Cont: Prostitution part 2
- Thread starter Ziggurat
- Start date
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,964
So all the posts that explain that human (sex) trafficking seems utterly unrelated to whether a business is legal or not are ones you completely missed?
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I'm not sure if dann's post was meant to be sarcasm, but it's worth pointing out that the plight of illegal aliens who are exploited for their labor would almost certainly be improved if their citizenship status were legalized.
These people are more exploitable than the average laborer in large part because they exist as an illegal underclass and have less recourse than their citizen analogues. That our systems seem to require these pseudo-citizens to function as hyper-exploited workers is not an example of legalization failing, rather quite the opposite.
These people are more exploitable than the average laborer in large part because they exist as an illegal underclass and have less recourse than their citizen analogues. That our systems seem to require these pseudo-citizens to function as hyper-exploited workers is not an example of legalization failing, rather quite the opposite.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
I note that the OCIHT is funded by the US Sate Department. Am I to assume you have 180ed and they are now a credible and unbiased source?
https://ocindex.net/crime/human_trafficking
OK. You are comparing the gross volume of human trafficking inflows. Let's keep that gross volume thingy in mind as we look at your data.
Ya know what other trend we see? Looking at your very first country, Tuvalu. Green one, even! Hm...it's population is 11,000. That's about the population of the little NJ town I live in, and it's literally a ******* sandbar.
Looking at the upper half of your list, I see pretty much every tiny micronation in the world included. Hey, little Liechtenstein is in there, too! Looking at the lower half...yes, there's India, China, the States, Indonesia...I wonder if the "upper half versus lower half" correlation you are claiming in gross trafficking volume might have to do with something else besides prostitution laws?
So I counted the population of each nation, individually, from the upper half of your list. It's about a billion people. Admittedly, I didn't bother to count the lower half, as we know the global population is about 8 billion. {ETA: I relied on this population list solely because it was alphabetical, making it easier to look up the country's population quickly. I hope it meets your standards to be unbiased} Population data source:
https://www.worldometers.info/geography/alphabetical-list-of-countries/
Yes, but since you are comparing the gross volume of trafficing/inflows, why do you not factor in that the lower half has a 7X greater population?
The vast population disparity noted might just maybe be a bigger factor in the gross volume of trafficking than all of those other factors combined. I dunno tho.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Fair criticism. My source is the United Nations Global Report on Trafficking in Persons. I trust it to be reasonably credible, and hopefully not out ta git New Zealand.
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/global-report-on-trafficking-in-persons.html
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. They are in a similar position to prostitutes working in countries where prostitution is illegal, in that they will be afraid to report exploitation because they are likely to face deportation as a consequence.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Ahem...
"Funding provided by the United States Government
The Organized Crime Index design and development was supported by the ENACT programme. ENACT is funded by the European Union and implemented by the Institute for Security Studies and INTERPOL, in affiliation with the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime"
Nope you are wrong, its pro-rata! Its based on volume as a proportion of population. If it were as you are claiming then China (population 1.4 billion) and India (1.4 billion) would would be right near the bottom along with other highly populated countries such as, oh, I don't know... Eritrea (3.6 million) and Bahrain (1.4 million)
There are probably more people trafficked in China alone (6.4 million) and more in India alone (8 million) than the WHOLE population of Eritrea (which is 191= out of 191!!)
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-trafficking-in-persons-report/china/
"Traffickers target adults and children with developmental disabilities and children whose parents have left them with relatives to migrate to the cities—estimated at 6.4 million—and subject them to forced labor and forced begging. State bodies reportedly subject members of Muslim minority groups and Tibetans to forced labor as part of arbitrary mass detention, political indoctrination, and labor transfer schemes."
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-trafficking-in-persons-report/india/
"One study estimated the presence of at least eight million trafficking victims in India, the majority of whom are bonded laborers. Intergenerational bonded labor continued, whereby traffickers transfer the outstanding debts of deceased workers to their parents, siblings, or children. Traffickers often target those from the most disadvantaged social strata."
