) love to force their personal sexual repressions on everyone else, are often hypocrites, and are such rabid zealots that they don't see or don't care that all their public squealing is garnering publicity for this film. So be it.


As long as I'm here, however, I'd love to address this little exhibition of Cad's own puritan delusions:

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.?

I hate to over-analyze another of your out-of-context quotes, but I fail to see a problem with this quote as presented. As I read it, Kinsey is not making a value judgment, i.e., he is NOT saying it is OK to fondle children. Rather, he is saying there is no inherent physiological reason why a human being should feel disturbed by such touching. From a purely objective basis, it is no different than any touching other parts of the body.

The reason it is different is that as intelligent beings, we recognize the special significance of genitals. We understand there is more to it than an arm or a navel. As a culture, we agree that certain types of contact are inappropriate. It is something we teach children beginning at an early age. We teach them modesty and shame and good touch-bad touch. And that's a good thing.

I don't see in your quote where Kinsey suggests otherwise. He is simply acknowledging this is a learned value ingrained in our culture. It is, as he is, our cultural conditioning. In some cultures, nudity is commonplace at all ages, and no one finds it disturbing. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just different. I am unaware of any culture where fondling is considered innocent, but it's not my field. There are far stronger reasons to view fondling children as taboo than there are for mere nudity.

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

CsG

There you go again. Anyone you disagree with is a liar. Who'd have guessed? :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

Actually, I am a career researcher. I'm offended that anyone would even call Kinsey a scientist. As I said, have you read his report? Do you have any knowledge of statistical sampling methods? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Seems to me you just stick your head out every couple weeks, throw some lame remark my way, then disappear back into the woodwork from whence you came. Easier than actually debating anything, to be sure. It's certainly easier to try to belittle me while hiding away safely in your ivory tower. Tell me, what are your research credentials? You're so eager to attack me and mine, so put up or shut up, as you so eloquently put it. If I cooked a bunch of numbers and said I discovered a way to contain fusion, I could probably be as famous as Kinsey. Unfortunately, I'm a real scientist, not some quack looking to get famous.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
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?

Did I even say I was protesting the film? Don't think so. Only said that his 'science' is nothing more than fiction. Thanks for the sweeping generalizations and other idiocy.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
LOL, just what I thought... from a Christian site. Their problems with it are evidently religious, not scientific.

Yes, a non-partisan report is completely cast aside as soon as it appears on a religious website. We need a cracker instead of a for this guy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
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 ...

Just for the record, this is just another dishonest attack from Sir Cad. I've yet to say a single word here in defense of Kinsey. I simply pointed out that puritans (like Cad?) love to force their personal sexual repressions on everyone else, are often hypocrites, and are such rabid zealots that they don't see or don't care that all their public squealing is garnering publicity for this film. So be it.


As long as I'm here, however, I'd love to address this little exhibition of Cad's own puritan delusions:

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.?

I hate to over-analyze another of your out-of-context quotes, but I fail to see a problem with this quote as presented. As I read it, Kinsey is not making a value judgment, i.e., he is NOT saying it is OK to fondle children. Rather, he is saying there is no inherent physiological reason why a human being should feel disturbed by such touching. From a purely objective basis, it is no different than any touching other parts of the body.

The reason it is different is that as intelligent beings, we recognize the special significance of genitals. We understand there is more to it than an arm or a navel. As a culture, we agree that certain types of contact are inappropriate. It is something we teach children beginning at an early age. We teach them modesty and shame and good touch-bad touch. And that's a good thing.

I don't see in your quote where Kinsey suggests otherwise. He is simply acknowledging this is a learned value ingrained in our culture. It is, as he is, our cultural conditioning. In some cultures, nudity is commonplace at all ages, and no one finds it disturbing. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just different. I am unaware of any culture where fondling is considered innocent, but it's not my field. There are far stronger reasons to view fondling children as taboo than there are for mere nudity.

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

CsG

There you go again. Anyone you disagree with is a liar. Who'd have guessed? :roll:

:roll: The reason he is a liar has nothing to do with my disagreement. Care to try again?

Yeah, the problem is that you don't seem to know what kinsey advocated and tried to claim was OK. That quote might be harmless if it weren't for the fact that kinsey was a pervert. Did you try reading my links? Can you really try to claim that quote means nothing after reading the report?
...Yeah, you probably will try to claim that and then you'll try to make some lame attack on Christians again. You are pathetic Bow your "They prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended" line was WAY past the line of decency - yet you get your panties in a bunch because alchemize made a similar broad statement in jest. The problem here is that you are defending yours -but condemning his. But hey - I never claimed consistency was your strong suit.

