[Pants-of-dog]

This can be done by taking the 'sex' out of 'sex worker'.

This hasn't worked in the past, but I do not expect authoritarians to modify their beliefs with something as crass as reality.

Precisely.

And those of us who do not want to imprison sex workers for being trafficked will simply choose other options.

Excellent. And now contextualise this as a part of your argument preferably involving the case study of the legalisation of prostitution and brothels in Germany that I referred to.

Germany legalised their system, as far as I can tell.

Mind you, I have yet to see what is wrong with the German system. Your article was vague.

----------------------

We should listen to them as victims of crime. We certainly shouldnt be asking advise on how to make their illegal profession more convenient.

The fundamental disagreement here is that you see them as workers, not victims. I remember a previous argument on this subject where someone chimed in saying maybe they were just girls "who love sex"

Sometimes you need to save people from themselves.

And you see them as victims with no agency or intelligence. In fact, you see them as deranged idiots who are best ignored when it comes to deciding anything important about their own lives.

[Noob]

This hasn't worked in the past, but I do not expect authoritarians to modify their beliefs with something as crass as reality.

Reality can be changed.

And those of us who do not want to imprison sex workers for being trafficked will simply choose other options.

Such as allowing the trafficking to continue unabated.

Germany legalised their system, as far as I can tell.

Mind you, I have yet to see what is wrong with the German system. Your article was vague.

It started off as a story. It's five pages long. Here's another one.

The Netherlands in 2000 and Germany in 2002 opted for the full decriminalisation of prostitution. The goal was to regulate the sex industry better and provide sex workers with rights and social benefits. Yet this has been associated with a spike in human-rights abuses and an increase in human trafficking.

A working paper from the German government on forced prostitution describes the country as a trafficker’s paradise where 90% of the 400,000 prostitute women are under constraint, with 1.2m men from all over Europe visiting brothels daily. In 2008, the Dutch national police reported very high levels of coercion—up to 90%. Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam, admitted that providing a safe space for sex work not connected to organised crime was impossible.

A market of greed …

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimated the global profits from forced prostitution at $99 billion in 2008—a fivefold increase from 2005. A third of those profits are generated by trafficking. In legalised EU markets, where most of the women are coerced migrants, smuggled or trafficked, the total annual profits from trafficking for sexual exploitation can be estimated at between $34bn and $47bn.

Organised-crime networks take advantage of open borders and the absence of common EU legislation. They recruit in the poorest countries and swiftly move their human “livestock”, extorting social benefits and reinvesting incomes where competitive banking services and attractive property markets are available. Legal prostitution is also a source of considerable revenue for criminal networks from Albania, west Africa, eastern Europe, China and Japan, among others.

The sex trade is a globalised, co-ordinated, fast-growing and highly lucrative business. This represents a major incentive to co-operate to make economies of scale. Organised-crime distribution hubs dispatch and relocate victims to EU territory, mainly Germany and other countries where prostitution is legalised (Holland, Spain, Belgium and Austria), which are considered major destinations for trafficking.

… and fear

Supporters of legalisation see trafficking for sexual exploitation as minor “collateral damage” in a market constituted mostly by free entrepreneurs. This ignores the nature of prostitution and the extent of trafficking in the sex trade. In the same vein, some policy-makers argue that the destination countries’ governments have neither the financial resources nor the responsibility to help the victims of trafficking out of prostitution. They overlook its dynamics at the EU level—a combination of the origin countries’ inability to protect their citizens and lack of border checks and the abuse of women in the destination country by purchasers of sex.[1]

Prostitution requires violence: the age of entry is estimated typically at 13, 75% of women and girls are between 13 and 25; 90% are dependent on a procurer, with very high levels of addiction to drugs or alcohol (83%). A study using UK data between 1985 and 1994, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that prostitute women in the UK died prematurely (on average at 34), their mortality risk elevated 33 times. Indeed, the authors warned that the situation could be even worse due to under-reporting. Prostitute women are mainly migrants (up to 80% in Austria, 65% in Germany) exposed to much higher levels of violence and abuse than nationals. As such, they often do not have access to national health and social benefits, despite legalisation.

