Continuation Prostitution part 2

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dann

The problem will become negligible as soon as you legalize nail bars and the construction business.
Maybe not perfect, but very, very good.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by dann

The problem will become negligible as soon as you legalize nail bars and the construction business.
Maybe not perfect, but very, very good.

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]

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.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As I have previously stated, if the legalization or otherwise had a big impact on human trafficking, we would set it the statistics.

Below is a list of 191 countries. This list is copied from the Organized Crime Index of Human Trafficking,

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

Quote:

...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).

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.

Quote:

I have then colour-coded the name and rank of each country as to its status with regard to its prostitution laws. At the top is a colour key table.

All sources are listed at the bottom of the post

<snip for focus>

OCI Human trafficking
1 Tuvalu...

...191 Afghanistan


If the legalizing and/or decriminalizing of prostitution were actually having a significant impact to increase the levels and inflows of human trafficking in countries where it has been decriminalized and/or legalized, then we should be seeing a trend showing the "green" coded countries (the ones with some form of legal prostitution) towards the bottom (worst) end of the list, as well as an opposing trend showing the "red" prohibition countries towards the top (better) of the list. We emphatically DO NOT see this trend.

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/geogra...-of-countries/

Quote:

In fact, if anything, we can clearly see the reverse is true - there are more "red" prohibition countries (20 of 29) in the bottom half of the table, and more "green" countries that have legalized or decriminalized prostitution (13 of 19) appear in the top half.

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?

Quote:

IMO, these trends are not conclusive. It is far more likely that other factors have a greater impact, for example - economics, ease of transportation, levels of corruption in governments and law enforcement, and the availability of sufficient numbers of people in desperate situations.

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.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Indeed, and a I point I have made before

https://www.atrainceu.com/content/2-...an-trafficking

Thermal said the ratio is "estimated at 79% sexual, 18% forced labor, and 3% other." I don't know were he got that (he didn't cite a source) but if we take it as read, then 80% sex-trafficking is a substantial chunk of the trade, so there ought to be some noticeable effect if there is anything to the claim.

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...n-persons.html

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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

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"

Originally Posted by Thermal

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/geogra...-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.

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-t...-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-t...-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."

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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-t...-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-t...-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."

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]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

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.

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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"

...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.......?

Quote:

Nope you are wrong, its pro-rata! Its based on volume as a proportion of population.

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]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Thermal

...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.

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

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

Now I wonder why that is?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Anyone with a functioning brain can work out how the data is obtained.

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.

Quote:

And no matter what, your claim that the data I referred to was "gross trafficking volume" is clearly, and demonstrably wrong.

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.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

<irrelevant bollocks snipped>

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_t...e-range=0%2C10

What can you see there?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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_t...e-range=0%2C10

What can you see there?

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

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thermal

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

Have another look at the column headers.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Weak sauce

Another weak handwave.

Quote:

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.

All the more reason that your position should be very tentative, not "unshakable" or even "firm".

Quote:

Have another look at the column headers.

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]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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.

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thermal

You, however, not being an idiot, understand full and well to which I am referring.

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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"

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?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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?

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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?

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?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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.

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

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

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]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Anyone with a functioning brain can work out how the data is obtained.

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]

Originally Posted by Thermal

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.

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!!