Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hero or heathen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
Please discuss, and feel free to throw in political rhetoric!

Here's a start, he's a pedophile. Or at least an enabler.

He was played by Liam Neeson in the biopic about him. Ergo he's awesome.

Originally posted by tsscls
Here's a start, he's a pedophile. Or at least an enabler.

See, you can't do that. You can't submit vast amounts of information, such as a wikipedia page, (not to mention it's a wikipedia page) and then make a vague accusation. You set up the person reading the information to find proof in the information that you're either right or wrong in your claim. I see nothing in that information that proves he enabled that man to continue to moleste children.

People tend not to like him because he normalized sex by explaining how normal it was. He broke taboos down using science. I seriously doubt that any argument brought up here about his use of science is going to be revelation. He's been criticized and challenged, lied about and had his information manipulated incorrectly, since the '40s. I wouldn't be suprised if someone posts a link to some church website that claims he denied his research on his deathbed and was himself the pedophile in question.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, you can't do that. You can't submit vast amounts of information, such as a wikipedia page, (not to mention it's a wikipedia page) and then make a vague accusation. You set up the person reading the information to find proof in the information that you're either right or wrong in your claim. I see nothing in that information that proves he enabled that man to continue to moleste children.

...

Originally posted by skekUng
See, you can't do that. You can't submit vast amounts of information, such as a wikipedia page, (not to mention it's a wikipedia page) and then make a vague accusation. You set up the person reading the information to find proof in the information that you're either right or wrong in your claim.

It's called trolling.

Making personal sexuality go from "Those thoughts are pure evil and you're going to hell!" to "Explore; Experiment; Enjoy"?

He's a f***ing damn hero.

well, we all know that studying something to understand it better and therefore have some ability to objectively deal with the problem is the same as supporting terrorism, so why would it be any different in the case of sexual criminals?

It seems to me like he could be a hero and a heathen...

He seems like a really ground breaking, amazing person to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, we all know that studying something to understand it better and therefore have some ability to objectively deal with the problem is the same as supporting terrorism, so why would it be any different in the case of sexual criminals?

Well in this case he said he interviewed 500 when he only spoke with one. Sort of skews ones results.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well in this case he said he interviewed 500 when he only spoke with one. Sort of skews ones results.
Assuming we're reading the same wiki, he said he interviewed nine not 500.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well in this case he said he interviewed 500 when he only spoke with one. Sort of skews ones results.

I understand why he said he interviewed 9, not 5: after a while, you become complacent in your knowledge. He probably had many more interviews than just that one fella, but not any in an official capacity. He probably had that one interview after soundly concluding his points and knew that it would be a waste of time.

Sure, it spits on the scientific method but I understand his need to get hasty: sometimes, you know what the results are going to be before doing the experiment, just from previous experiments/adventures.


That doesn't mean he was right, either.

Edit - I just read that he might have done it to protect the one individual he did interview speficially so he could collect data on it (assurance to the interviewee). Interesting.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well in this case he said he interviewed 500 when he only spoke with one. Sort of skews ones results.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Assuming we're reading the same wiki, he said he interviewed nine not 500.

huh, had never heard about that

500 or 9, reporting a higher subject size (N) increases how probable the behaviour is. While it might have been done with the best intentions, that is kind of a crappy thing to do. Ethically, if they couldn't ensure the safety of the participant without sacrificing methodology, they shouldn't have run the study.

To be fair, I doubt there were hundreds of pedophiles lining up to be interviewed. Kinsey's guarantee of anonymity or no.

then do a case study, from a scientific point of view, he is pretty much lying

I can't say, learning about this, that I've lost a whole lot of respect for him, he was certainly blazing a path where there are essentially no other researchers, but that is a pretty dickish thing to do

You're right in the end, was just showing another side.

I've gotta imagine there is enough of a population in prisons... at least to learn some rudimentary things...

if only we could enlist prisoners for scientific testing against their will, or just totally give science the sex offender registry

I'd be fine with that, on the grounds that the test subjects (pedophiles) are euthanized after they've served their research purposes.

Originally posted by inimalist
huh, had never heard about that

500 or 9, reporting a higher subject size (N) increases how probable the behaviour is. While it might have been done with the best intentions, that is kind of a crappy thing to do. Ethically, if they couldn't ensure the safety of the participant without sacrificing methodology, they shouldn't have run the study.
It's true that it was a pretty unscientific thing to do, but on the other hand it also showed on the page that even correcting for the various errors he did in his studies, his conclusions still were sound.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It's true that it was a pretty unscientific thing to do, but on the other hand it also showed on the page that even correcting for the various errors he did in his studies, his conclusions still were sound.

Not only were they sound, the differences in the data, after correction, made very little difference (because, correcting for his errors, you SHOULD see a difference. It's a astounding that there were no significant differences.)

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd be fine with that, on the grounds that the test subjects (pedophiles) are euthanized after they've served their research purposes.

Which is exactly why prisoners wouldn't be lining up to incriminate themselves, even if they are in prison.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, you can't do that. You can't submit vast amounts of information, such as a wikipedia page, (not to mention it's a wikipedia page) and then make a vague accusation. You set up the person reading the information to find proof in the information that you're either right or wrong in your claim. I see nothing in that information that proves he enabled that man to continue to moleste children.

