• zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I already mentioned the problems with your source is another comment, but now I’m going to address the “science”.

    First up, science doesn’t run on certainty. If you had actually read the paper, you might have noticed this sentence:

    Therefore, the true number of human trafficking victims is unknown (Belser, de Cock & Mehran, 2005).

    Science also does not take place in a vacuum; it is political. The statistics gathered rely on political entities that have agendas. The statistics are imperfect. They even mention this:

    The main limitation of the UNODC data however is that reporting will arguably depend on the quality of institutions, judicial and police effectiveness, in particular, but also on how aware the international community is about trafficking problems in a particular country.

    Until you learn to read things not to prove a point, but to understand them, get science’s name out of your mouth.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      You “mentioned the problems” by saying the clear increase in human trafficking was something you could live with.

      • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        No, I did not. I know your reading comprehension isn’t the best, but come on, or my comments are there to go back to and reread. You can even quote me. Go ahead. Tell me where I addressed trafficking and not your misinterpretation of the source.