So did the Marquis de sade
Let me repeat/elaborate on something I said in post 54.
Kinsey went out "in the interest of science" and portrayed raped children as sexual beings who really did like what was being done to them. In the words of many a rapist, Kinsey was just saying that "deep down they wanted it." (After all, if they didn't, what were they doing in that part of town wearing those revealing Dr. Dentons?) In fact, he portrayed these children (in some cases infants) as being just as enthusiastic about sex as any pair of newlyweds. He even went so far as to advance the theory that children who suffer psychological problems after being molested are really suffering trauma from their parents being horrified at the abuse. One of the footnotes to the infamous "Table 34" describes how children being sexually manipulated by child molesters would frequently cry and resist, but then explains that didn't really mean that they were non-sexual, or even not really enjoying it.
That's not a flaw. That's not "many flaws." That's pure, unadulterated evil. I think it's safe to say that if there was no child-rape data in Kinsey's "research," there would be no NAMBLA.
And you say this doesn't diminish his "accomplishments...in any way." It's not as bad as some talk show host getting a divorce, or Thomas Jefferson getting some non-white nookie. Your moral insight is truly outstanding.
Although I have read his research was flawed, I can't comment on its veracity because I am not a scientist.
You don't need to be a scientist. Unless one is dealing with very fine, highly technical points, the layman who has received a proper education can and should evaluate the research methods of scientists. If you can't figure out whether (to use a Kinsey example) a model of human sexual behavior based on interviews with homosexual prison inmates is likely to be accurate for the public at large, then you should stay out of adult conversations.
But at least he made a first effort into studying sex. He brought it out into the open.
You know, it's important to bring bike safety out into the open, too. Let me do a public service right now:
"Kids, when you're riding your bike at night, you don't really need to have your light on, and wearing dark clothes is a great idea. No need to look before crossing the street, either. They'll stop for you."
There. It wasn't even remotely accurate or helpful, but I "brought it out into the open." Where's my medal?
Thank God.
Um, three questions:
1. Do you realize you're thanking the Almighty for research based on child molestation?
2. How did Kinsey's research improve our society? (Note: "I'm much more likely to get nookie than prior generations" is not an acceptable answer.)
3. What other important social phenomena should we release false research on so we can get it "out in the open"?
Yes, he is becoming "notorious". Use a dictionary ;-)
Kinsey is very typical in this regard. How many times has Rush (Mr. Family values) been divorced?
You don't actually listen to Rush very often, do you?
Family values are the least of his agenda--try reading his books.
Don't worry, a good public library ought to have them, so you don't have to worry about enriching him further with royalties. And since Republicans control the Executive Branch, even if they snoop on you re: The Patriot Act, they'll think you're one of the good guys for reading Limbaugh.
And he was addicted to what (Didn't he say all addicts are criminals who should be punished)?
Rush's addiction was the result of an addictive drug prescribed by a doctor for the relief of extreme pain. Have you ever had a disintegrating spinal disc?
Gingrich divorces a wife while she is dying of cancer?
Yes, and he did not call it Resarch, or glorify it.
FDR had how many mistresses?
He's a Democrat, hence not a proof of conservative hypocrisy.
How many slaves did Jefferson have sex with?
I still don't know for sure that he did. Liberals tend to lie about anyone or anything to justify their own behavior.
And this question is a non-sequitur, since the slaves were not infants.
Read any biography on anyone in this type of position (high-powered, striving for glory types), and, regardless of their part affiliation, you will see very flawed people.
What rule do YOU use to distinguish a "flaw" from a "crime"? Martha Stewart is a billionaire, why send her to prison for a measly $40,000 when she brought happiness to millions? Carrie Nation saved the nation from the ravages of "Demon Rum".
Does this diminish their accomplishments? Not in any way.
You are right, people's professional achievements are irrelevant to their personal life. But it cuts both ways--if (say) Martina Navratilova is still one of the all-time greats of tennis, despite being queer, OK. But then you can't turn around and use her tennis skill as an advertisement or endorsement of homosexuality. If the two are unrelated, they are unrelated--fame and credibility are not one-way mirrors, only operating in favor of licentiousness.
What part of "in spite of" vs. "Because of" don't you want to admit?
Kinsey supposedly sought fame BECAUSE OF hobnobbing with pedophiles, unprofessionally skewing his survey samples with sexual predators and perverts, and lying about the implications of his already flawed work.
Limbaugh, to quote your feeble attempted counter-example, would've been much happier to stay happily married and not need powerful painkillers...
Nice try, though.