People tend not to like him because he normalized sex by explaining how normal it was. He broke taboos down using science. I seriously doubt that any argument brought up here about his use of science is going to be revelation. He's been criticized and challenged, lied about and had his information manipulated incorrectly, since the '40s. I wouldn't be suprised if someone posts a link to some church website that claims he denied his research on his deathbed and was himself the pedophile in question.

Yet you would not have put forth this defense of the man if I had not have made that accusation. The wiki link was just to give people who had no idea some reference. The second post was to get a response, although I happen to believe he was a pedophile. I have't read past your post yet, but it's two pages worth of conversation. Hopefully it's been intelligent, but probably not. So what? Learn from my stupidity and make the perfect post.

Originally posted by tsscls
I happen to believe he was a pedophile.

Based on what?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Based on what?

Based on his determination of how long it takes for a pre-schooler to achieve orgasm? This is not a positive study.

Originally posted by tsscls
Based on his determination of how long it takes for a pre-schooler to achieve orgasm? This is not a positive study.

It's not as though he was sexually stimulating children himself or even asking other people to do so. Not turning in the pedophiles who gave him the information is morally questionable but doesn't make him a pedophile himself.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Based on what?

His books timed the speed of pre adolescent orgasms of kids down to six months old. That's not a pedophile?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not as though he was sexually stimulating children himself or even asking other people to do so. Not turning in the pedophiles who gave him the information is morally questionable but doesn't make him a pedophile himself.

He was a deviant. Tell me that you know a kid is being molested and that you did nothing about it, and we'll see what the courts say.

Originally posted by tsscls
His books timed the speed of pre adolescent orgasms of kids down to six months old. That's not a pedophile?

No, a pedophile would have sex with children or molest them or look at them naked. There's no evidence Kinsey did any of these things, he just interviewed a pedophiles and claimed the information came from the memories of adults who had sexual experiences when they were young.

I think a better argument would be "he looks creepy, so he must be a pedophile".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not as though he was sexually stimulating children himself or even asking other people to do so. Not turning in the pedophiles who gave him the information is morally questionable but doesn't make him a pedophile himself.

Now I remember why you're on my ignore list.

Originally posted by tsscls
Yet you would not have put forth this defense of the man if I had not have made that accusation. The wiki link was just to give people who had no idea some reference. The second post was to get a response, although I happen to believe he was a pedophile. I have't read past your post yet, but it's two pages worth of conversation. Hopefully it's been intelligent, but probably not. So what? Learn from my stupidity and make the perfect post.

I'm not interested in making the perfect post. If you believe his research into such a subject makes him a pedophile via association, then nothing I say is going to alter that opinion. I don't disagree that I responded to your accusation, I simply pointed out that your sole intention in making it was to give yourself a platform to question and illegitimize everyone who views sexuality differently than yourself. You want people to defend his research so you can cast them as supporters of pedophilia, thus delegitimizing anything your detractors might say for the rest of the conversation. But, your perfect post comment does little but illustrate that you don't realize you're preaching to a non-existant audience. No one here is going to stop being what you aren't just because you cast an argument through the prism of your own beliefs and set up everyone who participates. Besides, if your original post had been interesting, then you wouldn't have need of a second to frame the argument you should have had the balls to start in the first.

Originally posted by tsscls
Now I remember why you're on my ignore list.

Because every time we have a conversation I totally humiliate you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, a pedophile would have sex with children or molest them or look at them naked. There's no evidence Kinsey did any of these things, he just interviewed a pedophiles and claimed the information came from the memories of adults who had sexual experiences when they were young.

I think a better argument would be "he looks creepy, so he must be a pedophile".

No,
He interviewed people that did these things and didn't turn them in. He also had a (puportedly) ****ed up sex life. It's not a big leap. Sorry, but if you know someone who's a molestor and you don't turn them in, you're just as bad. Back to ignore, strange one.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not interested in making the perfect post. If you believe his research into such a subject makes him a pedophile via association, then nothing I say is going to alter that opinion. I don't disagree that I responded to your accusation, I simply pointed out that your sole intention in making it was to give yourself a platform to question and illegitimize everyone who views sexuality differently than yourself. You want people to defend his research so you can cast them as supporters of pedophilia, thus delegitimizing anything your detractors might say for the rest of the conversation. But, your perfect post comment does little but illustrate that you don't realize you're preaching to a non-existant audience. No one here is going to stop being what you aren't just because you cast an argument through the prism of your own beliefs and set up everyone who participates. Besides, if your original post had been interesting, then you wouldn't have need of a second to frame the argument you should have had the balls to start in the first.

But he was a pedophile by proxy. Is that so hard to say? His research backs it up. He was aware of child molestors and he did nothing but take their information. That's pretty much all I've said. At least before Symmetric Pedophile took me down several notches.(once again)

Originally posted by tsscls
He also had a (puportedly) ****ed up sex life.

Taped people having sex (with their consent). Had sex with men (with their consent). Had sex with women (with their consent).

None of that has anything to do with pedophilia. In fact the only thing there that's particularly weird is taping people having sex, but lots of people do that.

