Slashdot Mirror

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/legal-prostitution-reduce-rape-holland

Here's another take on that Dutch study

The authors provide “causal evidence” of a 32 to 40 percent reduction in rape and sexual abuse within two years of a city opening a tippelzone. The higher number is for cities that license sex work in the tippelzone; the lower figure is for cities without a licensing process. “The decreases in sexual abuse are stronger in cities with licensed tippelzones.”
These gains fade over time.
Without precise data on the victims of sexual violence, it is not possible to determine exactly how the number of rapes and cases of sexual abuse fall in the population at large. Some victims are sex workers. But the authors believe the tippelzones lead “to a decrease in sexual violence on women more generally by providing an anonymous, appealing and easily accessible outlet for sex to otherwise violent individuals.”
When licensing is introduced after a tippelzone is established, it increases instances of sexual abuse and rape. This happens because, at first, the tippelzone attracts foreign prostitutes with dubious legal status. When they suddenly need licensing, many leave for “less controlled environments.”
Still, in a survey the authors cite, “95 percent of the interviewed prostitutes report feeling safer within the tippelzone.”
In cities with both a tippelzone and a licensing requirement, the authors find a 25 percent reduction in drug-related crimes within two years. That result persists beyond two years.
The authors do not find a relationship between tippelzones and weapons crimes or violent assaults.
As for perceptions, residents living near a tippelzone without a licensing system believe the tippelzone increases drug-related crime by 6 percent.
In cities where licensing requirements for sex workers are introduced at the same time as tippelzones, perceptions of drug-related crime fall across the city as a whole, though the perceptions rise slightly in areas near the tippelzones.

Seems like a mixed bag and certainly not definitive with "casual evidence".

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution.

The study’s findings include:

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

Elsewhere it seems that legalization and rise in demand/trafficking are tied together.
Study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Article summarizing study: https://journalistsresource.or...

I now think decriminalizing prostitution for sex workers, while keeping it illegal for Johns, might be a better solution. I used to be hopeful that legalization would be the answer. Then I saw that study and I've seen nothing to really contradict it (except your example of New Zealand).
(To be fair, the legal, on the books sex workers would see improvements under legalization. Possibly at the cost of the trafficked, however.)

There was a study done on the effects legalized prostitution has on sex trafficking. The study found that legalizing prostitution resulted in both increases in demand for sex workers (duh) as well as increases in human trafficking. I'm no longer convinced that simply legalizing prostitution is the answer.

Maybe decriminalizing being a prostitute, while criminalizing being a John? I'm open to ideas.

A source (there are other news articles, and the study is out there somewhere as well): https://journalistsresource.or...

Statistics seem to favor air travel (fatalities per passenger-mile), with buses and trains trailing a bit.

Having trouble finding other sources that actually have a decent presentation of stats that I had seen in the past, but here is one:

https://journalistsresource.or...

Don't take this as a slight against rail or other mass transit services; they're more than competitive with air (especially when taking costs into account), with respect to safety, and seem to have the potential to achieve parity. Distracted/imprudent driving/operating behaviors apply to all forms of vehicular travel, and this seems like the most approachable area for improvements.

Sea level rise has not been constant for hundreds of years.
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Frequency of floods is increasing.
https://journalistsresource.or...

Climate science is more than common sense or what you happen to think is true, unfortunately.

No they don't. Buses are an extremely safe form of transportation at 0.11 deaths per billion passenger miles.

It is up to you to demonstrate there is evidence of a 'problem'. A statistic that simply says that there are less women than men in a given area is not evidence of a 'problem'. You've suggested there is a 'hostility' to women working in a given field...PROVE IT.

OK, start with these:

  http://www.unwomen.org/~/media...

  http://www.marieclaire.com/car...

  http://www.salon.com/2014/10/2...

  http://journalistsresource.org...

  http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/19...

So, what are the miles traveled per fatality comparing: pedestrians to bicycles to cars to taxis to private planes to commercial planes to the space shuttle?

http://journalistsresource.org...

Space shuttle actually does pretty well, per mile traveled, but those people were traveling a whole lot of miles.

stop acting like your opinion is the one true enlightened path

I never said that, you did.

Just because you think you're older than me. Is time what's gonna cure my ignorance? Another decade or two is gonna overwrite everything I've learned up to now and suddenly I'm gonna agree

Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

- who's trying his absolute best to come across as the smuggest blowhard in the entire slashdot comment section?

