this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
605 points (96.5% liked)
People Twitter
5393 readers
553 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think little of whores and I don't think people against legalization in general do either.
I think little of pimps who kidnap children and sell them. A business that increases when prostitution becomes legal.
Does it though? There are plenty of countries with legal prostitution and I've never seen any statistics about illegal prostitution being on the rise there.
It's one of those claims both sides could make and actually believe in. There might even be data for both sides, given enough cherry-picking that is.
It's been matter of fact for over a decade LINK, they looked at large scale trends in 150 countries and they controlled for variables such as higher rates of finding criminals by examining the supplier countries as well as the countries that legalize prostitution and found increases across the board.
Legal prostitution leads to increased human trafficking.
If a side claims that science is wrong then it's not the side you want to be on.
I already mentioned the problems with your source is another comment, but now I'm going to address the "science".
First up, science doesn't run on certainty. If you had actually read the paper, you might have noticed this sentence:
Science also does not take place in a vacuum; it is political. The statistics gathered rely on political entities that have agendas. The statistics are imperfect. They even mention this:
Until you learn to read things not to prove a point, but to understand them, get science's name out of your mouth.
You "mentioned the problems" by saying the clear increase in human trafficking was something you could live with.
No, I did not. I know your reading comprehension isn't the best, but come on, or my comments are there to go back to and reread. You can even quote me. Go ahead. Tell me where I addressed trafficking and not your misinterpretation of the source.
https://programming.dev/comment/13244393
I've already replied to it.
I wouldn't really call that a "reply."
Besides, that wasn't for you as much as it was for the other commenter.
Says the person who calls prostitutes by a derogatory name. 🙄
Afaik sex worker is preferred over prostitute
It's the term used in the meme.
And that makes it okay how?
How would it not be okay?
They already said it's derogatory. It's like if somebody called you on idiot. The denotation would be that your intelligence is lacking. The connotation would be that you're a lesser person for it and cause issues for those around you. In the same way, whore and prostitute have to some denotation but different connotations with the former having the negative connotation. Is that simple enough for you to understand now?
Then they should be complaining that the meme uses derogatory language.
No, it doesn't make it ok because somebody else does it or that the blame should be on the party that did it first. That's an argument a five year old might think is clever; nobody here thinks it is. You have an opportunity to learn here. Will you take it or will you continue to blame others for your poor behavior?
It does however highlight how the user and you don't really care about the use of language and merely use it as an excuse to attack me because I don't conform to your agenda on prostitution legality.
If we're using your source, you should be for legalizing prostitution in some places such as the USA because it reduces trafficking. Tell me again, which of us has the agenda?
The study looks at both the supplying countries and the legalizing countries, before and after, and found that there is a direct increase in human trafficking as a result of legalization. How would that ever be an advocacy for legalization? Psychopath.
No, we've been over this, it does not show a direct increase. Average is the word they used. If you keep repeating the same wrong thing, it doesn't suddenly become correct.
You can't just say "nuh uh" and look away. Both with words and on the multiple graphs show increase as a result of legalization.
If you can't even count, I don't see a reason to listen to anything else you have to say on intelligent. There are two graphs in the paper you cited, the one that I've posted in another comment (figure 1) and a pie chart of prostitution regimes in appendix C. The former shows some places have the substitution effect overshadow the scale effect and it some places the opposite occurs. The latter is a pie chart that doesn't have a dependent variable.
There is 1 Figure, 3 Tables, and 3 Appendices which includes a Pie Chart.
So one singular graph?
Maybe you got some other things wrong, too.
Technically none of them are labelled graph, so zero, but I was including the tables and appendices.
It's not the label that makes something a graph. Including tables and charts that are data but do not show a relationship into the things that support your conclusions is incorrect. You claimed to have a preponderance of evidence where what you had was one incorrectly interpreted graph. Do you understand why I called you out on that?
Just as only black people can use the n-word, you probably should stay away from the word “whore” if you’re not a sex worker
I think it's insulting to even compare the two, tbh.
both are slurs. One’s got far more heavy historical context of slavery and oppression, but both are words used to stigmatise and insult a certain group, and they have been reclaimed by various extents by said groups.
And for the record you casually using the word “whore” is probably more insulting than me comparing two words that are used to oppress groups.
No it doesn't, if it did you'd source that.
Sure thing SOURCE
Ffs, read more than the abstract.
That "on average" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know it's really hard to read all the way to the end, but that's where the pictures are. The regression chosen is linear, but the relationship looks to be anything but. Some countries have to substitution effect overshadow the scale effect, some see the opposite. Reducing it to legalized prostitution increases trafficking is facile at best.
Dear lord, that R² is almost negative
So its fine if a few million extra children get raped as long as it isn't close to home? Right okay, I'm done talking to you.
Yikes. Get upset that your source and interpretation suck? Don't reflect, just accuse them of something.
If that's what you got from that, your reading comprehension is really more like a reading fantasizing
You should try reading the study yourself.
Bro, you are as dumb as a Brick. Ma boii gave you a scientific explanation why this is a false correlation. Don't bother answering. I don't talk to bricks and pricks. And you are both.
They, in their own comment, put up a picture showing the correlation is real. On a massive sample size.
I think you’re confusing with sex trafficking with sex work/prostitution, which are completely two different things mind you. Ones non consensual and had coercive control, whilst the other is consensual and has full body autonomy.
Studies and research and numbers, measured many times over a hundred years and more all the time, shows that when legal prostitution is allowed then you also see a rise in the number of victims of kidnapping and being forced into sex work, victims of rape for profit. An increase of slavery and abuse of innocent children.
Is this new statement clear enough for you to understand my words?
The idea of legal prostitution is attractive, always will be as a flaw in our brains, but it simply is not worth the unintended consequences. And you should also be wary than many of its advocates are men of power who smell profits to be made.
Studies are conflicting and there is no good baseline to go off of.