Originally Posted by Archangel

Cardinals fans too!!!

Originally Posted by kbm8795

This isn't a defense of all of his techniques or all the areas that he chose to explore. But taking into account the difficulty in gathering any information on this subject back in the 1940s, the work is remarkable in that it does provide the first attempt at a comprehensive look at sexual behavior among Americans.

Originally Posted by Eggs

Actually, it is a defense of what he was doing... anybody that can read and comprehend can understand that you are defending him...

So what you are in fact saying is that the sexual revolution that occured in the 50s was well worth the molestation of several hundred young boys. Thats nice. John H isnt the only sick fuck around here... being that you said you teach should I be worried for your students?

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I'm not sure whether to laugh or get pissy with the comprehension skills of someone who uses the Washington Times and Worldnetdaily as primary sources for understanding the world around him. However, I'm quite capable of stating facts clearly concerning my opinion.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I'm not sure whether to laugh or get pissy with the comprehension skills of someone who uses the Washington Times and Worldnetdaily as primary sources for understanding the world around him. However, I'm quite capable of stating facts clearly concerning my opinion.

While typing this macho swaggering performance, you might have paused long enough to notice that the "sexual revolution" didn't occur in the 1950's. Much of Kinsey's work, while hitting the best seller list, did little to change the norms of interaction in that puritanical decade. An easy example would be the observation of any television program of that decade in which the characters are "married" but sleeping in separate beds in the bedroom.

Of course, your moral concern for allegations of molestation curiously don't seem to transfer to the Catholic Church, in which the number of claims of sexual abuse has risen past the 1000 mark.

I don't think you need to be concerned about my students at all. . .they would have easily run circles around your comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by Eggs

Oh, and just to put your posts into perspective.. one could draw a comparison by saying:

"Not to Defend Hitler, but the work he did on Euthanasia was quite fascinating".

All for the name of science, right Kbm?

Originally Posted by fantasma62

You are very humorous...
So to defend yourself, you immediately go after the Catholic Church, correct?
I have to admit that us catholics really like to have priests that molest children. We choose them to serve that particular purpose. We really believe that by molesting children, we are opening their minds to new and natural things because all things that are natural are good correct? So, if sex is natural, then children should have sex....I can also use the truth tables, if you'd like me to use logic and continue agreeing with you in that the catholic church is a bad place that harbors criminals. Oh and we are so proud of that, we beam with pride....
Are you kidding me here? Is this your only out? To go after the catholic church? Religion? All I have seen out of your posts is religion this, catholics that, and like John, you repeat yourself over and over again. You then flaunt your "supposed" superiority at Eggs when your only topic of discussion has been attacking religion, just like John H. I am very sure that Egg can defend himself here and in fact he already probably did, however, remember this, you are not superior, you are not all knowing, you are not the fountain of all knowledge...
See? I know I forgot something.....Oh yes, regarding Kinsey, are you saying that all his work was remarkable? Including that done in babies? Priests are bad but the good doctor was Ok in testing on children? It wouldn't bother me as much if I knew that he tested heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality on adults. You know, the consenting kind. But by researching over the weekend when I was trying to poke holes in John H's facts, I found his research and results on children to be perturbing, enough to make me stop my research. Shame on you if you really do feel that this research was remarkable too.....You can be religious or not religious and still be appalled by this piece of human garbage....

Originally Posted by Eggs

Yes, assumptions are great. As to homosexual sites, I'm quite sure you arent so clueless that you have forgotten all of our past conversations. You should use Google, its a nice tool to use. Back to the question at hand, I'm quite sure as well that the the reason most news sites havent discussed this is because the details are a bit shady, and because of course its bad for credibility if they post a messy story/one which is later debunked.

Well, apparently you are the clueless one. I don't know of any site that calls itself "homosexual" and purports to containing news. The term you use refers to sexual interaction, not news. If you are attempting to refer to gay news services, they don't reference themselves in that manner.

And bingo! The credibility issue may well be the reason. . .and the tendancy for this Administration to attempt to tightly control information, especially about the military.

Kinsey either had factual information or he didnt. If he did, then children were indeed molested... if he didnt, then he is a liar and a fraud. You can choose either of those routes. If he is not the one who molested the children, then he protected those who did. Which in my book is nearly equivalent.

[i]We don't know that from the information on this thread. We have a copied and pasted supposed page number from a book that was a best seller. I tend to think, if that was published at the time, the uproar would have likely closed the institute.[/I]

Of course I dont know what you think.. you post, then spend the next ten dancing around what you said. Okay, recap of your posts..

#1 - Automatically trying to move blame to a right winger.
#2 - Defense of Kinsey because the "scientific method" needs refinement.
#3 - Attacking right wingers and trying to twist the argument around, good utilization of a red herring.

Note: Remember, the topic isnt about grown up subjects, its about Kinsey and molestation of children.
#4 - More of the same.

Nice try. And nice political use of the term "scientific method." So you recap your analysis according to your own personal interpretation. Merely pointing out the few references in the article and their political affiliations isn't an "attack" nor a "defense."

It really is amazing isnt it? I'm glad you teach adults either way, its better that people that take your classes have already developed some aspect of thought on their own so know what to take with a grain of salt.

Again, another assumption. I've been rather open about what I teach in other threads before - it isn't human sexuality. And you really aren't in any kind of professional or personal position to speculate about my pedagogical skills.

"To prove defamation in the US, the plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff was specifically targeted by the statement; the statement was false; the statement was published (a private email would not qualify but publication to a user group would); the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the communication; the statement was published deliberately; and the defendant acted with the requisite degree of fault."

