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 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!
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 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.
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?