I suggest you read up on old buggering kinsey - i'm sure it'll make you all the more interested in going to see the film...

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
.

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
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?

Did I even say I was protesting the film? Don't think so. Only said that his 'science' is nothing more than fiction. Thanks for the sweeping generalizations and other idiocy.

Unless you are a Religious Freak who is out protesting this film what makes you think I was talking about you, your arrorgance?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Unless you are a Religious Freak who is out protesting this film what makes you think I was talking about you, your arrorgance?

Maybe the fact that you quoted me. *insert random second grade insult here*

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: The reason he is a liar has nothing to do with my disagreement. Care to try again?

Yeah, the problem is that you don't seem to know what kinsey advocated and tried to claim was OK. That quote might be harmless if it weren't for the fact that kinsey was a pervert. Did you try reading my links? Can you really try to claim that quote means nothing after reading the report?
...Yeah, you probably will try to claim that and then you'll try to make some lame attack on Christians again. You are pathetic Bow your "They prefer to get their jollies privately, in the dark, with livestock and small children like God intended" line was WAY past the line of decency - yet you get your panties in a bunch because alchemize made a similar broad statement in jest. The problem here is that you are defending yours -but condemning his. But hey - I never claimed consistency was your strong suit.

I suggest you read up on old buggering kinsey - i'm sure it'll make you all the more interested in going to see the film...

CsG

Are you even capable of honest, informed discussion? First you lied about my Kinsey apologism. I pointed this out; you dodged. Now you're claiming I "got my panties in a bunch" over alchemize's NAMBLA nonsense. This is another lie -- I didn't say a word about it -- but I'm confident you won't acknowledge this either. After all, you are never, ever, ever wrong about anything.

You challenged me to address your Kinsey quote. I did; you ignored my response. I point out that you call people liars when you disagree with them, offering no support for your claims. You respond with more completely unsupported assertions that Kinsey is a "liar" and a "pervert".

No, I haven't read your links. I'm not all that interested in Kinsey. I do object to self-righteous religious zealots trying to force their screwed-up morality on others, especially when so many of them are literally caught with their pants down. They've proven they can't follow their own sexual rules. Why should anyone else have to?

As far as Kinsey's sin's are concerned, instead of making empty assertions, how about offering facts supported by objective sources. Don't just throw out random links from questionable sources. Give specifics. This is called presenting a persuasive argument. What you do is called yapping. Long on personal opinions, short on facts. You seem to think your first quote from Kinsey is horribly damning. I think it's a simple statement of obvious scientific fact. Unless you have something solid to offer, I'll assume the rest of your anti-Kinsey ammunition are duds too.

Finally, I see you are as fixated on my "livestock and small children" crack as alc. Let me repeat what I told him:

• "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."

Nighty nite. Don't let the perverts bite.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You respond with more completely unsupported assertions that Kinsey is a "liar" and a "pervert".

No, I haven't read your links. I'm not all that interested in Kinsey.
...
As far as Kinsey's sin's are concerned, instead of making empty assertions, how about offering facts supported by objective sources. Don't just throw out random links from questionable sources. Give specifics

You are a trip Bow. You didn't even READ the links yet my assertions are "empty" and without "facts". The links aren't "random" - nor questionable -but thanks for trying the discredit the source route.

Try reading next time and you won't look like such a fool Bow.

CsG

 

[illustri]

I'm finding it hard to pass judgement; on one hand Kinsey's specific work on homosexuality has been controversial to say the least, on the other the ALEC which stemmed from the ACU has been painted by some as representing conservative interests in legislature. So this report of your (which btw seems mainly linked to on christian and conservative sites) should be read considering possible bias from the source. The complaints to his specific study whether warranted or not does not automatically nullify all his other work or ideas, which scientist today still regard as revolutionary. Robert Knight backtracked on the comparison of Kinsey to Mendele.

 

[CycloWizard]

Young Teen Pregnancy at Lowest Level Since 1946

The birth rate among American girls ages 10 to 14 has fallen to its lowest level since 1946, the government reported Monday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of births among girls in this age group dropped 38 percent from 1994 to 2002 alone, even though the number of girls 10 to 14 climbed 16 percent during the same period.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138654,00.html

Now, after decades, we're finally getting back to pre-Kinsey birthing rates for 10-14 year olds.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

Actually, I am a career researcher. I'm offended that anyone would even call Kinsey a scientist. As I said, have you read his report? Do you have any knowledge of statistical sampling methods? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Seems to me you just stick your head out every couple weeks, throw some lame remark my way, then disappear back into the woodwork from whence you came. Easier than actually debating anything, to be sure. It's certainly easier to try to belittle me while hiding away safely in your ivory tower. Tell me, what are your research credentials? You're so eager to attack me and mine, so put up or shut up, as you so eloquently put it. If I cooked a bunch of numbers and said I discovered a way to contain fusion, I could probably be as famous as Kinsey. Unfortunately, I'm a real scientist, not some quack looking to get famous.

