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:
Therefore, the true number of human trafficking victims is unknown
(Belser, de Cock & Mehran, 2005).
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:
The main limitation of the UNODC data however is that reporting will arguably depend on the quality of institutions, judicial and police effectiveness, in particular, but also on how aware the international community is about trafficking problems in a particular country.
Until you learn to read things not to prove a point, but to understand them, get science’s name out of your mouth.
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.
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.