Last edited:
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I was about to reply that there is no one hell those numbers were absolute. Whats going on is that very likely in those tiny Pacific island nations there are 0 reported cases of trafficking.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed.
https://borgenproject.org/human-trafficking-in-eritrea/
Between 2006 and 2013, non-domestic human trafficking in Eritrea increased exponentially. Smugglers of neighboring countries were kidnapping Eritreans from refugee camps in order to hold them in the Sinai Desert for ransom. Victims often experienced extreme violence like torture, organ harvesting and rape. Of the estimated 25,000 to 30,000 victims of Sinai trafficking, estimates have determined that about 90% are Eritrean.
China 123=/191 (6.4 million trafficked persons)
India 166/191 (8 million trafficked persons
Eritrea 191=191 (30,000 trafficked persons over a period of 7 years
Yep. in Thermal's fantasy world, the mathematics of "gross" results in 30,000 being bigger than 6 to 8 million
Thermal
August Member
...right. The OCI is funded by the US State Department. That's what I said. The foundational support from ENACT was not their funding, although they disclose where ENACT gets their funding. Sooooo.......?
Holup. The rankings you provided were from their Ranking by Human Trafficking chart. You specifically claimed the countries were "ranked from #1 (the country or countries with the lowest inflow of trafficked people) to #191 (the country or countries with the greatest inflow of trafficked people)."
Your statement is boldly and factually untrue.
The ranking OCI uses is based on their own assesment which they translate to a rating number (in the case of Tuvalu, it is simply a 1.5).
Nowhere do they list trafficked persons inflows or totals, pro-rata or otherwise, nor is this what they use to rate the countries, as you claimed.
Unless you are seeing something entirely different than the page you linked to (and everything I clicked on over the whole goddamned site)? Did you have some other site in mind that demonstrates your claims of trafficking flows proportional to the population? Cuz the chart you used absolutely does not include any such information.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Including, it must be added, being unable to approach the police when crimes are done against them, for fear that they will be deported.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Anyone with a functioning brain can work out how the data is obtained.
And no matter what, your claim that the data I referred to was "gross trafficking volume" is clearly, and demonstrably wrong.
Furthermore, you also dodged this post
Now I wonder why that is?
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
No, anyone with a functioning brain knows a variety of data can be obtained and interpreted in different ways. You claim one specific one here. It appears to be a figment of your imagination.
However, still all ears for where you found the "pro-rated inflow rates". Dying to hear all about it, in fact.
Admittedly, I was taking your postings at face value as that OCI mobile site was awful and i couldnt access half what I needed . But in fairness, you are correct. I should have known better.
You're still up to show where the site indicates that it is using trafficking income flows, pro-rata or otherwise, to rank the nations as they did.
Eta: your edit: because you are doing what you do every time. You know you ****** up and are trying to change the subject. No.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As I keep trying to tell you, and as you keep willfully refusing to understand (which is hardly surprising, since you have this habit of dodging, hand-waving and refusing to address inconvenient posts and facts that don't match your chosen narrative), it is very unlikely that the legalization or criminalization of prostitution has any effect on human trafficking one way or the other.
- You claim legalization increases human trafficking, and you produce papers and studies to support your view.
- I claim criminalization is more likely to increase human trafficking, and I produce papers and studies to support my view.
- lobosrul5 claims neither criminalization nor legalization has any effect on human trafficking, and produces papers and studies to support his view.
Each of us then attacks the studies supplied by the others, then its rinse and repeat and around we go ad-infinitum. Its pointless and repetitive, and I'm bored with this particular merry-go-round.
In the end, it is my firm view, from what I have been able to glean from the data I have been able to find, that there isn't much in it one way or the other (which means I agree with lobosrul5). It is far more likely that other factors have a much, much greater impact, for example, those I stated earlier - economics, ease of transportation, levels of corruption in governments and law enforcement, and the availability of sufficient numbers of people in desperate situations. I would add to that a large market for the trafficked persons is also a big factor.
