this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
603 points (96.5% liked)
People Twitter
5226 readers
2344 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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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?