Kinsey, sexual ethics, and evolution

A terrifying look at the work of Alfred Kinsey, whose supposed scholarly efforts brought about the sexual revolution in America. I knew some of Kinsey's corrupting influence but the material in this documentary truly floored me. As the fallout of the Orlando false flag shooting begins to manifest itself into predictable brainwashing efforts to promote homosexual behavior, it is important to focus on the children who may become victims of this agenda.

A very good documentary with plenty of documented evidence that can be investigated further ...

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The above-linked documentary is "The Kinsey Syndrome". Here's a brief review:

http://everydayforlifecanada.blogspot.com/2015/07/watch-kinsey-syndrome-and-understand.html

quote:

Liberty University law professor Matt Barber says about the documentary, “The Kinsey Syndrome is must-viewing for anyone who cares about our rapidly declining culture. The film is central to the curriculum for “Sexual Behavior and the Law” – a class I teach at Liberty University School of Law. As the documentary so masterfully illustrates, there is a pre-Kinsey and a post-Kinsey America. Unfortunately, we live in the latter. All of our major elitist institutions: the courts; the media; academia; the entertainment industry and others – have relied upon Kinsey’s wholly discredited research to move America away from adherence to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, and toward a secular-humanist, morally relative worldview. The Kinsey Syndrome has helped to expose Alfred Kinsey and his life’s work as pure fraud.” Ted Baehr of Movieguide evaluates It with these words, “The Bible tells us to expose the fruitless works of darkness. The documentary, The Kinsey Syndrome, does just that in painstaking detail. Each chapter of this video documentary addresses a different aspect of the work of the pseudo-scientist Alfred Kinsey whose fraudulent data laid the cancerous foundation for sex education, perversion, pedophilia, pornography, and the corruption of our culture.”

Hmm... traditionalists and fundamentalist Christians might not like Kinsey's findings, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "pure fraud". Anyhow, I'm going to find time to watch this video.


 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
The above-linked documentary is "The Kinsey Syndrome". Here's a brief review:

http://everydayforlifecanada.blogspot.com/2015/07/watch-kinsey-syndrome-and-understand.html

quote:

Liberty University law professor Matt Barber says about the documentary, “The Kinsey Syndrome is must-viewing for anyone who cares about our rapidly declining culture. The film is central to the curriculum for “Sexual Behavior and the Law” – a class I teach at Liberty University School of Law. As the documentary so masterfully illustrates, there is a pre-Kinsey and a post-Kinsey America. Unfortunately, we live in the latter. All of our major elitist institutions: the courts; the media; academia; the entertainment industry and others – have relied upon Kinsey’s wholly discredited research to move America away from adherence to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, and toward a secular-humanist, morally relative worldview. The Kinsey Syndrome has helped to expose Alfred Kinsey and his life’s work as pure fraud.” Ted Baehr of Movieguide evaluates It with these words, “The Bible tells us to expose the fruitless works of darkness. The documentary, The Kinsey Syndrome, does just that in painstaking detail. Each chapter of this video documentary addresses a different aspect of the work of the pseudo-scientist Alfred Kinsey whose fraudulent data laid the cancerous foundation for sex education, perversion, pedophilia, pornography, and the corruption of our culture.”

Hmm... traditionalists and fundamentalist Christians might not like Kinsey's findings, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're "pure fraud". Anyhow, I'm going to find time to watch this video.


need I say more?
Canada's Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals
www.breitbart.com/.../canada-supreme-court-legalized-hu...
Jun 9, 2016 - Canada's Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals ... ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is ...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Canada's Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals ... ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is ...
Here's a link to the actual Supreme Court ruling.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do

The judges claim that they are interpreting the law the same way it always has been historically, that bestiality requires intercourse. Merely petting an animal, or being licked by the animal, is not bestiality.

Animal rights activists are trying to expand the definition, but the court said the activists need to get Parliament to act.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I would first like to start out by saying that Collectivist's discussion of Kinsey is off-topic, so I am posting the following in protest.

