Three individuals have been arrested on charges of operating a “high-end brothel network” in Massachusetts and Virginia with a clientele that included elected officials, military officers and government contractors with security clearances, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did. We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.
You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did.
I did no such thing.
We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Refer back to my example about covid case reporting.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn’t even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn’t have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn’t apply. You can’t just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don’t have any, then you don’t even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It’s entirely possible that you’re correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you’ll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it’s true.
First, I didn’t present anything.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did. We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.
I did no such thing.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn’t even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn’t have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn’t apply. You can’t just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don’t have any, then you don’t even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It’s entirely possible that you’re correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you’ll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it’s true.