1 - Its obvious who the target was as I was replying to your post.
2 - You'd have to prove the statement was false.
3 - Was published.
4 - I'm not sure what damages you feel youve suffered... but feel free to post your feelings on that.
5 - As to how deliberate my statement was, you can take it how you want to. There is no set meaning there, and it could have meant a variety of things. I'm quite sure there is no specific sexual referance in that post, on top of which I could very well have been expressing my concerns for your viewpoints figuratively.

It's a public forum. You have no knowledge who could read those statements. And you have no idea what viewpoints are expressed in my classrooms so have no basis for your "worries," particularly those descriptively expressed in a physical manner.

Moreover, I was merely expressing concern as you seem to have no qualms with the actions of Kinsey. Your comments have continuously supported his actions and never called into question his methods.

I don't think so.

I'm not surprised with the threat of a lawsuit though, it is so very much like you. However, being that I like Ironmagazine and wouldnt want it to become embroiled in your attempts to make a quick buck because you're offended, I'll remove the material which you find offensive.

Originally Posted by Eggs

I was referring to the site that had a "hit list" of people, their pictures, etc that it wished would die. Its a in a recent thread that we visited.

I responded that it appeared to be a parody of the original "christian gallery" web site, so I got their strategy right away in creating it as a political statement. Which is why I referred you to the http://www.godhatesfags.com web site so you could see what a serious hate organization advocates. And a direct parody of that site (although milder) called http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

Since the site worldnetdaily linked to was a "Queer" site, it was an indication that it was using queer theory political discourse, which isn't the same as a gay/lesbian organization. Queer political theory is an "in-your-face" approach that is much less about gay issues than it is about issues in sexual identity, period. I can see why worldnetdaily wouldn't understand that, but I suspect it was intended for a specific audience as a parody on the original anti-abortion site.

My original complaint was not that the news wasnt credible, but that it put pressure on the military to act in a certain manner... and in this case (and others) have pushed the military to put forth charges against the Lt. because it wanted to cover its own butt. Certainly the military and the government could just throw out the charges, but they probably do not find that practical after all the bad press that they received after the various prisoner abuse scandals, etc that took place. News agencies with credebility probably shouldnt report on this as of yet... unless its a snipet about 10 pages back. But regardless, I think that the media is at least partially responsible for the climate in the military of CYA (cover your ass). That really isnt a healthy climate during wartime. Especially when morale among many takes a dive already.

I didn't get the impression that the complaint from the "disgrunted" enlisted soldier was ferreted out by the media, but that is was directly handled through military channels. That was shown by the lack of information the article had about the specific complaint surfacing so much later and being attributed do that soldier.
At least in this war, the media have had more restrictions in movement and coverage ability. I hear mo compliant about not being able to venture out on their own as an assertion that the country isn't nearly being secured. And the Pentagon is pretty tight with any security this time around on information.

So you're saying that its a possibility that the chart isnt from the book. Certainly it is a possibility, but rather slim considering that if someone were indeed to create false information such as that chart and have it spread via the news or whatever else... it would be quickly called into question and debunked. I'm sure there are many people who have read Kinsey's book, and it wouldnt be so hard to do.

I'm saying it's possible that isn'from the book. Or maybe even possible that it was never published and retrieved somehow from archives. Since the source for the article isn't cited, we don't have anything to check on but the researcher they quoted. And, while some of her work is good on other issues and has been used before governmental bodies, the Kinsey stuff seems like it's played more to an extreme political agenda. I honestly can't imagine how that book, with that page in it, could have been published and soared to the top of best seller lists back then without the Institute suffering major criminal charges. Adultery was still prosecuted back then. . .researched on sexuality of children would hardly get past the government in a book that popular.

Of course I recap my analysis according to my personal interpretation... if you have any doubts look at my signature. That said, how would you interpret you posts?

As tentative about the content of the article and careful about automatically trashing the entire research of an Institute without more information.


We've been here and done this... I'm not going to discuss this any further with you. If you were indeed offended by my remark you would obviously remove it from your post so that it could not be seen. However, that you have failed to do so points out that you dont really care if others see it. I'm not going to go deeper into this topic with you either way.

Good. And I forgot to remove it from my post.

As to your last point, I'm not saying I'm wrong about any personalized statements... I'm merely saying that I dont feel like going "there" with somebody who threatens suit when somebody offends them. I'd be happy to discuss what I think about lawsuits and what a shame it is that our society is so trigger happy when it comes to trying to sue.

Originally Posted by fantasma62

This are excerpts from www.cwfa.org
This information to me is apalling and hard to read, but I said I would do this and with a knot in my stomach, I am doing so:


"Kinsey and the kids
According to early reviews, the film barely mentions Kinsey's recording of child sexuality data, with one young staff member expressing distaste.



Kinsey's 1948 book and the companion Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953) claim that sexual activity in even very young children is natural, healthy and to be encouraged. In his research, Kinsey recorded children having orgasms during manipulation by adult "partners" and insisted that the children's "definite pleasure from the situation" was evidenced in their "screams," "convulsions," "hysterical weeping," "fighting," and "striking the partner (adult)" (Male volume p. 161).



In the Female book's chapter on "Pre-Adolescent Sexual Development," Kinsey wrote:

"It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched, or disturbed at seeing the genitalia of other persons, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts." (P. 121.) "

This is not made up bullshit, this are excerpts from his books.

Originally Posted by fantasma62

This is the post I made in another thread....

Originally Posted by fantasma62

This is the post I made in another thread....