Liberty University law professor Matt Barber says about the documentary, “The Kinsey Syndrome is must-viewing for anyone who cares about our rapidly declining culture. The film is central to the curriculum for “Sexual Behavior and the Law” – a class I teach at Liberty University School of Law. As the documentary so masterfully illustrates, there is a pre-Kinsey and a post-Kinsey America. Unfortunately, we live in the latter. All of our major elitist institutions: the courts; the media; academia; the entertainment industry and others – have relied upon Kinsey’s wholly discredited research to move America away from adherence to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, and toward a secular-humanist, morally relative worldview. The Kinsey Syndrome has helped to expose Alfred Kinsey and his life’s work as pure fraud.” Ted Baehr of Movieguide evaluates It with these words, “The Bible tells us to expose the fruitless works of darkness. The documentary, The Kinsey Syndrome, does just that in painstaking detail. Each chapter of this video documentary addresses a different aspect of the work of the pseudo-scientist Alfred Kinsey whose fraudulent data laid the cancerous foundation for sex education, perversion, pedophilia, pornography, and the corruption of our culture.”

It's nice to know that collectivist is now aligning himself with the Zionist agenda, after we thought he was saving children from ritual Jewish murder and such. As I am sure Joe would agree, Liberty University is a Crypto-Judeo-Masonic institution, whose founder recognized Rev. Moon as being greater than Jesus.

Ironic that nobody except the courts care about Catholic children worldwide getting snogged by their priests.

Maybe collectivist learned that humans are really the product of promiscuous pigs fornicating with chimpanzees, aka chimpigs? This is likely why Jews don't eat pork, because somehow Moses understood that we descend from them. (See the hupig at bottom.)

(Phys.org) —These days, getting a Ph.D. is probably the last thing you want to do if you are out to revolutionize the world. If, however, what you propose is an idea, rather than a technology, it can still be a valuable asset to have. Dr. Eugene McCarthy is a Ph.D. geneticist who has made a career out of studying hybridization in animals. He now curates a biological information website called Macroevolution.net where he has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together. Why weren't these conclusions arrived at much sooner? McCarthy suggests it is because of an over-dependence on genetic data among biologists. He argues that humans are probably the result of multiple generations of backcrossing to chimpanzees, which in nucleotide sequence data comparisons would effectively mask any contribution from pig.

Generally speaking, interspecies hybrids—like mules, ligers (lion-tiger hybrids), or zedonks (zebra-donkey hybrids)—are less fertile than the parents that produced them. However, as McCarthy has documented in his years of research into hybrids, many crosses produce hybrids that can produce offspring themselves. The mule, he notes, is an exceptionally sterile hybrid and not representative of hybrids as a whole. When it comes time to play the old nuclear musical chairs and produce gametes, some types of hybrids do a much better job. Liger females, for example, can produce offspring in backcrosses with both lions and tigers. McCarthy also points out that fertility can be increased through successive backcrossing with one of the parents, a common technique used by breeders. In the case of chimp - pig hybridization, the "direction of the cross" would likely have been a male boar or pig (Sus scrofa) with a female chimp (Pan troglodytes), and the offspring would have been nurtured by a chimp mother among chimpanzees (shades of Tarzan!). The physical evidence for this is convincing, as you can discover for yourself with a trip over to macroevolution.net.

When I asked McCarthy if he could give a date estimate for the hybridization event, he said that there are a couple broad possibilities: (1) It might be that hybridization between pigs and apes produced the earliest hominids millions of years ago and that subsequent mating within this hybrid swarm eventually led to the various hominid types and to modern humans; (2) separate crosses between pigs and apes could have produced separate hominids (and there's even a creepy possibility that hybridization might even still be occurring in regions where Sus and Pan still seem to come into contact, like Southern Sudan).

This latter possibility may not sound so far-fetched after you read the riveting details suggesting that the origin of the gorilla may be best explained by hybridization with the equally massive forest hog. This hog is found within the same habitat as the gorilla, and shares many uncommon physical features and habits. Furthermore, well-known hybridization effects can explain many of the fertility issues and other peculiarities of gorilla physiology.