I remain firm and unshaken in this view, and it is going to take an irrefutable smoking gun to have any chance of changing it. Such smoking gun will need to isolate sex-trafficking from the background noise of other types of human trafficking, and will have to isolate legalized prostitution as the primary, or at least, the major cause of an increase in sex-traffickng, thereby eliminating all other possible causes. In essence, you need to show direct cause and effect, and if you cannot, I'm not having it, and you have failed to make your case. In terms a student of Carl Sagan would understand - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and the claim that legalization of prostitution increases the instances of sex trafficking is an extraordinary one by any measure, especially given that it would then be the only crime in which legalization rather than criminalization leads to an increase in a black market.
ETA: BTW, in answer to your earlier question, about the relationship of population, have a look at the headings in the OCI
https://ocindex.net/rankings/human_...ent=1&criminality-range=0,10&state-range=0,10
What can you see there?
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Ya except that's not remotely what's happening.
-You, and others, baldly insist that trafficking virtually disappears under legalization.
-I, and others, don't know what happens, but cite a study which contradicts your bald assertions.
-You present a mish-mash of an obscure data source with your own rainbow superimposings.
-I question your source and inclusion of micronations which cause more green on the "upper half" and skews your results to your desired outcome.
-lobosrul5 also opines that the inclusion of micronations appears to be bull ****.
-You get huffy over being questioned and try to flounce out.
Rinse and ******* repeat.
This is the recurring headache. You handwave away all data that contradicts your predisposed conclusion.
Jesus, dude, even the OCI site that you are currently relying upon has the identical boilerplate disclaimer about its accuracy that the "Harvard
" paper included, that you used to dismiss it as unreliable. It's in the acknowledgements, where it also acknowledges that the US State department (and no others) funded their work. And yes, I know why you used this goofball online interactive tool for your ranking: they are virtually the only ranking system to include micronations, which you needed to make the "upper half" green. If you removed the micronations, as virtually all others do (the "Harvard
" paper explains why they did this in detail), then your red/green benchmark vanishes and your predisposed conclusion vanishes with it. On the page you linked, the header reads as follows (mobile version), left to right:
-logo, which links to heatmap
-year selector (2023 or 2021)
-link to report, 8 parts and 4 appendices. All very short, a few paragraphs. Linking to full methodology returns to heatmap.
-question mark (help link?) which does nothing but turn color
-menu, which gives choices already linkable in other site areas.
I've gone through pretty much everything clickable and can't get to the full methodology, or any indication of inflows, pro-rata or otherwise. Links keep going to their unique rating values, that 1.5-8.5 system
Not blaming you for this, btw. You didn't build the site. Just shooting for clarity here
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Ya except that's not remotely what's happening.
-You, and others, baldly insist that trafficking virtually disappears under legalization.
-I, and others, don't know what happens, but cite a study which contradicts your bald assertions.
-You present a mish-mash of an obscure data source with your own rainbow superimposings.
-I question your source and inclusion of micronations which cause more green on the "upper half" and skews your results to your desired outcome.
-lobosrul5 also opines that the inclusion of micronations appears to be bull ****.
-You get huffy over being questioned and try to flounce out.
Rinse and ******* repeat.
This is the recurring headache. You handwave away all data that contradicts your predisposed conclusion.
Jesus, dude, even the OCI site that you are currently relying upon has the identical boilerplate disclaimer about its accuracy that the "Harvard
And yes, I know why you used this goofball online interactive tool for your ranking: they are virtually the only ranking system to include micronations, which you needed to make the "upper half" green. If you removed the micronations, as virtually all others do (the "Harvard
Weak sauce
No-one has yet linked to any source, or provided any data, to show a direct, irrefutable, exclusive link between the legalization/criminalizing of prostitution and changes in the levels in sex trafficking.
Have another look at the column headers.
Thermal
August Member
Another weak handwave.
All the more reason that your position should be very tentative, not "unshakable" or even "firm".
Column headers now? You should have said that the first time.
On the page you linked, the column headers are Human Trafficking, Criminal Markets, Criminal Actors, Resilience, and complementary information column headings of Population, Area, and GDP.
The columns themselves use their 1-8 rating, no inflow data or evident links to it.
If we could stop playing 20 Questions and you could cut to the chase, that'd be awesome.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
As far as I can see, there are no "Micronations" in that list. Perhaps you could post example from that list that you consider to me Micronations?
