157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
I would suggest immediate removal of this section from the article for all of these reasons.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I would suggest immediate removal of this section from the article for all of these reasons.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
== Unreliable source? ==
The referenced article 'The re-whitewashing of pedophile Alfred Kinsey' seems to be quite suspect. Its published by Renew America, who have political disputes with Kinsey's work, and seems to be concerned mainly not with criticisms of his research but a combination of personal accusations and claims that Kinsey was and still is destroying society. Look at some of these:
''This collection comprised nudist magazines that contained pictures and drawings of nude men and boys, and Kinsey would show them to his young male charges in his tent — alone — late at night.''
Source, perhaps? No? Was Kinsey ever charged with any type of sex crime? Nope. Are there any witnesses or accounts of these late-night showings? Nope.
''Kinsey is without a doubt one of the most vile, destructive and perverted individuals I have ever had the displeasure of studying.''
Could it be that the writer is just the tiniest bit biased against Kinsey?
A lot of the claims made are also dubious. The entire section on Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck, for example - the Nazi Pedophile who the article claims Kinsey protected and encouraged. If you do a bit of research on that, just a little googling, it seems that this claim was pulled out of the blue by a British TV program called 'Kinsey's Pedophiles' - which based its claims on 'newspaper findings' without nameing any specific newspaper. A claim which it appears to have in turn pulled from the claims of one Dr. Judith Reisman - who the author of the re-whitewashing article seems to hold in high estem.
This Reisman is also reaponsible for many of the other claims repeated - most, if not all. Yet her own credability is pathetic. She appears to be on an anti-Kinsey crusade, publishing a series of books and a website attacking him, and making numerous claims which I can see at a glance to be nonsense. For example, the ''Kinsey's 'research' alleged that 10% of American males were homosexual'' line, which is actually just a misreading of his definition (The research actually claimed that 10% of males had homosexual tendencies, which could include bisexuality, or even heterosexuals who had recurring homosexual thoughts or fantasies even if not acted upon). And she makes some very dubious claims - once stateing that watching pornography caused the formation of toxic chemicals in the brain.
The re-whitewashing writer seems to have a bit of a nazi obcession, comparing Kinsey to them no less than five times. Including one time where he argues that Kinsey must be like the Nazis because they both supported eugenics - well, eugenics was hugely popular at that time, quite a few US states passed eugenics laws and yet noone calls those representatives Nazis. It was in fashion.
I just dont think we should refer to this collection of unfounded accusations and lies, written by a peddler of unfounded accusations and lies, in turn repeated by the creator of unfounded accusations and lies and without a spec of credability at any chain. I advise that it be removed, and never refered to here again, in the name of retaining what little credability Conservapedia has.
I have not seen such an appallingly bad source used on Conservapedia since the article that claimed the Nazi Party encouraged homosexuality.
Suricou, the annoyed raven.
== 10% or 4% ==
== 10% or 4% ==