Originally posted by tsscls
Sorry, but if you know someone who's a molestor and you don't turn them in, you're just as bad.

That's absurd. Just as bad = Exactly the same as.

I mean on the internet lots of people say "you're as bad as Hitler". Do you think any of those people are actually Hitler?

Originally posted by tsscls
But he was a pedophile by proxy. Is that so hard to say? His research backs it up.

Then it is up to you to provide both the evidence of pedophile by proxy AND the instances of other illegal (for the time) activities that he researched and did not "turn in" -as you put it. You have an odd understanding of the scientific method, don't you? Again, it seems to me that all you're interested in doing is framing the debate so you can claim, now or later, that people are defending the rape of children. And you haven't said he was a pedophile by proxy. You've stated plainly that you think he was a pedophile.





See, you're not interested in having a debate, only in others to agree with you after you've presented your skewed perspective as absolute fact. None of which you have actually backed up with evidence.

Originally posted by tsscls
But he was a pedophile by proxy. Is that so hard to say? His research backs it up. He was aware of child molestors and he did nothing but take their information. That's pretty much all I've said. At least before Symmetric Pedophile took me down several notches.(once again)
So basically you're saying that anyone who ever does a study on pedophilia must be a pedophile themselves?

That doesn't seem like a very sound conclusion.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then it is up to you to provide both the evidence of pedophile by proxy AND the instances of other illegal (for the time) activities that he researched and did not "turn in" -as you put it. You have an odd understanding of the scientific method, don't you? Again, it seems to me that all you're interested in doing is framing the debate so you can claim, now or later, that people are defending the rape of children. And you haven't said he was a pedophile by proxy. You've stated plainly that you think he was a pedophile.





See, you're not interested in having a debate, only in others to agree with you after you've presented your skewed perspective as absolute fact. None of which you have actually backed up with evidence.

He took info about orgasms in pre-adolescent children from pedophiles. He didn't turn them in. This isn't science, it's pedophilia by proxy. Do you deny that he did this?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically you're saying that anyone who ever does a study on pedophilia must be a pedophile themselves?

That doesn't seem like a very sound conclusion.

He took information from pedophiles while they were molesting children. He did nothing to stop this.

Originally posted by tsscls
He took information from pedophiles while they were molesting children. He did nothing to stop this.

lol no he didn't

Originally posted by King Kandy
So basically you're saying that anyone who ever does a study on pedophilia must be a pedophile themselves?

That doesn't seem like a very sound conclusion.

Nope, I'm asking you to babysit my kids next week. What time should I bring them over?

lol,
yes he did!
OMG!

Originally posted by tsscls
He took info about orgasms in pre-adolescent children from pedophiles. He didn't turn them in. This isn't science, it's pedophilia by proxy. Do you deny that he did this?

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

Originally posted by tsscls
Nope, I'm asking you to babysit my kids next week. What time should I bring them over?
Non-sequester, this pathetic attempt only shows that you actually have nothing of substance to back your argument with. If you were interested in the actual truth of the matter, we could discuss it, but right not you will not even take a stand for your beliefs.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then it is up to you to provide both the evidence of pedophile by proxy AND the instances of other illegal (for the time) activities that he researched and did not "turn in" -as you put it. You have an odd understanding of the scientific method, don't you? Again, it seems to me that all you're interested in doing is framing the debate so you can claim, now or later, that people are defending the rape of children. And you haven't said he was a pedophile by proxy. You've stated plainly that you think he was a pedophile.



Did Kinsey write a book in the '40's discussing human sexuality in which he discussed pre adolescent sexuality? Yes or no?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Non-sequester, this pathetic attempt only shows that you actually have nothing of substance to back your argument with. If you were interested in the actual truth of the matter, we could discuss it, but right not you will not even take a stand for your beliefs.

Originally posted by tsscls
Did Kinsey write a book in the '40's discussing human sexuality in which he discussed pre adolescent sexuality? Yes or no?
So now you're claiming that no one should be able to research pre adolescent sexuality?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Non-sequester, this pathetic attempt only shows that you actually have nothing of substance to back your argument with. If you were interested in the actual truth of the matter, we could discuss it, but right not you will not even take a stand for your beliefs.

Non sequitur

Originally posted by King Kandy
Non-sequester, this pathetic attempt only shows that you actually have nothing of substance to back your argument with. If you were interested in the actual truth of the matter, we could discuss it, but right not you will not even take a stand for your beliefs.

Don't try to suquester me. I hate being alone!

Originally posted by tsscls
I hate being alone!

Oh, the explains the cry for attention.

Originally posted by tsscls
Non sequitur
Cool, you caught a typo! I notice that you still are avoiding the actual topic.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So now you're claiming that no one should be able to research pre adolescent sexuality?

No,
Kinsey sought out 9 men who had sexual relations with children. He then questioned them about their experiences as I would question you about your adult sexual experiences with a man or a woman. He chronicled it and did nothing about it. This was the '30's-'40's at the time, so I guess it didn't matter if kids were being molested.
The important thing is, that after his research, Kinsey did nothing for these kids. To minimalize the significance of this, the number nine has been retroactively reduced to one by Kinsey sympathizers.
People get angry discussing this because he has something to do with some sort of medical justification of homosexuality, but they shouldn't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, you caught a typo! I notice that you still are avoiding the actual topic.

