Kinsey coverup

studiorat

If someone is as you say sick, interviewing them is useless is it? So you don't interview paedophiles, you just decide why they are acting they way they are yourself? Maybe the bible or the koran would be more scientific. You don't for instance ask a murderer why they did what they did? Is that it?

His research was neutral or attempted to be, it wasn't moral guidance like the holy joe's in the video you're telling people to watch.

Like I said, Kinsey may not have been scientifically correct, he did start something which hadn't been done before, what he did or attempted to do was examine the human sexual condition. Because he didn't pass judgement or condem behavior out of the norm he himself is portrayed as to condone it. A with us or against us argument...

You are presenting an argument from people who would rather use their personal morality and present it as scientific fact. Because Kinsey's studies were firstly dealing in unchartered territory and crude to say the least. Your holy joe pals have used this as an argument to attempt to prevent any research that isn't grounded in religious morality. They are saying Kinsey's research is flawed, therefore all sexual research which is outside of the moral compass is flawed, unless of course it's to condem it.

clever_name

profitius wrote: »

Well first of all its child abuse.

Did Kinsey ever say otherwise?

profitius wrote: »

Secondly paedophiles are sick people who could easily interpret things wrongly according to their beliefs.

Well child sdusers are still researched today, important word there is research, its not endorsement or sponsoship or approval. Research.

profitius wrote: »

And if you watch the videos, Kinsey made some big leaps coming to conclusions.

Thats if you accept the videos are true and accurate.

profitius wrote: »

And how do you know he was neutral. It was suggested he was a paedophile himself. He traveled the world tryng to change laws.

How do you know he was not neutral? Is it from the videos that might be biased? Suggested by who? any proof?

"He traveled the world tryng to change laws." so does Al Gore, is he a child abuser?

Jonny7

profitius wrote: »

Well, the "fruitloops" are making serious accusations and seem to be able to back it up. So why don't we concentrate on Kinsey. After all thats what the thread is about.

What were your thoughts on Kinsey before you saw the documentary?

profitius

Studiorat wrote:

If someone is as you say sick, interviewing them is useless is it? So you don't interview paedophiles, you just decide why they are acting they way they are yourself? Maybe the bible or the koran would be more scientific. You don't for instance ask a murderer why they did what they did? Is that it?

His research was neutral or attempted to be, it wasn't moral guidance like the holy joe's in the video you're telling people to watch.

Like I said, Kinsey may not have been scientifically correct, he did start something which hadn't been done before, what he did or attempted to do was examine the human sexual condition. Because he didn't pass judgement or condem behavior out of the norm he himself is portrayed as to condone it. A with us or against us argument...

You are presenting an argument from people who would rather use their personal morality and present it as scientific fact. Because Kinsey's studies were firstly dealing in unchartered territory and crude to say the least. Your holy joe pals have used this as an argument to attempt to prevent any research that isn't grounded in religious morality. They are saying Kinsey's research is flawed, therefore all sexual research which is outside of the moral compass is flawed, unless of course it's to condem it.

You seem to be of the opinion that a bunch of prudes are trying to blacken Kinseys name for no reason and you're ignoring the facts.

You and others calling them and me holy joes for hightlighting Kinsey says more about you than it does me. So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about, just attacking everyone who is questioning Kinseys behaviour and his research. Excuse me for highlighting child abuse!

Its clear Kinsey was not scientific and had his own agenda. He was clearly not neutral because he was obsessed about changing laws, got funding from people who want to change society for the worse and Kinsey used to self harm.

Jonny7 wrote: »

What were your thoughts on Kinsey before you saw the documentary?

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

clever_name

profitius wrote: »

You seem to be of the opinion that a bunch of prudes are trying to blacken Kinseys name for no reason and you're ignoring the facts.

So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about,

Its clear Kinsey was not scientific and had his own agenda.

So everyone else is ignoring the facts about kinsey?, all your facts come from one place and your entire opinion is based on these same clips, as you yourself stated what your opinion of kinsey was before you saw the videos;

profitius wrote: »

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

So you are happy to accept everything in those videos as true and accurate with no bias and anyone who disagrees is ignoring the facts?

I would respectfully suggest you try to find some other sources, I do find it ironic that you are criticising Kinseys research while basing all of yours on limited sources.

profitius wrote: »

So far none of you have gone into any facts I'm talking about,

Again thats because most of what you are showing is opinion and not fact. Also you seem to be misunderstanding some comments, which leads to...

profitius wrote: »

Excuse me for highlighting child abuse!

I can only guess that you are either not reading or just
ignoring the replies that have been posted regarding this issue, again I respectfully suggest you look back over the thread. I think this might highlight the fact that we are all aware that child abuse happens and is a very bad thing.

So bad that I think we can all agree 100% that everything should be done to prevent it - this includes researching the people who commit these acts.

profitius wrote: »

got funding from people who want to change society for the worse

Making society worse? How in particular? Worse in your opinon?

I am making a presumption here so please correct me if needed, it seems that you are cherry picking evidence to supprt your newly formed opinion that kinsey was a bad guy.

profitius wrote: »

and Kinsey used to self harm.

So? should we ignore anyone who has ever self harmed? A person self harms and any research before or after is void?

Jonny7

profitius wrote: »

I had none. Didn't see the film and just thought he was a normal scientist.

Ask yourself who made the documentary, why did they make the documentary, etc.

studiorat

profitius wrote: »

got funding from people who want to change society for the worse

ho ho! Go on then, how has it changed for the worse?