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 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
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
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 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.
That's not a pedophile?
I happen to believe 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)
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?