Thermal
August Member
If we are going pedantic, yes micronations is a hyperbolic and somewhat sarcastic label. I'm not referring to that ******* oil rig platform with its owner calling it a country.
You, however, not being an idiot, understand full and well to which I am referring. The microscopically small sovereign states that skew data because they are the size of small towns, and shouldn't be gauged along side of China and India as equal comparisons. Vatican City, for instance, is typically omitted from such lists (including yours) without having to ******* argue about it.
The "Harvard
" paper uses gross GDP to determine their inclusion lines. Others use population or whatever barometer they disclose.smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Dodging again I see.
Give me some examples from the list that you consider should be excluded from consideration.
Failing that, give me a population figure, below which a country should be excluded.
No.
You used incorrect terminology, and you have the sheer, unmitigated ******* gall to try to blame me for it. If you are unsure, make something up (you're good at at that). I suggest "mini-nations"
Thermal
August Member
Oh Jesus Christ give me a ******* break.
I already cited a specific example for you, from the list, in plain language, in fact the very first country on your list. You forgot? Maybe weren't paying attention?
Tuvalu. Smaller population than my small town sandbar. And stop playing ******* games.
Eta: you're still ignoring questions from upthread. Trying to change the subject are we?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not playing games, I am trying to get you to be honest, and give me a straight answer to to a straight question.
I suggest any country with a population less than one million should be considered a mini-nation and be excluded from consideration. You OK with that?
Thermal
August Member
You first. And you have several on deck.
Before determining where to put the inclusion line, I'd like to establish if this oddball ranking list is of any value at all. It does not appear to be cited by credible researchers in the field. It uses its own unique ranking system, but (as I keep saying), I don't see how those values are assigned. "Taking their word for it" is reserved for those with well established credibility only.
They use a blue fence and red pyramid scale, which they seem like really proud of. The blue fence represents resilience, and the red pyramid criminality. On laptop last night, I saw that clicking on the blue or red led to additional sub criteria used in ranking, but again, vaguely worded and no raw data, just their personal 1-8 ranking.
So back to the easier questions you've been ducking : I admit freely that I cannot find their methodology, which I again freely admit may be my own shortcoming, so I ask for your assistance. Where we left off, you were playing 20 Questions about it, changing from a linked page header to the column headers. Then you went radio silence. Can we get that out of the way before changing the subject? The credibility of the ranking is rather significant.
Eta: you also questioned earlier whether the "Harvard" paper had been peer reviewed. I would put that same question to this site and it's little interactive tool. Perhaps we should be referring to the 2019 ENACT Organized Crime Index for Africa, on which they claim to base their work?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I am proceeding no further with this debate until you tell me what you regard as a mini nation in terms of population. I'm offering you a chance to define the terms here.
Last chance Thermal
Thermal
August Member
And there it is, in black and white for the forum to see. You refuse to answer questions pertaining to your sources credibility, and childishly demand that you direct any discussion on your own terms.
See ya.
Or, of course, you could grow up and defend the validity of your surrogate's random ranking?
Nah. Never happen.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
That's not how responsible reporting works. It should never be the reader's responsibility to guess at how the data is obtained. It is always the reporter's responsibility to clearly describe how they obtained their data.
Anyone with a functioning brain can work out that, if the reporter or the claimant can't point directly to where the data sources are cited and explained, then there's probably shenanigans going on with the claim.
Either you can show where the report cites its data sources, or you're just making things up to support your claim.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And there it is, in black and white for the forum to see. You refuse to answer an offer to set your own parameters for further debate. I want you to answer first because I simply do not trust you not to move the goalposts later. I want a post I can point back to that pins you to a position you cannot get away from. I want those goalposts set in concrete!!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I've already done that. He's has even read it himself, and he still doesn't get it.
OCI don't do any research, they aggregate information from other sources - over 400 of them. They provide data and analysis to OCI who use that to give a "score" related to the level of human trafficking in those countries. Some of those sources will be using various indicators in their analyses, including populations, land area and GDP as a part of their basis for their analysis, and these show up as complementary data in the list. Why else would they show it if it was not relevant?