That's far from a tyyoopioooy!

Originally posted by King Kandy
Cool, you caught a typo! I notice that you still are avoiding the actual topic.

I thought it was non sequitor?

D*mn, and all these years I've been posting "non sequitor". Like...for almost a decade, now. And no one corrected me?

I wish I could ctrl F and replace all, now.


Originally posted by tsscls
That's far from a tyyoopioooy!

It looks like it was the "auto-correct" that did that to him. That's sort of a typo.

Originally posted by tsscls
To minimalize the significance of this, the number nine has been retroactively reduced to one by Kinsey sympathizers.

I would say Kinsey detractors are more likely. He was a scientist after all and faking data is the single worst thing a scientist can do.

So let's say today, you were a Doctor who has knowledge of nine children being molested. You do nothing about it, but you're like House good and are writing an awesome paper about it. I'm sure the Cops and parents would be totally understanding of the fact that you wanted to be the next pervert Freud.

But what if it would cure juvenile butt cancer? Let old Harold in the windowless van down by the train tracks have his way with six or seven cub scouts in the name of science! At the very least you'll get a good book out of it!

Originally posted by tsscls
No,
Kinsey sought out 9 men who had sexual relations with children. He then questioned them about their experiences as I would question you about your adult sexual experiences with a man or a woman. He chronicled it and did nothing about it. This was the '30's-'40's at the time, so I guess it didn't matter if kids were being molested.
The important thing is, that after his research, Kinsey did nothing for these kids. To minimalize the significance of this, the number nine has been retroactively reduced to one by Kinsey sympathizers.
People get angry discussing this because he has something to do with some sort of medical justification of homosexuality, but they shouldn't.
So you would advise making conclusions on pre adolescent sexuality without having actual data to support them?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you would advise making conclusions on pre adolescent sexuality without having actual data to support them?

No,
I'd say that pre-adolescent sexuality shouldn't involve a post-adolscent.

Originally posted by tsscls
No,
I'd say that pre-adolescent sexuality shouldn't involve a post-adolscent.
So how would you suggest a scientific study on pre-adolescent sexuality should acquire it's data?

Originally posted by tsscls
No,
I'd say that pre-adolescent sexuality shouldn't involve a post-adolscent.

So we should find a genius kid to perform the studies? That would be a bit difficult. Sexology has grown leaps and bounds and part of understanding how "adults" work is understanding the events and variables from "before" adults. Thanks to Kinsey...


True that there is a line between "sick" curiosity and scientific research.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So we should find a genius kid to perform the studies? That would be a bit difficult. Sexology has grown leaps and bounds and part of understanding how "adults" work is understanding the events and variables from "before" adults. Thanks to Kinsey...


True that there is a line between "sick" curiosity and scientific research.

Of course! The ends justify the means!
The children (at least one of them) were being actively molested.
And do we really need to know how long it takes a child under one year of age to get off? That's science? We might be able to use chimps for that, but PETA might consider it cruel.

Originally posted by tsscls
Of course! The ends justify the means!
The children (at least one of them) were being actively molested.
And do we really need to know how long it takes a child under one year of age to get off? That's science?

Not by Kinsey, though.

Do you have evidence that Kinsey's interview caused the molestation of children? How could you even prove that? I do agree, however, that he should have turned him in. I think the interviews should have been done with willing prisoners.


And, yeah, it's science. The human body doesn't cease being a human body just because it's younger. There's plenty of scientific research to be done on younger bodies that could lead to medical breakthroughs. Thankfully, people like you are not common so we can have breakthroughs that lead to preserving babies on up through adults...just because of the science done on babies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not by Kinsey, though.

Do you have evidence that Kinsey's interview caused the molestation of children? How could you even prove that? I do agree, however, that he should have turned him in. I think the interviews should have been done with willing prisoners.


And, yeah, it's science. The human body doesn't cease being a human body just because it's younger. There's plenty of scientific research to be done on younger bodies that could lead to medical breakthroughs. Thankfully, people like you are not common so we can have breakthroughs that lead to preserving babies on up through adults...just because of the science done on babies.


Kinsey was doing a study. He actively sought out these people. I can prove it because he was a scientist and he wrote a paper/book on it. They didn't magically find him. I don't believe that he caused the molestation of the children involved in his study. He was aware of it and did nothing.

The second part, WTF is wrong with you. Download his books and read them. I said six month old before, the base line was a 2 month old. There is NO sexuality present in a two month old other than reflexive reactions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So how would you suggest a scientific study on pre-adolescent sexuality should acquire it's data?

Originally posted by tsscls
There is NO sexuality present in a two month old other than reflexive reactions.
I'm assuming you have science to back that up? Unless Kinsey's study wasn't done, in which case we wouldn't know that.

Originally posted by tsscls

Kinsey was doing a study. He actively sought out these people. I can prove it because he was a scientist and he wrote a paper/book on it. They didn't magically find him. I don't believe that he caused the molestation of the children involved in his study. He was aware of it and did nothing.

