'Kinsey' draws ire

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: 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.

No doubt.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wish I could stick a lump of coal in the asses of Republicans every time Kinsey's name gets mentioned. I could put DeBeers out of business.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wish I could stick a lump of coal in the asses of Republicans every time Kinsey's name gets mentioned. I could put DeBeers out of business.

:laugh:

Maybe you could try that when they picket the movie. Start with a bucket of coal and you'd be set for life.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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,

Are you capable of reading? Seems all you want to do is troll since you admit that you didn't read anything.

First off - No I didn't. It's quite clear you have been playing apologist.
Yes you did get your panties in a bunch - which is pretty silly considering what you posted.
You = liar :

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.

You made a comment about his quote defending it. I did not ignore it, although it is aparant by your apologistic comments about it - you haven't the slightest clue about kinsey.

No, I don't call people liars because I disagree - they are liars when they lie(like kinsey did). There is plenty to back it up AND I LINKED TO SOME OF IT.(which ofcourse you ADMITTED you didn't read). So who here is making unsupported assertions?

Again, all we get from you is YAPPING - and nothing to disprove the supportive evidence in my links. There are plenty of specifics in there....but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read it. So yes, I suggest you put down the shovel and climb out of your hole if you wish to continue this discussion.

Again, you have offered nothing to this thread - you've not read my links yet you still keep coming back here making claims against me that are absurd in light of you ADMITTING you didn't read it.
Now as for the lying - it seems to you who has done the lying here. You keep claiming that I didn't offer anything to support what I posted - that is a LIE. You claim that call people liars because I disagree with them - that too is a LIE.

Yeah, ofcourse you think I haven't given you reason - because you'd rather just sit back and make accusations about what I've said and be able to claim ignorance...well congrats - you are ignorant.
And as far as diversions go - you've still not provided anything of substance in our exchange - so I think we all know who is doing the diversion.

Please try reading for once Bow so you don't have to continue to look like a fool.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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 compound 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,

Are you capable of reading? Seems all you want to do is troll since you admit that you didn't read anything.

First off - No I didn't. It's quite clear you have been playing apologist.
Yes you did get your panties in a bunch - which is pretty silly considering what you posted.
You = liar :

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.

You made a comment about his quote defending it. I did not ignore it, although it is aparant by your apologistic comments about it - you haven't the slightest clue about kinsey.

No, I don't call people liars because I disagree - they are liars when they lie(like kinsey did). There is plenty to back it up AND I LINKED TO SOME OF IT.(which ofcourse you ADMITTED you didn't read). So who here is making unsupported assertions?

Again, all we get from you is YAPPING - and nothing to disprove the supportive evidence in my links. There are plenty of specifics in there....but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read it. So yes, I suggest you put down the shovel and climb out of your hole if you wish to continue this discussion.

Again, you have offered nothing to this thread - you've not read my links yet you still keep coming back here making claims against me that are absurd in light of you ADMITTING you didn't read it.
Now as for the lying - it seems to you who has done the lying here. You keep claiming that I didn't offer anything to support what I posted - that is a LIE. You claim that call people liars because I disagree with them - that too is a LIE.

Yeah, ofcourse you think I haven't given you reason - because you'd rather just sit back and make accusations about what I've said and be able to claim ignorance...well congrats - you are ignorant.
And as far as diversions go - you've still not provided anything of substance in our exchange - so I think we all know who is doing the diversion.

Please try reading for once Bow so you don't have to continue to look like a fool.

CsG

I didn't think so. Let me know when you are ready to offer one or two specific examples supporting your slanders. Your first example, which you still refuse to address, was a JOKE, a typical,
knee-jerk overreaction to something you religious zealots do not understand.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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,

Are you capable of reading? Seems all you want to do is troll since you admit that you didn't read anything.

First off - No I didn't. It's quite clear you have been playing apologist.
Yes you did get your panties in a bunch - which is pretty silly considering what you posted.
You = liar :

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.