I am satisfied that the list, as shown, will follow the general principle that the lower on the list you are, the higher the relative numbers (i.e. proportional to their population) of people in that country are victims of human trafficking.
Also keep in mind that Thermal claims that the legalizing of prostitution in a country will lead directly to an increase in sex trafficking in that country. His is the positive claim, and therefore, he owns the burden of proof. So far all we have seen from him is half-arsed reports from sources that they themselves disclaim as being uncertain and lacking data. If Thermal cannot come up with proof of a direct, irrefutable, exclusive link between the legalization/criminalizing of prostitution and changes in the levels in sex trafficking, then the claim fails and should be withdrawn.
Thermal
August Member
You've done nothing but claim that you have done things that you demonstrably havent done. My request for your pro-rata inflow data still stands. If it doesn't demonstrably exist on that site, you're a liar, done and done.
Better idea: STOP ******* LYING.
I make no claim about trafficking increasing, full ******* stop. I've got no ******* idea if it would go up or down. Or rather, it might vary based on the specific markets.
What I have challenged is your bald assertions that it virtually disappears. I see no reason to believe that.
If you interpret that as meaning that I assert it increases, that's solely a problem between your ears. Not my department to fix.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
How about we all just calm the **** down for a bit, yeah?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You cited a study that asked the question "does legalized prostitution-increase human trafficking"
The study concluded that it did.... AND YOU AGREED WITH IT! If you interpret that as meaning you didn't make, or agree with, such a claim, that's solely a problem between your ears. Not my department to fix. If you in fact do not agree with its conclusions, why to you keep citing it in support of what you are saying?
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
I was bit surprised the thread which shall not be named became as bad as it did, but this thread getting to this stage surprised the crap out of me. It's pretty damned simple.
Also, just to provide some light relief - an underage sex ring was busted in NZ today.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...-prostitutes-supplying-drugs-in-bay-of-plenty
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And it would be simple if "'Murica is sooooo speshul" wasn't the default position when taken by some 'Muricans when anyone outside of 'Murica has the temerity to think for themselves.
Tell me it isn't so... this sort of stuff is rife in countries that have legal prostitution, and there is simply no way we can possibly catch these under-aged unless all prostitutes are made to carry sooper speshul sex-worker ID cards...
Oh, wait!!
PS: A Copper friend of mine tells me the Police were tipped off by a couple of legit sex-workers. As arth suggests, a great example of the system working.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Asks a question, yes. It does not assert a definitive answer.
The paper is a data point that statistically indicates a correlation. Such a data point (or argument) is a Counterpoint to your position, which is making baseless claims founded solely on "unshakable" beliefs. Data trumps your feels.
Please stop lying. I don't agree or disagree with facts; they just are.
My position remains exactly the same, regardless of your willful misunderstanding. You made an unsupported faith-based claim. I pointed out that available research indicated that your faith is misplaced.
Better research could be presented that would swing my needle the other way, but that's because my position is not an "unshakable" matter of belief. It is influenced by credible research.
You're making the same nonsensical assumption made forum wide: you simply cannot understand that two viewpoints need not be at opposite ends of the spectrum. Hell, I could be 100% "on your side" and still criticize your "unshakable" beliefs, simply because they are faith based and ignore the actual research.
Thermal
August Member
?
The...basic system of law enforcement that would arrest any child prostitution ring in any non-Warlord controlled society, legalized prostitution or not? Um...OK. Three cheers for New Zealand!
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Leela: "Now, when you say 'special'...."
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,324
I noted way back in the first iteration of this thread exactly how and why prostitutes were a good source of police intelligence post-legalisation.
They have a vested interest in keeping the game clean, unlike where it's still illegal. Under the famously pathetic "Nordic" system of criminalising clients, no such vested interest exists.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Wouldn't have happened if the informants had been under threat of arrest.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed . The two ladies I know tell me they operate a text/messaging tree with all the others in Nelson, as well as some on Blenheim and Christchurch. They hear about and shady traders and are straight on to the cops