No good samaritan law existed at the time, so he did not break any laws. However, if he did tell, it's possible he could have broken a contract and that would be illegal, right? (breaking tort laws). However, I don't know if there was any legal contract to "keep silent" about it. There must have been in order for the pedo to agree to it.

Originally posted by tsscls
The second part, WTF is wrong with you. Download his books and read them. I said six month old before, the base line was a 2 month old. There is NO sexuality present in a two month old other than reflexive reactions.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Nya nya!

Also, what does your post have to do with mine? I just committed a strawman fallacy and you didn't even address my point? Sudying children for scientific research is not necessarily wrong. Scientific research is research done with a scientific method.

It depends on the research. Since he did not do anything to children, then his work wasn't immoral. In fact, it probably contributed to better understanding pedos and may have even lead to the prevention of molestation.


Oh ho ho ho...he's a savior of children from molestors. Didn't think of it that way, did you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No good samaritan law existed at the time, so he did not break any laws. However, if he did tell, it's possible he could have broken a contract and that would be illegal, right? (breaking tort laws). However, I don't know if there was any legal contract to "keep silent" about it. There must have been in order for the pedo to agree to it.



"I know you are but what am I?"

Nya nya!

Also, what does your post have to do with mine? I just committed a strawman fallacy and you didn't even address my point? Sudying children for scientific research is not necessarily wrong. Scientific research is research done with a scientific method.

It depends on the research. Since he did not do anything to children, then his work wasn't immoral. In fact, it probably contributed to better understanding pedos and may have even lead to the prevention of molestation.


Oh ho ho ho...he's a savior of children from molestors. Didn't think of it that way, did you?


If you have to have the last word in defense of this man, go for it.
You have no children of your own, that at least is obvious. We both have different views on what is child molestation, and we've both laid them out for everyone to see. I'm getting tired, so I'll go to bed, where I have an adult waiting. You go to bed with your "My Buddy" doll by Galoob!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuinqB9z3JI
Shalom!

lol. You know he's married with kids, right?

Originally posted by tsscls
If you have to have the last word in defense of this man, go for it.
You have no children of your own, that at least is obvious. We both have different views on what is child molestation, and we've both laid them out for everyone to see. I'm getting tired, so I'll go to bed, where I have an adult waiting. You go to bed with your "My Buddy" doll by Galoob!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuinqB9z3JI
Shalom!

lol!


1. I'm married.

2. I have kids.

3. I did not lay out any definition of what child molestation is. You haven't laid yours out directly, either.

4. What Kinsey did was not child molestation legally, morally, ethically, etc. If anything, his research may have prevented SOME molestation because we have a better understanding of how a pedos mind works and also becuse he opened up the door into sexology and the cascading effects from that could be far greater than we can know.

5. You just made a personal attack and is a bannable offense.



Here's some advice: You can call someone's arguments stupid, call them silly, call them asinine, but when you cross over the line from calling the arguments something negative, to a personal attack on the person's private life, you've gone too far and it becomse a bannable offense on most discussion boards. Avoid those criticisms. I know it can be hard to do, at times, because some irks you but you just have to be an adult sometimes.

Originally posted by tsscls
Originally posted by skekUng
Did Kinsey write a book in the '40's discussing human sexuality in which he discussed pre adolescent sexuality? Yes or no?

When you start answering my questions, I'll start responding to yours.

Originally posted by skekUng
You want people to defend his research so you can cast them as supporters of pedophilia

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol!


1. I'm married.

2. I have kids.

3. I did not lay out any definition of what child molestation is. You haven't laid yours out directly, either.

4. What Kinsey did was not child molestation legally, morally, ethically, etc. If anything, his research may have prevented SOME molestation because we have a better understanding of how a pedos mind works and also becuse he opened up the door into sexology and the cascading effects from that could be far greater than we can know.

5. You just made a personal attack and is a bannable offense.



Here's some advice: You can call someone's arguments stupid, call them silly, call them asinine, but when you cross over the line from calling the arguments something negative, to a personal attack on the person's private life, you've gone too far and it becomse a bannable offense on most discussion boards. Avoid those criticisms. I know it can be hard to do, at times, because some irks you but you just have to be an adult sometimes.


Sorry, I was wrong about you not having kids. Offense that warrants banning? I'm no mod, but I'd say no.
You should set up a website that alerts people to the proper manners of posting on message boards. Your name could be Emily. You should tell people that you have children while you're at it. That way they'll never hypothetically talk about them. As angry as me talking about your hypothetical children (in my mind at the time) gets you, you think you'd have a bit of compassion for the real children that were affected by Kinsey's studies.
The fact is, there were children who were negatively affected by the action of Kinsey's subjects. All in the name of science.

Originally posted by tsscls
Sorry, I was wrong about you not having kids. Offense that warrants banning? I'm no mod, but I'd say no.
You should set up a website that alerts people to the proper manners of posting on message boards. Your name could be Emily. You should tell people that you have children while you're at it. That way they'll never hypothetically talk about them. As angry as me talking about your hypothetical children (in my mind at the time) gets you, you think you'd have a bit of compassion for the real children that were affected by Kinsey's studies.
The fact is, there were children who were negatively affected by the action of Kinsey's subjects. All in the name of science.
No, that's absolutely not true at all. There were negatively affected children that he learned ABOUT, who had already experienced it. At no point was any child actually molested "in the name of science".

