'Kinsey' draws ire

[PatboyX]

i still dont see how any of this gives cause for the movie not to be shown.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 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 After the release of Kinsey's first report, his primary sponsor (the Rockefeller Foundation) rescinded its funding of $100,000 per year.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:

No one wants to respond to my 'junk science'? That's what I get for actually knowing wtf I'm talking about. That's the surest way to get summarily dismissed in any discussion in this forum.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 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:

No one wants to respond to my 'junk science'? That's what I get for actually knowing wtf I'm talking about. That's the surest way to get summarily dismissed in any discussion in this forum.

You should know that the so called wise men are fools. Why would I pay any attention to research that showed that kids taught Kinsey went from o 15% open to homosexual experience. You don't have to examine sh!t under a microscope to know what you smell. Learn something about seeing what you want to see like the Madonna in a cheese sandwich. Scientists are often themselves off on a trip, especially Christian ones. And don't give me that sad tale about being dismissed in the forum for knowing something. I was here long before you and I never made such a whinny complaint. But then maybe because I actually do know something, I also know I can't be heard.

Caddy, when you get through reading the Bhagavad Gita then you can tell me it's not relevant.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Caddy, when you get through reading the Bhagavad Gita then you can tell me it's not relevant.

Been there - read that mr.mirror It still has nothing to do with kinsey. If you wish to discuss it - please be my guest and start a thread giving us your enlightened view of it.

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No one wants to respond to my 'junk science'? That's what I get for actually knowing wtf I'm talking about. That's the surest way to get summarily dismissed in any discussion in this forum.

No being a pompous ass that nobody likes is the surest way.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 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:

No one wants to respond to my 'junk science'? That's what I get for actually knowing wtf I'm talking about. That's the surest way to get summarily dismissed in any discussion in this forum.

You make random claims without backing them up. You give irrelevant examples. You think funda-Mental literature is science. You do not know basic concepts like causal relationships and citing sources. But you expect us to believe you know WTF you are talking about? Sure whatever. Your science is a joke and so are you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Why is it that religious fanatics are completely unable to deal with the subject of human sexuality other than in the context of pretending it doesn't exist?

You have a Heinlein quote in your sig... what did Heinlein say about Puritans? There's your answer. The forced repression of their sexual feelings leads to deviancy -- either sexual or violence. Possibly why "moral" people tend to enjoy mob violence and hatred (among other evils), which is a publicly acceptable way to out their repressions. Or they privately explore various sexual deviancies and usually get caught in a scandal.


Now, judging from the quote that CAD chose to bless us with, it is pretty clear that he has never washed nor bathed his children, nor ever changed their diapers.

 

[sandorski]

I must admit I know little about what Kinsey said, but I know this: It wasn't what he said that was so controversial, it is the fact that he dared to say it. 50ish yars earlier, the same crowd were appalled when a kiss was shown in a movie theatre and women dared to show leg above their ankles.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I must admit I know little about what Kinsey said, but I know this: It wasn't what he said that was so controversial, it is the fact that he dared to say it. 50ish yars earlier, the same crowd were appalled when a kiss was shown in a movie theatre and women dared to show leg above their ankles.

Man I bet it used to be a whole lot easier to get a hard on. A little ankle and wham.

 

[Orsorum]

Kinsey was a junk scientist, from someone who has had a little formal training in statistics it's easy to see that. However, I think the fact that he dared to broach these topics in the mainstream mitigates some of that crass mistake, as our society is one of the most sexually repressed in the first world.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You should know that the so called wise men are fools. Why would I pay any attention to research that showed that kids taught Kinsey went from o 15% open to homosexual experience. You don't have to examine sh!t under a microscope to know what you smell. Learn something about seeing what you want to see like the Madonna in a cheese sandwich. Scientists are often themselves off on a trip, especially Christian ones. And don't give me that sad tale about being dismissed in the forum for knowing something. I was here long before you and I never made such a whinny complaint. But then maybe because I actually do know something, I also know I can't be heard.

I quote people from the top universities in the nation as references and all you can say is that they're likely biased? Who is a reputable source, then? I don't know what the top rated schools in psychology are, but Stanford and U of Chicago are usually looked on pretty highly for most programs.

Originally posted by: Ldir
You make random claims without backing them up. You give irrelevant examples. You think funda-Mental literature is science. You do not know basic concepts like causal relationships and citing sources. But you expect us to believe you know WTF you are talking about? Sure whatever. Your science is a joke and so are you.

Can't attack my point of view or my evidence, attack me instead. Thanks for demonstrating yourself for the crowd.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 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:

No one wants to respond to my 'junk science'? That's what I get for actually knowing wtf I'm talking about. That's the surest way to get summarily dismissed in any discussion in this forum.

Links would be nice.

 

[Kibbo]

OK, Kinsey's methedology was crap, and his actual numbers have mostly been reevaluated (hardcore).

But the role he played in our modern culture was exposing the the fact that the great majority of Americans (and Westerners) live incredibly sexual lives.