Any idiot can claim to be anything on the Internet. You are a career researcher and a real scientist? Sure you are. Prove it. Put up or shut up. I say you are a mediocre student with delusions of grandeur. Your career is surfing the net. Some of us have lives in the real world and can not spend all day here.

You said "I can give specific examples and more scientific works that clearly contradict his 'findings' if you're really that concerned." I say again, put up or shut up. You are an empty bag of hot air. You provided no examples or scientific works. I bet you get your anti-Kinsey "science" from other religious nuts. You have no real science at all.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: 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.

freuds sampling was pretty crappy too...but we still get a lot of useful information about the human condition from him regardless.
im also really happy we finally have a hitler comparison on this board that isnt bush. it was getting boring.
however, i would have used mengele for obvious reasons.

i also think that its important to note that this is a movie. entertainment. why are so many people getting up in arms about entertainment lately?
because it pretends to be fact, i have read in this thread....but so did rudy and no one gave a damn (nor do they still) about how innacurate that is.
(also: i still think saving private ryan is sort of a dumb movie)

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You are a trip Bow. You didn't even READ the links yet my assertions are "empty" and without "facts". The links aren't "random" - nor questionable -but thanks for trying the discredit the source route.

Try reading next time and you won't look like such a fool Bow.

CsG

Another evasion. Let's try it again:

Are you even capable of honest, informed discussion? First you lied about my Kinsey apologism. I pointed this out; you dodged. Now you're claiming I "got my panties in a bunch" over alchemize's NAMBLA nonsense. This is another lie -- I didn't say a word about it -- but I'm confident you won't acknowledge this either. After all, you are never, ever, ever wrong about anything.

You challenged me to address your Kinsey quote. I did; you ignored my response. I point out that you call people liars when you disagree with them, offering no support for your claims. You respond with more completely unsupported assertions that Kinsey is a "liar" and a "pervert".

No, I haven't read your links. I'm not all that interested in Kinsey. I do object to self-righteous religious zealots trying to force their screwed-up morality on others, especially when so many of them are literally caught with their pants down. They've proven they can't follow their own sexual rules. Why should anyone else have to?

As far as Kinsey's sin's are concerned, instead of making empty assertions, how about offering facts supported by objective sources. Don't just throw out random links from questionable sources. Give specifics. This is called presenting a persuasive argument. What you do is called yapping. Long on personal opinions, short on facts. You seem to think your first quote from Kinsey is horribly damning. I think it's a simple statement of obvious scientific fact. Unless you have something solid to offer, I'll assume the rest of your anti-Kinsey ammunition are duds too.



Let me re-emphasize two things. First, I've caught you in two lies about me in this thread alone. You have neither refuted nor apologized for those lies. To compund your character flaw, you prance around calling everyone else a liar. That makes you both a liar and a hypocrite. Just for the record.

Second, you have given me no reason to read your links. My time is finite. The one specific example you gave is a joke. Unless you can offer other specific examples demonstrating there is any substance to your slurs, I am going to assume everything else in your link is a joke too. Now that's fine if you don't really care about discussion, if your true objective is empty attacks and diversions. If you actually want communications, however, you will have to offer some semblance of a coherent, thoughtful argument. So far, you're all noise and no signal.

Cheers,

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Young Teen Pregnancy at Lowest Level Since 1946

The birth rate among American girls ages 10 to 14 has fallen to its lowest level since 1946, the government reported Monday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of births among girls in this age group dropped 38 percent from 1994 to 2002 alone, even though the number of girls 10 to 14 climbed 16 percent during the same period.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138654,00.html

Now, after decades, we're finally getting back to pre-Kinsey birthing rates for 10-14 year olds.

I assume Kinsey was banging them all personally?

:roll:

I'm surprised you don't blame this on Clinton. Is Kinsey your new scapegoat du jour? You can join Sir Cad in the all noise, no signal class.

 

[jlmadyson]

How about this one; who cares about Kinsey? A conservative political thinker at that (working on my doctorate in political theory).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
How about this one; who cares about Kinsey? A conservative political thinker at that (working on my doctorate in political theory).

You obviously have better things to do than make a fuss over a movie.