On Nov 29, 2004, at 10:45 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Yes, I do. Do you have any familiarity with how arguments are done? You need to cite sources to support your views; you can't get away with "my wife says..." or "literature says..." without putting up some proofs, which you have not done.
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.
Then you don't know that the bias is hypothetical. Therefore the conclusions you reach may well inherently flawed. Yet you somehow want to propound those conclusions as factual or irrefutable.
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.
I don't have to post documentation, because I am not the one putting forth the premise needing defense. You are the one using words like "overwhelming" in linking sex abuse with strippers.
I haven't sniped at your documentation; I have shown how your documentation is not relevant to supporting your assertion.
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?
"Choose to walk the streets"? It would seem you didn't read the article you sent as a reference. The non-brotheled prostitutes are, according to that paper, largely drug users or illegal immigrants.
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?
I'm not arguing against that. I am arguing that *you* cannot claim that "preponderances" or "overwhelming" numbers of sex workers are abuse victims. You made the claim; you supply the data to prove it. It's not my job to counter the argument's facts until you've presented some facts for me to counter.
As it is you seem insistent on looking *past* the argument -- again and again and *again* -- which leads me to believe either you *will not* address the actual discussion, or you *cannot* prove what you're claiming.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