If he were wrong about that point, we wouldn't see half-naked women on the sides of busses ('cause it would not work).

Can we leave the fvcking hollywood innaccuracies alone now?

Jesus, if you believed Hollywood, you'd think that the Americans won the European campaign in WW2, and not the British and the Russians.

Also, that Southern Americans have been the only people in space.

Hollywood tells lies, in order to reinfoce the beliefs of the moviegiong public.

Does this surprise anyone?

I know that I don't have the authority to do this, but I'm sick of seeing a movie thread constantly bumped.

/End Thread.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Religious right thinking...

Let's protest a movie that glorifies sex. But unjustified wars that kill women and children are OK. Taking healthcare away from kids, and giving unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthy are OK too. Jesus clearly says so in the bible!

I say let the religious right protest all they want, it'll only give the movie attention. If they didnt say a godamn thing, the movie would quietly die in the box office. Now it's piqued my interest and im going to see it as soon as it hits my area.

 

[aidanjm]

"We are the recorders and reporters of facts - not the judges of the behaviors we describe."

Alfred Kinsey

 

[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 ...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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

....didn't think so.

CsG

....

...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You should know that the so called wise men are fools. Why would I pay any attention to research that showed that kids taught Kinsey went from o 15% open to homosexual experience. You don't have to examine sh!t under a microscope to know what you smell. Learn something about seeing what you want to see like the Madonna in a cheese sandwich. Scientists are often themselves off on a trip, especially Christian ones. And don't give me that sad tale about being dismissed in the forum for knowing something. I was here long before you and I never made such a whinny complaint. But then maybe because I actually do know something, I also know I can't be heard.

I quote people from the top universities in the nation as references and all you can say is that they're likely biased? Who is a reputable source, then? I don't know what the top rated schools in psychology are, but Stanford and U of Chicago are usually looked on pretty highly for most programs.

Originally posted by: Ldir
You make random claims without backing them up. You give irrelevant examples. You think funda-Mental literature is science. You do not know basic concepts like causal relationships and citing sources. But you expect us to believe you know WTF you are talking about? Sure whatever. Your science is a joke and so are you.

Can't attack my point of view or my evidence, attack me instead. Thanks for demonstrating yourself for the crowd.

If you want people to address your "evidence", provide some. All you've done is repeatedly spew random claims without backing any of them up. For example, I've tried twice to get you to document just one of your statistics, adolescent pregnancy rates, yet you evade even that simple request.

You seem to demand that we take your word for it on everything. Sorry, not going to happen, especially given your prior record of spouting junk science. Ldir is right. It seems funny a self-proclaimed, distinguished "career researcher" like yourself cannot grasp simple concepts like causality and citing one's sources, e.g., with links to respected and objective publications. This is stuff I learned in high school. Your reliance on religious propaganda as reference does not help your credibility either.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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

....didn't think so.

CsG

....

...

Fine. Since your reading comprehension seems irreparably damaged and you're being such an ass, I will play your insipid game.

I have irrefutable proof George W. Bush is a liar, pervert, and pedophile. My proof is here. I will leave it up to the reader to find and refute the specific "facts" supporting my allegations because I am too lazy, stupid, and/or dishonest to do so myself. Further, you may not question the veracity or possible ulterior motives of anything at my link.

There you go Cad, we're playing by your rules now. I demand you prove George W. Bush is not a liar, pervert, and pedophile.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You should know that the so called wise men are fools. Why would I pay any attention to research that showed that kids taught Kinsey went from o 15% open to homosexual experience. You don't have to examine sh!t under a microscope to know what you smell. Learn something about seeing what you want to see like the Madonna in a cheese sandwich. Scientists are often themselves off on a trip, especially Christian ones. And don't give me that sad tale about being dismissed in the forum for knowing something. I was here long before you and I never made such a whinny complaint. But then maybe because I actually do know something, I also know I can't be heard.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I quote people from the top universities in the nation as references and all you can say is that they're likely biased? Who is a reputable source, then? I don't know what the top rated schools in psychology are, but Stanford and U of Chicago are usually looked on pretty highly for most programs.

I didn't say they are likely biased but I guess it would be fair to draw that inference. I was saying that I don't go by peoples degrees or school or any other external condition as a means of evaluating their credibility. I have my own internal compass, based as I said, on the fact that I really do know something, and that that knowing has confirmed over and over again that the so called wise are fools. So I am either a nut case and the world is mostly right or I am an exceptionally elite person of keen insight.

You may take your pick. I have no dog in this Kinsey fight. But I know that when it comes to sex that humanity is deeply sick, professors, gardeners and all. Also true about everything around which one forms ones identity, be it club, religion, social standing, favorite team, nationalism, you name it. I know this because I know that people do not know what they feel and I know this because to discover what you actually feel is so amazingly unbelievable that it simply revolutionizes the mind and creates a whole new perspective that is visible to me and invisible to those who have no experience from which to base their observation. I know because I have tasted what is seldom or almost never tasted. That makes me a somewhat real psychologist instead of a book learned one and I know more than any such book learned one will ever know from books. But I don't know much so naturally I'm modest.