Originally posted by King Kandy
So how would you suggest a scientific study on pre-adolescent sexuality should acquire it's data?

Originally posted by tsscls
The fact is, there were children who were negatively affected by the action of Kinsey's subjects. All in the name of science.

could you identify these victims?

Originally posted by King Kandy


I would say there should be no such study.

Originally posted by inimalist
could you identify these victims?

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/

Look hard, they're in there.

Originally posted by tsscls
I would say there should be no such study.

I asked you this, earlier:

Originally posted by King Kandy
So now you're claiming that no one should be able to research pre adolescent sexuality?

And you told me that was not what you were saying. Sounds like you are backtracking here.

Originally posted by tsscls
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/

Look hard, they're in there.

I looked. They're not.

Did you look?

Originally posted by tsscls
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/library/

Look hard, they're in there.

so you can't identify a single case where someone was victimized then?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I looked. They're not.

Did you look?

Not in the least, what did you find?

Originally posted by tsscls
Not in the least, what did you find?

Exactly what I said I found. Read my post again.

Taken from this page.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy%202.htm

"Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book."

I can see how you might believe that utter contradiction of your claims is proving you right.

Originally posted by tsscls
Taken from this page.

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy%202.htm

"Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book."

yes, kinsey interviewed men who were pedophiles, what do you conclude from that?

like, do we know if these men had already served time for this? I don't see the jump you are making...

Originally posted by tsscls
Sorry, I was wrong about you not having kids. Offense that warrants banning? I'm no mod, but I'd say no.

You're assuming I did not have any children was what I was referring to when I talked about your personal attacks against me.

No.

How could you get that wrong when it was very directly stated in my post what the personal attacks were?

facepalm

Originally posted by tsscls
You should set up a website that alerts people to the proper manners of posting on message boards.

...or you could just read the rules on this website about insults/personal attacks.

Originally posted by tsscls
Your name could be Emily.

Ahhh, giving me a girl's name. How so very adult of you.

Originally posted by tsscls
You should tell people that you have children while you're at it.

I mean, why not? awesome

Originally posted by tsscls
That way they'll never hypothetically talk about them.

Good thinking!

Originally posted by tsscls
As angry as me talking about your hypothetical children (in my mind at the time) gets you, you think you'd have a bit of compassion for the real children that were affected by Kinsey's studies.


Riiiiight...the real children affected by Kinsey's studies...

You mean the children possibly spared from a predator because we have a better understanding of human sexuality thanks to the pioneering efforts by Kinsey? I'm guessing that's not what you meant.


Originally posted by tsscls
The fact is, there were children who were negatively affected by the action of Kinsey's subjects. All in the name of science.


Again, "Riiiiight...the real children affected by Kinsey's studies..."

So, where are these negatively affected children you speak of, sir? Can you name one or give an example? Surely Kinsey's detractors would have done all of the work for you?

tsscls:

ok, so, former British soap star Ross Kemp does a series where he visits gangs in different parts of the world, interviews drug dealers, murderers, militia and paramilitary people, essentially, a lot of bad people. But he does so in a way that investigates the causes of things like gang violence, in order to use his show as a vehicle to make a political statement about issues like race and poverty. He has visited Gaza, and was invited out on a mission where a Jihadi group placed an IED. He even admitted it was a questionable situation, but like, do you not think it is almost necessary for people to look into how all this works, so that we can deal with the issues that surround it?

why would pedophilia be any different?

anyone that opens up a sex school is ok in my book.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
anyone that opens up a sex school is ok in my book.

lol!

Best post in the thread.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're assuming I did not have any children was what I was referring to when I talked about your personal attacks against me.

No.

How could you get that wrong when it was very directly stated in my post what the personal attacks were?

facepalm



...or you could just read the rules on this website about insults/personal attacks.



Ahhh, giving me a girl's name. How so very adult of you.



I mean, why not? awesome



Good thinking!




Riiiiight...the real children affected by Kinsey's studies...

You mean the children possibly spared from a predator because we have a better understanding of human sexuality thanks to the pioneering efforts by Kinsey? I'm guessing that's not what you meant.





Again, "Riiiiight...the real children affected by Kinsey's studies..."

So, where are these negatively affected children you speak of, sir? Can you name one or give an example? Surely Kinsey's detractors would have done all of the work for you?

Still here!

Originally posted by inimalist
tsscls:

ok, so, former British soap star Ross Kemp does a series where he visits gangs in different parts of the world, interviews drug dealers, murderers, militia and paramilitary people, essentially, a lot of bad people. But he does so in a way that investigates the causes of things like gang violence, in order to use his show as a vehicle to make a political statement about issues like race and poverty. He has visited Gaza, and was invited out on a mission where a Jihadi group placed an IED. He even admitted it was a questionable situation, but like, do you not think it is almost necessary for people to look into how all this works, so that we can deal with the issues that surround it?

why would pedophilia be any different?

If this guy knew that a crime was occuring, then no. If his inaction would kill your mother, would it be ok in the name of journalism?