- I can clearly see you are striving to uphold a longstanding tradition of

Not sure you're a qualified psychic to know my intentions.

I've also been here for years, and while I don't think you deserve that title yet,

1999, HAY?

- The non-anglosphere world doesnt get so desperate to pig out on crappy mystery meat hot dogs.

- I'm still waiting for you to explain how you could only afford cheap shitty food and not cheap healthy food like the rest of the world tries to eat.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

http://journalistsresource.org...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://jn.nutrition.org/conten...

Let Google be your Guide.

My parents told me they ate cat before i was born! I hope I never have to

I have eaten Dog, it was the most delicious thing I had eaten in months. Would I again? If I ever got that hungry again you betcha. You would be amazed at what you would eat when you're hungry.

You just dont get it. You think you have all the answers because you've had a tough life and you're so old. You have no wisdom, only bitterness.

Nope, I have been there, and done that. I have the answers for some of the questions life has posed of me, and when you get old there are new questions. You are one of them.

So are you using an alt account to upvote all of your comments here? I'm pretty sure nobody else is following us this deep into a personal discussion, so it must be all you

Nope, I wasn't even paying attention TBH.

That's probably why you make sure to smugly get the last word over and over.

I participated in a workshop in Los Angeles when I was 19 to help find ways to help ease hunger in the area and the majority of the participants couldn't even identify a homeless person. My effort here is to hopefully educate you, or others that may be lurking in this thread to understand how people really are not getting proper nutrition and how it's a very real issue that needs attention, not dismissal 'This has all been settled, it doesn't happen in America'. There's starving children in Africa, AND America. There are people that don't believe or understand this, and then there's the people that dismiss the claims.

Smug has nothing to do with it. Nobody should have to suffer for the sake of ignorance of the topic.

Happy reading.

http://bfy.tw/5C3g

http://www.heritage.org/resear...

http://journalistsresource.org...

Just a quick grab at some examples tells me you at talking shit

If you think you can prove economic relationships by cherry-picking some examples, you are an idiot, and the four examples you cited don't even support your point, such as it is.

Plain old walking isn't very safe (>6000 deaths per year average [includes bicyclists]), and much less safe than passengers on a train (7 deaths per year average).
Of course, it's because of those other forms of transportation that walking isn't safe.

http://journalistsresource.org...

That's where the bullshit starts. At least in Europe, immigrants are mostly healthy young people, that pay into but don't use the horribly expensive health care system, tend to save and live way below their means, and unlike the local poor, try to stay as much as possible out of any trouble (despite what hysterical racists want you to believe).

Not according to any statistics I have ever seen. Do you have any other data? I would like to see.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4399748.stm
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/race-society/france-muslims-terrorism-and-challenges-of-integration-research-roundup
etc.

'Illegal immigration' is an artificial construct. Everybody should be free to live and work where he wants to. It's for a good reason that we got rid of Pales of Settlement, guilds that can be entered only through inheritance, serfs tied to land, etc. It's very obvious what the next step should be.

Everything is an artificial construct. Society is, of course, an artificial construct. Why don't I just come and live in your house? Why don't I just come and work in your office? Obviously that's an absurd example, but it shows that society is full of artificial constraints. Countries control their citizens (to varying degrees), for the most part with the stated goal of making life better for their citizens. Unless you are a far extreme libertarian, most people don't actually believe anything remotely like what you've stated.

--

• 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.”
• “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
• “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger."

That doesn't convey an overwhelming consensus in catastrophic global warming at all. Most skeptics agree that "'human-induced greenhouse warming' is now occurring”, including myself. That is much different than saying "global warming is largely caused by humans". Be careful when relying on wikipedia.

You don't have to look any farther than the article you posted and the research that Mother Jones did. The author in your article didn't like Mother Jones' criteria for defining mass shootings but they used basically the same definition used in this report from the Congressional Research Service:

http://journalistsresource.org...

Apparently the FBI uses that definition as well.

Note that one key element of cost of any service is population density, not population.

So what's the excuse for high prices and slow speeds in places such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, etc? Those would certainly qualify as population dense.

The fact of the matter is the FCC, just like Congress and local governments, has been bribed to allow near monopolies to exist rather than enforcing existing laws regarding competition. As a result the U.S. continues to fall further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in broadband penetration, speed and obviously, price.