It is not yet clear if or when genetic data might support, or refute, our hybrid origins. The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone are hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html
A hupig from China (2008):

upload_2016-6-30_18-29-46.png

BTW, I could swear that I had posted about Chimpigs before but a search brings up nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Here's a link to the actual Supreme Court ruling.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do

The judges claim that they are interpreting the law the same way it always has been historically, that bestiality requires intercourse. Merely petting an animal, or being licked by the animal, is not bestiality.

Animal rights activists are trying to expand the definition, but the court said the activists need to get Parliament to act.
LH: the case was a father had a dog lick his daughter is that sex? Pres. Clinton would say no. the court said that was ok is that ok jerry?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lorenhough, understand that the fox are guarding the hen house and that the political class are compromised puppets and, as such, they create laws to protect themselves. There is abundant evidence that these sick sexual deviants hold political office and this too is by design. Is it any wonder that occultic Zionists who run hollywood would provide a whitewash eulogy to this homosexual pedophile in film


Remember, the ones afforded the highest regard in society are often times the devils and those smeared are often righteous and just.

Of course, if you want to understand the truth behind this agenda, you must go to the politically incorrect writings found within the protocols of Zion to fully appreciate the mad genius of this plot. For some, the truth is far too unsavory and uncomfortable so they must resort to straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, attacking the messenger instead of the message, to divert investigation from the truth. Their cognitive dissonance is simply too disrupting to their sheltered world view and they will do their utmost to protect that view.

Sad really.

Realize Lorenhough that these are the tactics of the shill and the best defense to such individuals is to not engage them as they add nothing to your pursuit of truth but rather serve to derail you from it
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I would first like to start out by saying that this latest issue is off-topic, so I am posting the following in protest.
This is Collectivist's thread, so he gets to decide what the topic is. If he wants to talk about bestiality, it's his thread. As for your protest, Rick, you "doth protest too much." You know it's not every day that the opportunity presents itself, to post pictures of hupigs.

LH the case was a father had a dog lick his daughter is that sex? Pres. Clinton would say no. the court said that was ok is that ok jerry?
I stand with the court: the father molested his teenage daughter, and that was a crime. But as to setting a precedent about dogs and peanut butter, consider this. How would the precedent be applied to some guy who gets his pet chihuahua to lick peanut butter off his junk? And what if this happens with the full consent of the chihuahua? Would the chihuahua's testimony be allowed in court, or would we have to install surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom to capture the evidence? If I were on the Canadian supreme court, I would most definitely punt to Parliament on that question.

As I am sure Joe would agree, Liberty University is a Crypto-Judeo-Masonic institution, whose founder recognized Rev. Moon as being greater than Jesus.
I follow you that Sun Myung Moon says that he himself is greater than Jesus; and also that whereas Jesus couldn't save Liberty University, Rev. Moon was able to keep it afloat. And furthermore, I get that Falwell was a Christian Zionist.

And I get how confusing this is, when you have the Liberty University Zionists attacking Kinsey at the same time as the Hollywood Zionists are promoting him. Seems that the left tentacle of the Zionist octopus doesn't know what the right tentacle is doing.

But construing all of this as proof that Collectivist is a Jewish oligarch seems like taking this too far. And insinuating that anybody might be descended from some chimpanzee girl's bestial encounter with a pig is really hitting below the belt. Where was the Canadian supreme court when that happened, is what I want to know. Things like that should be against the law.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Remember, the ones afforded the highest regard in society are often times the devils and those smeared are often righteous and just.

Of course, if you want to understand the truth behind this agenda, you must go to the politically incorrect writings found within the protocols of Zion to fully appreciate the mad genius of this plot. For some, the truth is far too unsavory and uncomfortable so they must resort to straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, attacking the messenger instead of the message, to divert investigation from the truth. Their cognitive dissonance is simply too disrupting to their sheltered world view and they will do their utmost to protect that view.

Sad really.

Realize Lorenhough that these are the tactics of the shill and the best defense to such individuals is to not engage them as they add nothing to your pursuit of truth but rather serve to derail you from it
Just who would you be referring to Collectivist?