You made a comment about his quote defending it. I did not ignore it, although it is aparant by your apologistic comments about it - you haven't the slightest clue about kinsey.

No, I don't call people liars because I disagree - they are liars when they lie(like kinsey did). There is plenty to back it up AND I LINKED TO SOME OF IT.(which ofcourse you ADMITTED you didn't read). So who here is making unsupported assertions?

Again, all we get from you is YAPPING - and nothing to disprove the supportive evidence in my links. There are plenty of specifics in there....but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read it. So yes, I suggest you put down the shovel and climb out of your hole if you wish to continue this discussion.

Again, you have offered nothing to this thread - you've not read my links yet you still keep coming back here making claims against me that are absurd in light of you ADMITTING you didn't read it.
Now as for the lying - it seems to you who has done the lying here. You keep claiming that I didn't offer anything to support what I posted - that is a LIE. You claim that call people liars because I disagree with them - that too is a LIE.

Yeah, ofcourse you think I haven't given you reason - because you'd rather just sit back and make accusations about what I've said and be able to claim ignorance...well congrats - you are ignorant.
And as far as diversions go - you've still not provided anything of substance in our exchange - so I think we all know who is doing the diversion.

Please try reading for once Bow so you don't have to continue to look like a fool.

CsG

I didn't think so. Let me know when you are ready to offer one or two specific examples supporting your slanders. Your first example, which you still refuse to address, was a JOKE, a typical,
knee-jerk overreaction to something you religious zealots do not understand.

I didn't think you'd actually read it and address the issue - just more of the same bleating from Bowfinger...

When(rather - "IF") you actually read it - come back here and try disputing that kinsey wasn't a lying pervert. I won't be holding my breath.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I didn't think you'd actually read it and address the issue - just more of the same bleating from Bowfinger...

When(rather - "IF") you actually read it - come back here and try disputing that kinsey wasn't a lying pervert. I won't be holding my breath.

CsG

Let me know when you are ready to offer one or two specific examples supporting your slanders.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I didn't think you'd actually read it and address the issue - just more of the same bleating from Bowfinger...

When(rather - "IF") you actually read it - come back here and try disputing that kinsey wasn't a lying pervert. I won't be holding my breath.

CsG

Let me know when you are ready to offer one or two specific examples supporting your slanders.

I did -they are in the links you refuse to read like I've pointed out. Now again - go read up on kinsey(either via my links or ones you find on your own) and then come back here and refute the evidence I supplied.(oh wait -that'd mean you'd have to read my links...)

Meh, whatever keeps your sheets dry...

CsG

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

CAD already posted the ALEC report. I'm guessing you didn't read it?

Oh, and give me a number so I can FAX you my resume.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

Nice strawman. Maybe you should look up a chart of pregnancy in the 10-14 year old range and how they relate with the release of Kinsey's reports. Then maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I drew this comparison.

I'd be willing to bet neither of you has even read Kinsey's reports, nor the ALEC report, yet you're going to sit here and defend Kinsey to the bitter end. - one for each of you.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

CAD already posted the ALEC report. I'm guessing you didn't read it?

Oh, and give me a number so I can FAX you my resume.

Do you call the ALEC report science? Did you read it? It is sh!t. It is character assassination by puritan loons. It came from the same nutjobs who attack evolution. There was no science in that polemic. No real scientist would give it any credence. You are a fraud.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

Nice strawman. Maybe you should look up a chart of pregnancy in the 10-14 year old range and how they relate with the release of Kinsey's reports. Then maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I drew this comparison.

I'd be willing to bet neither of you has even read Kinsey's reports, nor the ALEC report, yet you're going to sit here and defend Kinsey to the bitter end. - one for each of you.

A real scientist and career researcher would understand basic concepts like causal relationships. Now you say Kinsey causes promiscuity. Last week it was the pill. The week before it was Hollywood. Before that it was the automobile, working mothers, you name it. You religious nuts need to get your stories straight. Your science is a joke. Your resume is a joke. You are a joke.

