Bachmann questions Kinsey Report in Iowa

God I hope she wins the nomination! I can't wait to see what the press will find out about her. She is the epitome of republicanism: bigot, christian (with a little "c"), arrogant, greedy, selfish, and ignorant. She will do well in Iowa.

Kinsey's work HAS been mostly discredited.

She fails to recognize that data sampling has improved greatly since Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, and Hite.

Bachmann knows she is finished.
We don't need a woman president with little or no foreign policy experience

She's an expert on homosexuals... because her husband is one.

"Her events have been largely of the meet-and-greet variety -- get in and out as fast as she can."

Ironically, that sums up marcus's contact with her as well.

Although the kinsey numbers are up to debate, they aren't necessarily wrong because it mostly depends on the self-definition of homosexuality. There is no sharp, defined line between being gay and being somewhat bisexual. Kinsey's continuum model still stands.

Im sure Bachmann questions the Kinsey report EVERYTIME she sees her husband.....everytime he lays one of his soft supple hands onher, or when he smiles with that impish Aunt Bee flair.

Actually Kinsey's work has NOT been discredited. There is some debate on his sampling but not so much as to totally discredit his work. The main error of people who say that is that they don't recognize Kinsey measured BEHAVIOR where most studies now try to measure sexual identity... an entirely different thing.

All BS wrote:

Bachmann knows she is finished.
We don't need a woman president with little or no foreign policy experience

But can't you see Canada from Minnesota?

snyper wrote:

Kinsey's work HAS been mostly discredited.
She fails to recognize that data sampling has improved greatly since Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, and Hite.

Although the scientific community has long identified methodological problems with Kinsey studies, and notwithstanding the frequent misstatement and misuse of the Kinsey studies, the studies have not been discredited. They have led to further study which--though proceding more scientifically--have been largely inconclusive. He was a great innovator who created an entire realm of inquiry into human behavior.
Freud drew many incorrect conclusions, as well. And so did Aristotle. I don't think either man's work is widely regarded as "discredited."

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
But can't you see Canada from Minnesota?

No, but I can see Ontario and Manitoba!

All BS wrote:

Bachmann knows she is finished.
We don't need a woman president with little or no foreign policy experience

Oh, of course. She is still sniffing Sarah Palin's chair, licking her chops at the INCREDIBLE amount of publicity this brings, and the rosy future down the road of possible Fox Commentator, or better yet, reality star on TLC. "Being Michele Bachmann" where the cameras follow her and Marcus on their day to day outings while the cameras stop short as Marcus slips into the Northside Sex Club in Minneapolis.

Homosexuality

Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time.(See Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale.)

Instances of at least one same-sex experience to orgasm:
•37% of males
•13% of females,(p. 650, Male, p. 475, Female)

Males:
•10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
•8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.(p. 651, Male)
•4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews,(p. 651, Male).

Females:
•2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response,(p. 488, Female)
•1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response,(Table 142, p. 499, and p. 474, Female).

Ok Michelle, you disagree with Kinsey, the population is not 10% gay, what do you think the percentage is? How low does the percentage need to be to justify discrimination against American citizens?

Ron431 wrote:

Ok Michelle, you disagree with Kinsey, the population is not 10% gay, what do you think the percentage is? How low does the percentage need to be to justify discrimination against American citizens?

Oh I don't really need statistics and stuff. I'm a republican so I believe in practicing discrmination regardless of what the percentage is. You're just confusing me.

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Although the scientific community has long identified methodological problems with Kinsey studies, and notwithstanding the frequent misstatement and misuse of the Kinsey studies, the studies have not been discredited. They have led to further study which--though proceding more scientifically--have been largely inconclusive. He was a great innovator who created an entire realm of inquiry into human behavior.
Freud drew many incorrect conclusions, as well. And so did Aristotle. I don't think either man's work is widely regarded as "discredited."

Yeah, they have.

Their "religions" do still have adherents and, as with Xianity, their lexicons are still infecting the common parlance.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, they have.
Their "religions" do still have adherents and, as with Xianity, their lexicons are still infecting the common parlance.

There is a fundamental proclivity of human beings to ascribe infallibility to the first or oldest. For centuries, no one dared challenge even a single conclusion of Aristotle. One could only "extend" them. How many times have Freudian quotes been posted on these forums?

The fact is the original attempt at anything seldom accomplishes more than to get the ball rolling. And a large group of followers will blindly reject everything that is learned in opposition to the "master's" declarations. You are absolutely right to call it a religion. "Cult" would actually be more appropriate.

Just wait until someone confirms that particles travel faster than light. We may see witch burnings again in this country.

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a fundamental proclivity of human beings to ascribe infallibility to the first or oldest. For centuries, no one dared challenge even a single conclusion of Aristotle. One could only "extend" them. How many times have Freudian quotes been posted on these forums?
The fact is the original attempt at anything seldom accomplishes more than to get the ball rolling. And a large group of followers will blindly reject everything that is learned in opposition to the "master's" declarations. You are absolutely right to call it a religion. "Cult" would actually be more appropriate.
Just wait until someone confirms that particles travel faster than light. We may see witch burnings again in this country.

lol. Already happened. CERN proved it not long ago.

Heads are spinning.

pauline 2 wrote:

Homosexuality
Kinsey said in both the Male and Female volumes that it was impossible to determine the number of persons who are "homosexual" or "heterosexual". It was only possible to determine behavior at any given time.(See Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale.)
Instances of at least one same-sex experience to orgasm:
•37% of males
•13% of females,(p. 650, Male, p. 475, Female)
Males:
•10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
•8% of males were exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.(p. 651, Male)
•4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews,(p. 651, Male).
Females:
•2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response,(p. 488, Female)
•1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response,(Table 142, p. 499, and p. 474, Female).

And that was in 1953, before Stonewall and the sexual revelation. there were no gays in the military and the term Transsexual was not even in the dictionary.

Today almost 3% Id as T.

Something no one would even mention in 1953.

snyper wrote:

Kinsey's work HAS been mostly discredited.
She fails to recognize that data sampling has improved greatly since Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, and Hite.

It's sort of like campaigning on the platform of abolishing slavery in the US, isn't it?

snyper wrote:

Kinsey's work HAS been mostly discredited.
She fails to recognize that data sampling has improved greatly since Kinsey, Masters and Johnson, and Hite.

"Data sampling" by queers for queers, which is apparent from the immediate assaults here from queers. Kinsey used criminals to torture babies. That's enough for Anyman.