Loren, at least, is attempting to behave by the forum rules (that everyone else here goes by), and yet you still insist on your entitlement of anonymous privilege to do whatever you wish here.

In any case, let's stipulate that Lorenbyronhough is indeed engaging with certain individuals here, and by the visible (Loren engages constantly with Joe by Skype and email BTW) default of quantity that this would really be referring to Jerry and me, then who else could he substantially dialog with here? And if I have the gist correct then shouldn't you be taking your own advice?

I find it rather interesting that, fitting in with the theme of Postflaviana, the name of which I coined BTW, and what Jerry and I have detailed in depth, that while we are attempting to discuss the big picture of what all this means that you want to divert us to the narrow issue of some perverse form of pedophilic dog licking, which the western legal system (an aspect of Culture) has yet deemed sufficient to codify. And based upon your one-sided predilection to focus on Jews that you are some form of obsessed Christian or NeoChristian, which in my book is all part of the very same thing you complain about. Do you support Catholic priest pedophilia or not?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The Kinsey Syndrome has helped to expose Alfred Kinsey and his life’s work as pure fraud.
Getting somewhat back on topic -- after having watched "The Kinsey Syndrome" and reading some other commentary on the topic, I have to agree that Kinsey's research is rightly described as fraudulent. His data on adult behaviors was derived from samples including disproportionate numbers of prison inmates, and most modern studies of the incidence of homosexuality come up with much smaller numbers. And it seems to be true that his data on children's sexual responses is completely bogus, and derived from reports delivered by pedophiles and Nazis. Kinsey was a lapsed Methodist, so I don't know how Collectivist can blame this all on the Jews, but that's almost beside the point.

The reason for Kinsey's popularity, I think, is captured rather well by the preview to the 2004 film. "Let's talk about sex", Kinsey was saying. At the time, nobody else was talking about it. Perhaps the reason that the mass media talked about Kinsey, talking about sex, was because his findings fit so well into the Postmodernist agenda created by ex(?) Catholics like Bataille and Foucault? Which, strangely, dovetailed so well into the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school.

Anyhow, I too would appreciate an answer from Collectivist about Richard's question. Collectivist, do you have anything to say about Catholic priest pedophilia?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
This is Collectivist's thread, so he gets to decide what the topic is. If he wants to talk about bestiality, it's his thread. As for your protest, Rick, you "doth protest too much." You know it's not every day that the opportunity presents itself, to post pictures of hupigs.
Where is it in the forum rules that a member can create a catch-all thread? We (you) frequently have to split branching threads. This is for a reason, and this was a contentious issue with Collectivist, and I disagree that we should allow him such unearned entitlement. I doth protest too little.

And I get how confusing this is, when you have the Liberty University Zionists attacking Kinsey at the same time as the Hollywood Zionists are promoting him. Seems that the left tentacle of the Zionist octopus doesn't know what the right tentacle is doing.
To stay on this temporary meta-topic [sic], I have started binge watching Rupert Murdoch's recent TV series The Last Man on Earth, which is an hilarious comedy set in post-apocalyptic 2020 (Hello?). It gets to some rather seminal theological issues, one of which is the dilemma faced by Adam and Eve in how their children would be forced to commit incest in order to perpetuate the human race. This is doubly on topic, because, I I have recently commented in another thread, there is a great moral dichotomy between the content on the Fox entertainment network and the posturing that takes place on Fox News Channel. This is yet another example of the duplicity that Collectivist only wants to see one side of, all the while hypocritically complaining about us.

And pointing out that Loren is the descendant of some chimpanzee girl's bestial encounter with a pig is really hitting below the belt.
It's just a new theory, with a lot of evidence BTW.

But given the numerous videos of 'cabbits' on that web site, now I'm starting to realize that jackalopes were real (this IS NOT a reference to masturbation, but the bizarre intercourse of jack rabbits and antelopes).
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Where is it in the forum rules that a member can create a catch-all thread?
I don't think the forum rules say anything about how topics and threads must be organized. Sometimes we do branch off new threads, to promote clarity of discussion, but I don't see that as a requirement. Keeping all of Collectivist's views on various topics confined to a single thread also has some merit as an organizing principle: really, it keeps the topic focussed on Collectivist himself.

