this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
605 points (96.5% liked)
People Twitter
5392 readers
398 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
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.