Everyone should read the ALEC report to see what these nutjobs call science.

 

[Ldir]

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 is the sexual equivalent of creationism. Junk science by narrow minds.

 

[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.

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.

Oral Roberts University? When I read this the first time I thought you were being sarcastic. Now I see you were being accurate. Congratulations on your honesty.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Nice strawman. Maybe you should look up a chart of pregnancy in the 10-14 year old range and how they relate with the release of Kinsey's reports. Then maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I drew this comparison.

I'd be willing to bet neither of you has even read Kinsey's reports, nor the ALEC report, yet you're going to sit here and defend Kinsey to the bitter end. - one for each of you.

Any chance a "career researcher" like you could get me a link to that graph? I checked around a bit and couldn't find those stats. I need them so I can "prove" adolescent pregnancy rates are tied to soybean prices, or perhaps the annual mean temperature in Budapest, or maybe the Yankees average runs per game. I'm sure I can come up with hundreds of random stats that correlate with adolescent pregnancies.

Perhaps you'll cover causal relationships in your sophomore year.

:roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

If you'd just read the Bhagavad Gita you would see that you are wrong.

 

[CycloWizard]

Since apparently reading is too much to ask, I'll present some other information that you don't have to actually click a link to read.

1. After the release of Kinsey's first report, his primary sponsor (the Rockefeller Foundation) rescinded its funding of $100,000 per year.
2. Kinsey's own coauthor (Wardell Pomeroy) admits that Kinsey's basis for the statement that 95% of adult males were sex offenders was due to his interviews of imprisoned sex offenders, rather than the 'average male' that he claims in the report.
3. Out of the "about 5300" white males that Kinsey claims to have used, about 1400 were imprisoned sex offenders, 'several hundred" male prostitutes, and 317 sexually abused children.
4. 75% of those interviewed volunteered to give sexual histories. Stanford psychologist Lewis Terman claims that volunteers for sex studies are two to four times more sexually active than non-volunteers.
5. W. Allen Wallis, the chairman of the University of Chicago's committee on statistics in 1949, dismissed "the entire method of collecting and presenting the statistics which underlie Dr. Kinsey's conclusions." Further, Wallis states "There are six major aspects of any statistical research, and Kinsey fails on four."
6. Kinsey claims that 10% of men between ages of 16 and 55 are homosexual. Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers found this number to be 1%. Time stated in 1993 "Recent surveys from France, Britain, Canada, Norway, and Denmark all point to numbers lower than 10% and tend to come out in the 1 to 4% range."
7. Kinsey claimed to have demonstrated that infidelity in marriage had no adverse affect on marriage. However, in one Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy study of infidelity, 85% of such marriages were adversely affected and 34% ended in divorce.
8. Speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference in 1955, Kinsey claimed that "roughly 95% of singles and 25% of those who were married secretly abort their babies. 87% of these abortions are performed by bona fide doctors." These numbers, which have never published or substantiated, became a major standing point for abortion proponents, indicating that it was already a common medical procedure.

Why do I care about this junk science?

In 1951, Journal of Social Psychology conducted a study in which three groups of students were formed. Group 1 took an intensive nine-week course on Kinsey's research. The other two groups received no formal instruction on his research. Given a quiz after the period, those given the Kinsey course were seven times more likely to view premarital sex more favorably than before and twice more favorably on adultery. The number of students open to a homosexual experience went from 0 to 15%.

Further, and perhaps the most ridiculous, was the use of these studies to renovate the legalities of sexuality. In 1950, Scientific Monthly quoted a lawyer for Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood (Morris Ernst), as saying "We must remember that there are two parts to law: the finding of the facts, and applying those findings in court. The law needs more tools to aid in its search for the truth." He then goes on to say how the courts needed 'new rules' to allow easier submission of 'facts' like Kinsey's as evidence.

Seriously though, he's a great scientist. :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

If you'd just read the Bhagavad Gita you would see that you are wrong.