Lately, I've been combining many of Loren's posts into threads according to their topic.

I'm open to discussing whether we need new forum rules about the organization of threads and topics; but recommend that we continue any such discussion somewhere in the "Site Notices & Policies" forum, either under a new thread or under the "Forum rules..." thread? Just a suggestion, not a requirement: if we keep it here, Collectivist is more likely to contribute his opinion.

But given the numerous videos of 'cabbits' on that web site, now I'm starting to realize that jackalopes were real
Now this is getting too weird. Wikipedia states categorically that 'cabbits' are fictional, and we all know their editorial processes are beyond reproach. And I can't even begin to imagine what an antelope could possibly see in a romantic partnership with a jack rabbit. Way too short. Short people got no reason to live, says the antelope.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
This is Collectivist's thread, so he gets to decide what the topic is. If he wants to talk about bestiality, it's his thread. As for your protest, Rick, you "doth protest too much." You know it's not every day that the opportunity presents itself, to post pictures of hupigs.



I stand with the court: the father molested his teenage daughter, and that was a crime. But as to setting a precedent about dogs and peanut butter, consider this. How would the precedent be applied to some guy who gets his pet chihuahua to lick peanut butter off his junk? And what if this happens with the full consent of the chihuahua? Would the chihuahua's testimony be allowed in court, or would we have to install surveillance cameras in everyone's bedroom to capture the evidence? If I were on the Canadian supreme court, I would most definitely punt to Parliament on that question.



I follow you that Sun Myung Moon says that he himself is greater than Jesus; and also that whereas Jesus couldn't save Liberty University, Rev. Moon was able to keep it afloat. And furthermore, I get that Falwell was a Christian Zionist.

And I get how confusing this is, when you have the Liberty University Zionists attacking Kinsey at the same time as the Hollywood Zionists are promoting him. Seems that the left tentacle of the Zionist octopus doesn't know what the right tentacle is doing.

But construing all of this as proof that Collectivist is a Jewish oligarch seems like taking this too far. And insinuating that anyone is descended from some chimpanzee girl's bestial encounter with a pig is really hitting below the belt. Where was the Canadian supreme court when that happened, is what I want to know. Things like that should be against the law.
jerry please take down ... that Pic..thanks... I find this all very sad,
sorry I have to ask. I am trying to look at the truth and be helpful. not drive People away form this site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I find this all very sad,
sorry I have to ask. I am trying to look at the truth and be helpful. not drive People away form this site.
I apologize, Loren, I was only joking. I've been appreciating your contributions lately, you often find some really good stuff. Richard never really said that about anybody in particular, I was poking fun at him too. I'll try to clean it up now. About the 'Pic', are you talking about the hupig? That's a very distressing picture.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
I apologize, Loren, I was only joking. I've been appreciating your contributions lately, you often find some really good stuff. Richard never really said that about anybody in particular, I was poking fun at him too. I'll try to clean it up now. About the 'Pic', are you talking about the hupig? That's a very distressing picture.
when this goes viral is that what you want People to see? yes take it down its not helpful thx.. joking ?: a odd joke I don't think most people would get it that way I didn't ...I sent it to joe ...will see if he laughs'
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
when this goes viral is that what you want People to see?
Very good question: what do we want people to see, and not to see, if the site becomes popular? I still don't like that they're going to see Collectivist's 'blood libel' video, or a discussion about Holocaust denial -- but on the other hand I don't want to come down hard for censorship, either.

joking ?: a odd joke I don't think most people would get it that way I didn't
It's a little hard to know how to respond, when people come to the site being indignant that the Canadian supreme court wouldn't take a firm stand against dogs licking peanut butter, when really the court came down hard against child abuse, which I think was the real issue. I could take that whole dialog down now if you want.

