|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Feb 19, 2024 17:19:56 GMT
Freedom of speech is a myth. People are still free to say whatever they like. What isn't is the consequences of exercising that freedom. There are consequences to words and actions. Often when people complain about having their freedom of speech denied, what they really mean is that they don't like what happens once they have said or done something society no longer tolerates. Ah I see this thread has been moved. Freedom of speech isn't a myth, it's a principle. Of course there's a consequence to everything that is said. Unless it is advocating violence, which is unlawful, everything should be fair game....but I understand the laws of the land and the laws of this forum aren't exactly aligned, and the member was deleted, but surprisingly his post wasn't? That seems inconsistent to me. I'm always sad to see folk go, because apart from the lack of traffic, I think it's interesting to see the wide array of opinions for what they're worth. Keegan posted something most would agree something negative about, and broke the rules of forum, but without education keegs is still there thinking and probably saying the same stuff.... it's a shame we couldn't have let keegs explain the post and point a more positive way on this perhaps leading him/her to in future view that post as a mistake. Opportunity lost. Prohibition won and it's akin to sticking fingers in ears, but it doesn't address or take away the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 17:22:16 GMT
I’ve clarified in my reply to you and it’s he doesn’t deserve that. I’m not a they!"That’s why I don’t care if someone is misgendered deliberately or not!" Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ive just read the wikipedia page about Alfred Kinsey. At no point does it mention that he was a pedophile, just that he interviewed them for his research that turned out to be one pedophile. It mentions that he conducted his studies in an unusual way and it mentions that he chose a large amount of homosexual subjects and it mentions that he was bi sexual and had an open relationship with his wife. A quick google of dodgy doctors brings up James Marion Sims. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves"Few medical doctors have been as lauded—and loathed" I thought we are supposed to learn from history, not try to rewrite it?  This is also taken directly from his book and shows the sort of horror he thought was acceptable. The pioneer of the gender ideology movement was a child abuser. His data deeply flawed. If his is the example to follow then you can count me out. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 18:34:55 GMT
"That’s why I don’t care if someone is misgendered deliberately or not!" Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ive just read the wikipedia page about Alfred Kinsey. At no point does it mention that he was a pedophile, just that he interviewed them for his research that turned out to be one pedophile. It mentions that he conducted his studies in an unusual way and it mentions that he chose a large amount of homosexual subjects and it mentions that he was bi sexual and had an open relationship with his wife. A quick google of dodgy doctors brings up James Marion Sims. www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves"Few medical doctors have been as lauded—and loathed" I thought we are supposed to learn from history, not try to rewrite it? Ah Wikipedia that anyone can edit, how very reliable. Here’s a direct quote from his own book for you: “If a child were not culturally conditioned, it is doubtful if it would be disturbed by sexual approaches…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 person, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts” ~ Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 120-122 The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator. "The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator." He wasn't though, was he? kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinsey-institute-faq.php#:~:text=Kinsey%20did%20not%20carry%20out,way%20condoned%20any%20sexual%20abuse. "Kinsey did not carry out any experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings, and he in no way condoned any sexual abuse." www.christian.org.uk/news/us-university-unveils-statue-of-paedophile-collaborator-alfred-kinsey/"It was only after his death that previously ignored aspects of his research came to light that exposed his collaboration with, and protection of, serial child sex abusers. Table 34 in Sexuality in the Human Male details cases of extreme repeated and prolonged child abuse perpetrated on over 300 children, including infants just two months old." Of course, I don't condone the protection of a serial child sex abuser (the person that made a journal of his abuse). However, I can see no evidence that Kinsey was a nonce himself. This is a bit like Colston. Some would say that everything good that he did for the City of Bristol should be seen as shameful as the way he got the funds for his philanthropy was despicable and is now seen as very wrong. So, should we dismiss Colston as a philanthropist? Just view Colston as a rascist who made money from the suffering of others? This is a bit like religion. Because members of the clergy have committed sexual abuse of children, then the whole of their religion should be dismissed? Maybe bringing this a little closer to home. Due to the way that Joey Barton has behaved in the past, it shows that his views about football cannot be valued. His views on playing football are rubbish because he is just a thug. I am of course trying to hit the extremes here for effect, but you do have to separate the person from the movement (i.e gender as a social construct). |
|
|
|
Post by Somersetgas on Feb 19, 2024 20:06:01 GMT
Cheers Baden
|
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 20:23:33 GMT
Ah Wikipedia that anyone can edit, how very reliable. Here’s a direct quote from his own book for you: “If a child were not culturally conditioned, it is doubtful if it would be disturbed by sexual approaches…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 person, or disturbed at even more specific sexual contacts” ~ Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, p. 120-122 The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator. "The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator." He wasn't though, was he? kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinsey-institute-faq.php#:~:text=Kinsey%20did%20not%20carry%20out,way%20condoned%20any%20sexual%20abuse. "Kinsey did not carry out any experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings, and he in no way condoned any sexual abuse." www.christian.org.uk/news/us-university-unveils-statue-of-paedophile-collaborator-alfred-kinsey/"It was only after his death that previously ignored aspects of his research came to light that exposed his collaboration with, and protection of, serial child sex abusers. Table 34 in Sexuality in the Human Male details cases of extreme repeated and prolonged child abuse perpetrated on over 300 children, including infants just two months old." Of course, I don't condone the protection of a serial child sex abuser (the person that made a journal of his abuse). However, I can see no evidence that Kinsey was a nonce himself. This is a bit like Colston. Some would say that everything good that he did for the City of Bristol should be seen as shameful as the way he got the funds for his philanthropy was despicable and is now seen as very wrong. So, should we dismiss Colston as a philanthropist? Just view Colston as a rascist who made money from the suffering of others? This is a bit like religion. Because members of the clergy have committed sexual abuse of children, then the whole of their religion should be dismissed? Maybe bringing this a little closer to home. Due to the way that Joey Barton has behaved in the past, it shows that his views about football cannot be valued. His views on playing football are rubbish because he is just a thug. I am of course trying to hit the extremes here for effect, but you do have to separate the person from the movement (i.e gender as a social construct). I’m totally lost at what your point is; particularly the parts that back up my sentiment but people didn’t realise until he was dead, so what?! I said that gender ideology had its roots deep in child abuse and paedophilia. I think whether he himself was, the experiments he designed were definitely paedophilic and children were abused. At the very least he was totally complicit in it. As such my point remains that the gender ideology he was pivotal in creating has its roots right where I said they were. The rest of your point goes totally off topic! |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Feb 19, 2024 20:34:38 GMT
Oh dear.