Currently we are ranked lower than places in the former Soviet Union for both speed and price, and well behind places such as Taiwan and Hong Kong. You can keep using the excuse of population density and large land area, but the reality of the situation is we have only 3 (maybe 4) providers in this country who have tacitly agreed not to compete with each other, the end result being what we have now: low speeds for high prices.

Link one for reference

Link two for reference

Link three for reference

Note that all of the above links are from November-December of 2013, less than six months ago so the information is up to date.

Well under a life cycle of under 100k miles there's no benefit among electric or Diesel. The source of contamination of electric cars is fabrication itself and the batteries. http://journalistsresource.org... I'd rather go for a bike or a velomobile for short trips less than 10 km. Bike is faster in some cities than cars in that range GIYBF. I'll buy a sportswagon for the rest of tasks (gasoline, because i'll be using it for long trips). http://www.lowtechmagazine.com...

http://journalistsresource.org...

This $5 study does NOT support that conclusion since the overwhelming majority of Mechanical Turkers are NOT Americans.

Not that you have provided any source for that assertion, but it's irrelevant anyway. You can set the qualifications for the job requiring them to be American. Studies have shown that while using the Mechanical Turk for social science research is not perfect, it is not wildly inaccurate either. In fact it works best for exactly this sort of study, a random sampling of the population with no other strict qualifiers.

So stubborn he's repeatedly signed various bills for spending cuts

What cuts??? Seriously, I quoted you the budget -- no cuts have occurred. Simply reducing one program while increasing another is not a cut. I'm talking about a cut in total spending. I might also add that the "cuts" that have occurred (such as the Sequester) are largely irrelevant, because they're a drop in the bucket of total spending. What Obama has done is largely lip service.

the only "more taxes" that have been passed are (a) allowing the Bush-era tax breaks to expire on some tax brackets, (b) allowing the economic recovery tax cuts (you know, the ones Obama signed) to expire, and (c) the whole ACA-fine as a tax

There are more taxes embedded into ACA than you acknowledge. It's not just the "fine as a tax". That's not even the biggest: http://jeffduncan.house.gov/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes

The investment income surtax is the largest tax hike in that bill.

*I* am the one suggest we cut spending and raise taxes.

And my counter-point is that we already did the latter, but not the former. I've yet to see you prove otherwise.

Would that be with or without the "Emergency" spending on the Afghanistan War?

Without. The supplemental spending has ended, check the budget. All annual war spending currently amounts to somewhere between ~60 billion and ~120 billion:
http://nation.time.com/2013/01/07/the-cost-of-a-post-2014-u-s-force/
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/security-military/us-military-casualty-statistics-costs-war-iraq-afghanistan-post-911

And that number is trending downward.

Actually figuring out *how* to get to those levels is the hard part and getting buy-in is the even harder part.

That's fantastic thinking -- let's start that conversation. Republicans have tried to put entitlement reform on the table many times (since the bulk of our spending is Mandatory spending), but the Dems won't even approach that debate in earnest.

Again, childish response. Democrats act like dicks, so we have to too.

Whoa whoa whoa, huge difference. This isn't just "you guys were mean, so we'll be mean too". It's not "you obstructed our bills, so we'll obstruct your bills". They actually passed an entire program on their watch. "Tit-for-tat" would be repeal of the program. At a minimum, the Democrats should find reasonable middle territory and be the ones to give ground by saying "while we won't repeal, but we're willing to reform" -- they haven't even done that though (remember, the Republicans second and third budget proposals during the standoff weren't even asking for repeal, they were asking for changes or delays in the program -- none of that got traction either). So until the Dems stop continuing to be childish, I'm afraid I don't see a 1-to-1 comparison here. The only thing I agree on is that the demand for straight-up repeal was stupid. But they backed off of that demand relatively quickly.

Really, your argument doesn't explain why not a single "reasonable Democrats" voted against the bill. No, it was lock-step partisanship.

They did. 34 Democrat congressmen voted against it. It barely squeaked through the House.

You do realize, btw, the whole government shut down thing was just an act by Republicans to appease their constituents and keep their jobs and not an attempt that they thought had any

Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Are Savages Noble?

The Effect of Cell Phone Coverage and Political Violence in Africa