Not sure what to do about the hupigs and chimpigs, though. The chimpig thing seems to be a real scientific theory, it might even be true. Is the hupig pic for real, or is it a prank, or something other than what it appears to be? I have no idea.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
http://messybeast.com/cabbit.htm

Investigator Sarah Hartwell has been studying these "cabbits" and is convinced that they're a mutant form of Manx cat, rather than a hybrid. She argues on genetic grounds that a cross between cat and rabbit is impossible, and all but dismisses "macroevolution" as a pseudo-scientific crackpot theory. On the other hand, macro-evolution advocate Eugene McCarthy is said to have a PhD in genetics, while Hartwell makes no such pretenses. And even if McCarthy could be criticized for undue credulity, all he's doing is asking for actual DNA evidence about these cats. Hmm, where have we heard this call for DNA testing before?

Quote from Hartwell:

During 2015, a PhD theory called "macroevolution" embraced impossible hybrids such as cabbits. The theory is based on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" i.e. just because we haven't seen a proven (by DNA) cabbit, doesn't mean they don't exist (the evidence presented was theoretical not proven in vitro, let alone in life). The theory included images of radial hypoplasia (twisty) cats and Manx cats as possible cabbits worthy of investigation, despite them being 100% feline. The nature of the Manx mutation is sufficiently well-understood to be used to model spina bifida in the laboratory and its small litter size is not due to rabbit DNA mismatch, but to gross abnormalities caused when 2 copies of the "Manx gene" are inherited. An anencephalic human was represented as a possible human-chimp hybrid. A deformed calf was suggested as a dog-cow hybrid. Unless it turns out to be an elaborate hoax or April Fool, it is worrying that images of known and studied genetic traits and of congenital defects are presented to illustrate a theory of mammalian evolution through hybridisation that is contrary to researched and documented genetics.​
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
McCarthy has gone down quite a rabbit-hole in his futile efforts to get his theory published in the academic press. The article in phys.org seems to be the first mainstream penetration, though not into a fully peer reviewed site. Meanwhile, McCarthy wrote this book about his experience as a professor, in which a chimpig is said to appear as a character.

http://amzn.to/296Wyfm
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
When this site goes viral?

When chimpigs fly!!!!

Hmmm, well ... I guess anything is possible. Zecharia Sitchin is convinced that humans were created by genetic engineering, based upon his reading of the Sumerian texts, where the Annunuki uber humans (from Planet X), aka the gods of Sumeria. In this case, we are a hybrid between the Annunuki and chimps - whose purpose was to be devoted slaves for the Annunuki. We were supposed to be their gold diggers, but apparently some humans took this term figuratively instead of literally.

My sister would find this rather amusing as she still still recalls how scared I was when I first saw those flying chimp-like beings in The Wizard of Oz.

How about we at least have a mandatory Postflavian vote on whether Roman Catholic priest pedophilia is wrong or not? Not anonymous, but on the record.

Roman Catholics believe that they are eating a literal part of Jesus's human flesh (transubstantiation) along with drinking his blood. If so, what part of his body are they eating? Is ritualized cannibalism OK, especially if you believe that the flesh is real? What is the impact on one's psyche by participating in this act, as well as the impact to the larger culture?

Imagine if we go viral and we don't have a position on these issues when it does.

Investigator Sarah Hartwell has been studying these "cabbits" and is convinced that they're a mutant form of Manx cat, rather than a hybrid. She's convinced on genetic grounds that a cross between cat and rabbit is impossible, and all but dismisses "macroevolution" as a pseudo-scientific crackpot theory. On the other hand, macro-evolution advocate Eugene McCarthy is said to have a PhD in genetics, while Hartwell makes no such pretenses. And even if McCarthy could be criticized for undue credulity, all he's doing is asking for actual DNA evidence about these cats. Hmm, where have we heard this call for DNA testing before?
You say cabbits, I say kabunnies. I wonder how Hartwell explains all the eerie biological similarities between humans and pigs? It's a rather long list of items.

Also, geneticists say that we humans have all sorts of so-called junk DNA that we have been carrying around with us since the beginning of single celled life. For instance, like the DNA for a tree branch and such. And so they could conceivably do weird things like have a third arm grow off of your forehead. So how about some wings for us chimpigs?
 
Top