Back to the point, the claim of 0 to 15% is simply preposterous. I am not saying that the data is false but that it means nothing at all. You need to remember that you are biased toward homosexuality and that bias influences how you interpret what you see. A spider on the arm makes one person flip out and the calm and curious take a closer look. There are facts and the science of facts and reaction and the science of reaction and without both there is no approach to objective evaluation. You are incapable of an objective understanding of sex because you want to take it somewhere to your liking. You had a program that came before your science.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
If you want people to address your "evidence", provide some. All you've done is repeatedly spew random claims without backing any of them up. For example, I've tried twice to get you to document just one of your statistics, adolescent pregnancy rates, yet you evade even that simple request.

You seem to demand that we take your word for it on everything. Sorry, not going to happen, especially given your prior record of spouting junk science. Ldir is right. It seems funny a self-proclaimed, distinguished "career researcher" like yourself cannot grasp simple concepts like causality and citing one's sources, e.g., with links to respected and objective publications. This is stuff I learned in high school. Your reliance on religious propaganda as reference does not help your credibility either.

Not everything worth reading is online. Not everyone has time to waste feeding trolls with links to things that I read in real journals. The statistics I posted are from an ethics paper I had to write a couple years ago for a class on 'Ethics in Research.' Kinsey was a case study at the bottom of one page in the textbook. He didn't warrant anything more because it is so obvious what he did. If you don't realize it, you maintain your own ignorance willingly. If I post links, you're going to summarily dismiss them out of hand or not bother to read them anyway. You're not interested in the truth. You're interested in trying to prove me wrong. Frankly, you can believe whatever you want and it's no skin off my back. You just keep demonstrating that you have absolutely no background knowledge and that you're not willing to read any such knowledge supplied. So I'm done.
M: I didn't say they are likely biased but I guess it would be fair to draw that inference. I was saying that I don't go by peoples degrees or school or any other external condition as a means of evaluating their credibility. I have my own internal compass, based as I said, on the fact that I really do know something, and that that knowing has confirmed over and over again that the so called wise are fools. So I am either a nut case and the world is mostly right or I am an exceptionally elite person of keen insight.

CW: Sounds like your internal compass assigns credibility to anyone that agrees with your existing point of view. Mine tells me that there are people much smarter than myself, and that if someone at one of the top five schools in the country has no reason to risk his reputation debunking someone from IU. I have a brother at IU in their cognitive science department (a spinoff of their psych department of which Kinsey was a member) and even they have disregarded his work.

M: Back to the point, the claim of 0 to 15% is simply preposterous. I am not saying that the data is false but that it means nothing at all. You need to remember that you are biased toward homosexuality and that bias influences how you interpret what you see. A spider on the arm makes one person flip out and the calm and curious take a closer look. There are facts and the science of facts and reaction and the science of reaction and without both there is no approach to objective evaluation. You are incapable of an objective understanding of sex because you want to take it somewhere to your liking. You had a program that came before your science.

CW: I wrote that program myself based on my own personal observations. Simply because I did so, does that mean that I cannot supply evidence that the findings of this man's studies are based on fabrications? He attempted to write a program for everyone else regarding sex based on lies and deceptions. For the most part, people have accepted his program without knowing who he is or why he did what he did.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

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

....didn't think so.

CsG

....

...

Fine. Since your reading comprehension seems irreparably damaged and you're being such an ass, I will play your insipid game.

I have irrefutable proof George W. Bush is a liar, pervert, and pedophile. My proof is here. I will leave it up to the reader to find and refute the specific "facts" supporting my allegations because I am too lazy, stupid, and/or dishonest to do so myself. Further, you may not question the veracity or possible ulterior motives of anything at my link.

There you go Cad, we're playing by your rules now. I demand you prove George W. Bush is not a liar, pervert, and pedophile.

Ah yes, the old Bow is up to his old tired tricks - divert divert divert. Now once again - read the REPORT about kinsey and then come back here and claim he wasn't a lying pervert if you can. The evidence is there - you refuse to even address(let alone read) the evidence. This isn't about Bush and the bushwacked BS has been dealt with before - but it's nice of you to once again not address the issue at hand.

And your response to Cyclo was equally a diversion. You refuse to even look at the evidence yet you sit here claiming there is none

Oh well, you can stay ignorant if you wish...

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

No, what gets "attacked" is the tripe junk scientists like kinsey spew, and it isn't just the "religious extremists" that know kinsey's "science" was bunk.
Oh, and calling him "the main authority" is hilarious.

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do religious extremists attack anyone who studies sexuality? It seems like Kinsey is a target because he's the main authority.

No, what gets "attacked" is the tripe junk scientists like kinsey spew, and it isn't just the "religious extremists" that know kinsey's "science" was bunk.
Oh, and calling him "the main authority" is hilarious.

CsG

Okay, who are the non-religious people that are calling him a pervert? The last site you gave me was a protestant christian site