Lots of people trying to justify their views.
They don't need to.
Forums such as this are administered by volunteers who allocate their time free of charge so that we may converse freely, within their rules.
Subject to the rules they apply.
I didn't see the original post that sparked all this off, but reading the trail it appears the problem originated with a member called Keegan?
I really don't see why anyone would be upset with him, he clearly is an inarticulate numb nut, why get upset over someone like him?
There is far worse going on where a few on here (thankfully a few) who argue conspiracy theories and or race/class prejudice.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Feb 19, 2024 22:38:23 GMT
"The bloke was a child abusing nonce and oddly people seem so intent on defending gender ideology that they defend this sort of horrible predator." He wasn't though, was he? kinseyinstitute.org/about/kinsey-institute-faq.php#:~:text=Kinsey%20did%20not%20carry%20out,way%20condoned%20any%20sexual%20abuse. "Kinsey did not carry out any experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings, and he in no way condoned any sexual abuse." www.christian.org.uk/news/us-university-unveils-statue-of-paedophile-collaborator-alfred-kinsey/"It was only after his death that previously ignored aspects of his research came to light that exposed his collaboration with, and protection of, serial child sex abusers. Table 34 in Sexuality in the Human Male details cases of extreme repeated and prolonged child abuse perpetrated on over 300 children, including infants just two months old." Of course, I don't condone the protection of a serial child sex abuser (the person that made a journal of his abuse). However, I can see no evidence that Kinsey was a nonce himself. This is a bit like Colston. Some would say that everything good that he did for the City of Bristol should be seen as shameful as the way he got the funds for his philanthropy was despicable and is now seen as very wrong. So, should we dismiss Colston as a philanthropist? Just view Colston as a rascist who made money from the suffering of others? This is a bit like religion. Because members of the clergy have committed sexual abuse of children, then the whole of their religion should be dismissed? Maybe bringing this a little closer to home. Due to the way that Joey Barton has behaved in the past, it shows that his views about football cannot be valued. His views on playing football are rubbish because he is just a thug. I am of course trying to hit the extremes here for effect, but you do have to separate the person from the movement (i.e gender as a social construct). I’m totally lost at what your point is; particularly the parts that back up my sentiment but people didn’t realise until he was dead, so what?! I said that gender ideology had its roots deep in child abuse and paedophilia. I think whether he himself was, the experiments he designed were definitely paedophilic and children were abused. At the very least he was totally complicit in it. As such my point remains that the gender ideology he was pivotal in creating has its roots right where I said they were. The rest of your point goes totally off topic! You need to re read the links that I included. He did not design any experiments that were paedophilic. What he did was to use the journal of a paedophile for his research and he then protected that paedophile. I posted two links, both from different perspectives. Neither link said that he was a paedophile. The point that you are trying to make is that gender ideology should be dismissed due to some of the research being from a paedophile. That doesn't make the outcomes and ideologies wrong. In the same way as gynaecology was an outcome from abusing slaves. The findings through the physical abuse of slaves should not be dismissed. We both accept the paedophile shouldn't have been protected and not convicted (I don't know if he was in the end, assuming it was a man). |
|
|
|
Post by orgasmic on Feb 19, 2024 23:19:14 GMT
I’m totally lost at what your point is; particularly the parts that back up my sentiment but people didn’t realise until he was dead, so what?! I said that gender ideology had its roots deep in child abuse and paedophilia. I think whether he himself was, the experiments he designed were definitely paedophilic and children were abused. At the very least he was totally complicit in it. As such my point remains that the gender ideology he was pivotal in creating has its roots right where I said they were. The rest of your point goes totally off topic! You need to re read the links that I included. He did not design any experiments that were paedophilic. What he did was to use the journal of a paedophile for his research and he then protected that paedophile. I posted two links, both from different perspectives. Neither link said that he was a paedophile. The point that you are trying to make is that gender ideology should be dismissed due to some of the research being from a paedophile. That doesn't make the outcomes and ideologies wrong. In the same way as gynaecology was an outcome from abusing slaves. The findings through the physical abuse of slaves should not be dismissed. We both accept the paedophile shouldn't have been protected and not convicted (I don't know if he was in the end, assuming it was a man). With respect, I think you need to look beyond links from his own institute. The co author of Kinseys second book and colleague of a decade gave interviews in which he confirmed they knew what they were doing was unlawful and also that they instructed people to have a stopwatch to get the data they wanted. So yes, they designed abusive and paedophilic experiments and asked known active paedophiles to take part. In part, yes that is my point. When the basis of an ideology comes from data that is demonstrably flawed, some clearly twisted individuals then think it’s fair to say that the outcomes should be dismissed. The incorrect findings were published and then built upon by others with equally flawed conclusions. Eventually it came out the other end as gender is a social construct and anybody can identify as anything and everybody else has to affirm that whether it’s delusional or not or be criticised, cancelled, threatened etc etc! |
|