Originally posted by tsscls
Still here!

And still producing well thought out debates it seems.

Originally posted by tsscls
If this guy knew that a crime was occuring, then no. If his inaction would kill your mother, would it be ok in the name of journalism?

do I think a journalist, who might be studying the gangsters who kill my mother, bares any responsability in her death?

no, I tend to hold people responsible for their actions. Gangsters are the ones responsible for murders, whereas pedophiles are the ones responsible for child molestation.

If the best argument you can come up with is that Kinsey aknowledging the existence of pedophilia as something that should be studied implicates him as culpable in child molestation, I don't think you are going to get much support here.

Originally posted by inimalist
do I think a journalist, who might be studying the gangsters who kill my mother, bares any responsability in her death?

no, I tend to hold people responsible for their actions. Gangsters are the ones responsible for murders, whereas pedophiles are the ones responsible for child molestation.

If the best argument you can come up with is that he aknowledged the existence of pedophilia as something that should be studied indicates that Kinsey is culpable in child molestation, I don't think you are going to get much support here.


The best argument that I can come up with is that if someone observes an illegal/immoral act in the name of science, and if something positive comes out of the observance, then it doesn't absolve them of the end result being immoral. If burning kittens>cancer, then you still have to account for the kittens. Kittens are just an example.

Kinsey never observed pedophilia, so your comparison is lame anyways

Originally posted by tsscls
The best argument that I can come up with is that if someone observes an illegal/immoral act in the name of science, and if something positive comes out of the observance, then it doesn't absolve them of the end result being immoral. If burning kittens>cancer, then you still have to account for the kittens. Kittens are just an example.
So in your view, those kittens should not have been burned, even though it led to curing cancer?

Originally posted by tsscls
Still here!

Still Wrong!

Originally posted by tsscls
Still here!

Oh, oh, oh! I know this one! It's a bait-troll!
dur





And, you bet your sweet britches that I would burn kittens if doing so cured cancer. I would setup a system of breeding at a massive pace so I could burn as many kittens as possible to cure as much cancer as possible. Get this, I may even cure some pedophiles cancer, despite the fact that I consider pedophiles some of the lowest scum on the planet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, oh, oh! I know this one! It's a bait-troll!
dur





And, you bet your sweet britches that I would burn kittens if doing so cured cancer. I would setup a system of breeding at a massive pace so I could burn as many kittens as possible to cure as much cancer as possible. Get this, I may even cure some pedophiles cancer, despite the fact that I consider pedophiles some of the lowest scum on the planet.

Would you have let that poor sap in Arizona commit murder if it led to a treatment that helps us understand schizophrenia better? If you were his attending Physician and also a researcher whose studies could possibly lead to the production of such a drug?

That's a stupid question.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19961_7-studies-that-only-proved-that-scientists-are-perverts.html

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/8083/as12.png

Is a nice ass, I didn't get past it to read the stories.

That is the ass of a twelve year old boy! My point has been made.

Originally posted by tsscls
That is the ass of a twelve year old boy! My point has been made.

How do you know what the ass of a twelve year old boy looks like? Pedo alert!

How do you know how to set off a Pedo Alert? Pedo Alertx2!

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a stupid question.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid yous. Please grow the fudge up apehole.

From the beginning of his formal sex research in 1938, Alfred Kinsey was fortunate to have a strong supporting cast of research assistants, people who shared his missionary fire along with the burden of interviewing subjects, analyzing data, and drawing charts and graphs. Foremost among them were Clyde Martin, Wardell Pomeroy, and Paul Gebhard; to this list can be added Ralph Voris, Kinsey's favorite graduate student of the late 1920s, who though never a part of the institute profoundly influenced Kinsey's thinking about sex. Kinsey held sway over this group as a master over acolytes, driving them like hounds and encouraging, in the name of research, relationships among the staff and their wives that would have meant the end of the project had they become publicly known.

Ralph Voris
Ralph Voris was born in Oklahoma in 1902. His family moved to Kansas while he was a boy, and he received his bachelor's degree from Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas, in 1924. After graduating from Southwestern, Voris went to Indiana University to pursue his Ph.D. in zoology, arriving in the fall of 1925; he received his doctorate under Kinsey's direction three years later. Voris loved fieldwork and the outdoors, but he was not destined to be a great scholar. He was, however, a gifted teacher, and after receiving his degree, he got a job at Southwest State Teachers College in Springfield, Missouri.

Early Friend
Kinsey appreciated Voris' love of and aptitude for fieldwork, and their relationship grew into a deep and lasting friendship. After Voris left Bloomington, the two exchanged letters of confidence about the intimate details of their marriages. By many accounts, Kinsey fell in love with the handsome young zoologist, but his desires were frustrated by society's condemnation of homosexuality. For if Kinsey's friendship with Voris did much to bring the homosexual side of his sexual persona to the surface, Voris was happily married to his college sweetheart, Geraldine, and showed little inclination to reciprocate. Nonetheless, they remained in touch, and as Voris lay dying in May of 1940, it was Kinsey whom Geraldine summoned to be with them in his last hours. Kinsey, of course, went, but Voris died before he got there.

