----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: Re: More hypocrisy on display than skin
> > On Nov 29, 2004, at 7:56 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > So far you haven't supplied contrary evidence. In fact you've supplied > nothing at all except, at best, hearsay. Ah, if I haven't talked to the women myself, by definition its hearsay. Out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity at all with how science is done? I happen to know a researcher personally. I spent long hours discussing methodology with said researcher at the time. Sure, social science isn't science, but I now how to handle things. Let me respond to you directly on the research that was done. I've answered three layers of objections now. I've read lots of research in this area. The types of hypothetical bias you are now referring to is not tested for. One of the problems with the social sciences is that one really doesn't do lab experiments. Even when one does, there are a number of factors one simply ignores...and assumes they do not affect the results. I also know that studies on this have been in the literature. My wife wasn't the first one with the results, and this was > 20 years ago. You've posted no documentation, you've simply sniped at mine. At some point, discussing things with you seems pointless....and I spend more time discussing things with people who appear to be more likely to enter in a dialog. > Interesting you seem unwilling to carry on this discussion by anything > but proxy. Is your argument really so weak that all you can do now is > try to appear rational by whining to someone else about how your data > is rejected? Oo, oo, big bad Warren, I can't talk to him because he > keeps asking me where my facts are. While supplying none of his own? Nah. I didn't put your posts on the top of the list to respond to because 1) I deduced that it would be more likely to get a response other than finding one more reason to reject data. > Well, your data hasn't been rejected, Dan -- you've completely failed > to present any data to reject. Well, the only conclusion that I can make is that we consider empirical information quite differently. While I'm at it, let me reply to your comments on the Netherlands and Germany again. If prostitution is legal in brothels, why do so many prostitutes choose to walk the streets instead? If it is a reasonable job in Germany, why must women be tricked into coming to Germany to work, and then coerced to stay working as prostitutes? Why is it so important to you to argue against the fact that most prostitutes have now, and have had in the past, unfortunate lives? Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