Actually no. That has nothing to do with kinsey - but feel free to start a new thread on it if you wish to discuss it. It'd be quite interesting to get your take on it and what meaning it has in your life.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

Flake off, I won't play your insipid game. I told you what you needed to do to get me to read your religious propaganda. Your continued refusal to do so reinforces my conviction that there's no substance in it. If there were, you'd be trotting it out to "prove" your slurs.

How credible would I be claiming Bush is a pervert and pedophile, but offering a link to Bushwacked.net as my only evidence? That's exactly how credible you are NOT.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Nice strawman. Maybe you should look up a chart of pregnancy in the 10-14 year old range and how they relate with the release of Kinsey's reports. Then maybe, just maybe, you can understand why I drew this comparison.

I'd be willing to bet neither of you has even read Kinsey's reports, nor the ALEC report, yet you're going to sit here and defend Kinsey to the bitter end. - one for each of you.

Any chance a "career researcher" like you could get me a link to that graph? I checked around a bit and couldn't find those stats. I need them so I can "prove" adolescent pregnancy rates are tied to soybean prices, or perhaps the annual mean temperature in Budapest, or maybe the Yankees average runs per game. I'm sure I can come up with hundreds of random stats that correlate with adolescent pregnancies.

Perhaps you'll cover causal relationships in your sophomore year.

:roll:

Still waiting ...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

Flake off, I won't play your inspipid game. I told you what you needed to do to get me to read your religious propaganda. Your continued refusal to do so reinforces my conviction that there's no substance in it. If there were, you'd be trotting it out to "prove" your slurs.

How credible would I be claiming Bush is a pervert and pedophile, but offering a link to Bushwacked.net as my only evidence? That's exactly how credible you are NOT.

I read CsG's links and it lead to a Christian site. Not exactly impartial or a community respected for their scientific rigor... :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

Flake off, I won't play your inspipid game. I told you what you needed to do to get me to read your religious propaganda. Your continued refusal to do so reinforces my conviction that there's no substance in it. If there were, you'd be trotting it out to "prove" your slurs.

How credible would I be claiming Bush is a pervert and pedophile, but offering a link to Bushwacked.net as my only evidence? That's exactly how credible you are NOT.

First off - it's not a game.
Second - it's not religious propaganda.
Third - you don't set the rules. If you take issue with the details I posted/linked, then it's up to you to show some evidence that it is false. I've provided the evidence that kinsey was a lying pervert - but hey keep up your ignorant little charade.
Fourth - the only thing that has no substance is your posts in this thread so far. YOU have not read the evidence and yet here you sit condemning my conclusion despite your willing ignorance.
Fifth - there is plenty to back it up - it's right there in the links

Oh, and nice strawman bowfinger but it doesn't play. Why don't you run along like a good little troll until you actually address the evidence I linked to. You little charade, while cute and expected, is nothing but a diversion.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Oh, and nice strawman bowfinger but it doesn't play.
CsG

Where is the strawman?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

Flake off, I won't play your inspipid game. I told you what you needed to do to get me to read your religious propaganda. Your continued refusal to do so reinforces my conviction that there's no substance in it. If there were, you'd be trotting it out to "prove" your slurs.

How credible would I be claiming Bush is a pervert and pedophile, but offering a link to Bushwacked.net as my only evidence? That's exactly how credible you are NOT.

I read CsG's links and it lead to a Christian site. Not exactly impartial or a community respected for their scientific rigor... :roll:

:roll: - Nice try, but that site is not the one who did the research on kinsey - but you both can continue to ignore the issue by spouting your little anti-Christian tripe.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Read my links yet Bow? Got something to defend kinsey with?

....didn't think so.

CsG

....

 

[Red Dawn]

So some consider it junk science, well many consider Religion mythical BS. I don't agree with picketing the Passion of the Christ trying to disrupt people from seeing it. Those who did that are no better than those who are making a big stink about this movie.