Clyde Martin
Clyde Martin entered Indiana University in the fall of 1937. Troubled by sexual angst, the young student sought out Kinsey and, in December 1938, gave him his sexual history. Recalling similar episodes in his own childhood, Kinsey could easily comprehend what Martin was going through, even breaking his longtime rule against telling interviewees about his own sexual history. But it wasn't only sex that was troubling Martin -- he was also suffering from a lack of funds. After the interview, Kinsey offered him a part-time job. The two would toil side by side in Kinsey's garden, stripped to the waist and yarning about sex. By the spring of 1939, Kinsey trusted Martin enough to ask him to help with the tabulation of Kinsey's sexual history survey results, and in 1941 Martin officially started as Kinsey's first research assistant, his salary paid by a grant from the Committee on Research in Problems of Sex.

Essential Assistant
From the beginning, Kinsey found himself attracted to Martin, and as their relationship deepened Kinsey began trying to seduce the younger man, using his authority as professor and employer to persuade Martin to enter into an affair. Martin soon discovered that he was more heterosexual than homosexual, but Kinsey's sway over the student made it difficult for him to break free. As their affair progressed, Martin approached his employer about asking Kinsey's wife, Clara, to have sex with him. At first taken back, Kinsey quickly saw that Martin was asking no more of him than Kinsey was asking of the world. Kinsey gave Martin his blessing -- as did Clara -- and Martin and Clara entered into a sexual relationship. In May 1942, Martin married his girlfriend, Alice, in a simple ceremony in the same garden next to the Kinseys' house where he had first gone to work three years earlier. Martin remained a member of Kinsey's research team until the end, proving himself essential in adding up the numbers for both of Kinsey's famous books, compiling tables, and drawing charts.

Wardell Pomeroy
Kinsey met Wardell Pomeroy in 1941 in South Bend, Indiana, where Kinsey had gone to lecture about his favorite subject and drum up recruits for the survey. Pomeroy, then employed as a prison psychologist for the state of Indiana, approached Kinsey after the talk to ask questions. After chatting for a little while, Kinsey invited Pomeroy to give his sexual history, and Pomeroy said yes. When Pomeroy arrived at Kinsey's hotel the next morning, he found Kinsey in his room -- standing naked in front of the mirror, shaving, with Clyde Martin in attendance. After taking Pomeroy's history, Kinsey asked him to serve as his "contact man" in South Bend, one of an army of people around the country who, like a journalist's fixer, would put his employer in touch with friends, acquaintances, and in Pomeroy's case prisoners convicted of sex crimes.

Talented Interviewer
The two men stayed in touch the following year, and in February 1943 Pomeroy went to work full time for Kinsey. If Martin was the numbers man, Pomeroy turned out to have a gift for interviewing. Almost as much as Kinsey himself, he could relate to anyone -- and convince them to open up to him with their deepest secrets. Though Pomeroy was married, Kinsey would eventually lure him into a brief affair.

Paul Gebhard
Paul Gebhard was born in 1917 in the tiny town of Rocky Ford, Colorado, and received both his B.S. and his Ph.D. in anthropology from Harvard. In May 1946, on the recommendation of Harvard anthropology professor Clyde Kluckhohn, Kinsey wrote to Gebhard to see if he would be interested in joining his research team. Gebhard wrote back assuring Kinsey that he was not "afraid of sex," and even asserting, "Abnormal sexual behavior does not repel me... In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that our concept of the norm is too restricted when applied to actuality." Kinsey met Gebhard the following month in New York, offered him a job, and Gebhard went to work for Kinsey in Bloomington that August.

Successor to Kinsey
Despite his marriage to Radcliffe alumna Agnes West, Gebhard soon entered into an affair with Alice Martin, Clyde's wife. While, in Gebhard's words, "Kinsey had no objection to interstaff sex," his relationship with Alice began to affect the Martins' marriage, and at Kinsey's behest the two called it off. Kinsey also tried to persuade him to dabble in homosexuality, but Gebhard soon discovered that it "wasn't his cup of tea." Of all of Kinsey's research assistants, Paul Gebhard endured longest at the institute, becoming its director upon Kinsey's death in 1956 and continuing in that role until his retirement in 1982.

Dude, if Kinsey never took the step of interviewing men that liked children, we wouldn't know a thing about pedophilia. These men were very possibly talking about past experiences, Kinsey wasn't asking them to go under a bubble so he could see them having sex. There's nothing to say that he even ever encouraged these people.

Would we know now that children are not sexual beings if someone did not do the research once?

In my opinion, this is a lot of weeping and whining about things that may have happened. The benefits of what happened then that we have today, like even being able to say that a child can be sexually traumatized, and that we can help that child out now instead of just looking at the situation without any idea...

Early sciences were not precise and tactful things. You have to start out somewhere to reach even the rarest glimpse of understanding.

lol, oh, right... this thread...

That CRACKED article was really unfortunate. Not for Kinsey in particular but for sex research in general. Seems like a lot of people can't deal with the idea that sex is something that should be studied.

Originally posted by tsscls
There are no stupid questions, only stupid yous. Please grow the fudge up apehole.

It took you over a year and a half to think of a response and that's the best you could come up with? Ghey.