Europol identifies demand for cheap labour, commercial sexual services and existing workers within the sex industry in wealthy EU countries as three important “pull” factors in human trafficking. In a study covering 150 countries, the London School of Economics also emphasised the demand side. Legalisation could not curb demand, since prostitution is not attractive to indigenous women with better options, independent of its legal status. In addition, trafficking victims can be exploited more brutally and clients prefer new, exotic women. The United Nations Office for Development Co-operation confirms that trafficking to Europe for sexual exploitation heavily affects communities in west and east Africa and Thailand, while trafficking from north Africa, China, Vietnam and Cambodia is increasing to meet the demand for indoor prostitution.

The demand is recognised by the UN and other international organisations. The UN rapporteur for the trafficking of human beings notes that all the countries which have gone down the route of legalisation have failed to ensure it does not become entwined with “widespread and systematic” human trafficking. Following EU enlargement, Romanian and Bulgarian women represent up to 85% of victims of trafficking in countries with legalised prostitution, as well as the largest share of sex workers. These alarming figures show that the current approach by many EU countries is failing to protect victims.

Facilitating trafficking

Legalisation makes criminal offences linked to exploitation difficult to prove and offenders often benefit from a suspended sentence. Legalisation of the sex industry also facilitates entry procedures and the work of traffickers (in terms of visas and work permits). Additionally, laws on prostitution and immigration within and between countries are not co-ordinated, offering poor protection to exploited women.[2] Data for 2008-10 for the 28 EU states, as well as Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey, show that trafficking cases increased by 18% while convictions of traffickers dropped by 13%, as a consequence of more lenient laws on procurement and brothel ownership.

Transnational organised crime is largely based on cash.[3] The trading of human commodities and other criminal activities have increased shadow-economy transactions involving cash couriers, illegal weapons, hawala (informal banking), front companies and investments in high-value goods such as luxury cars, casinos, banks and properties. Real-estate/brothel owners can extort money from legal sex workers renting a visible space for their activity. Countries with high financial secrecy—such as the UK, Austria and Switzerland—are preferred for reinvestment.

Traffickers and corrupt officials in customs and law enforcement facilitate the movement of people at EU entry points. Criminal groups corrupt local authorities to avoid brothel regulations. Trafficking victims are also used as drug mules and recruiters for prostitution and in cannabis greenhouses. A report from the Spanish Congress states that drugs end up in legal brothels, to create addiction and control prostitutes, and often at the request of clients.

Trafficking in human beings is highly gendered: 84% of victims are girls and young women (trafficked men do not mostly end up in prostitution). By definition, it takes place without consent: despite endemic poverty, lack of opportunities and the perceived absence of a better future, victims do not sign up for sexual exploitation. To keep the demand-driven supply chain running, organised-crime networks have recourse to deception, manipulation, intimidation and violence, towards the victim and her family.

A legal sex trade increases the sexual exploitation of children. Allied to the age of consent, child prostitution and child pornography were thus effectively authorised in Switzerland until September 2013. The ILO has identified “tolerance of prostitution at community or national level” and “irresponsible exercise of sexuality, especially male” as factors which put children at risk of being trafficked.

[...]

Human trafficking is a challenge which requires a concerted European response. The current patchwork of laws not only fails to encompass and address the transnational crime networks deeply embedded within it—but allows them to flourish.

I'll laugh if after all of that you still want to ask the prostitutes 'what can we do for you to make things better?'

And you see them as victims with no agency or intelligence. In fact, you see them as deranged idiots who are best ignored when it comes to deciding anything important about their own lives.

This is correct. Who in their right mind signs up for sexual exploitation, and what does a pimp have to gain by giving a prostitute control over her own life? You're only interested in taking the pimp out of the equation, and you'll basically fail at that.

[Truth To Power]

Yeah, in that case it's the drugs that need to be legalized, too. Plenty of women are addicted to nicotine, but you don't see them selling their bodies to support their drug habit, do you?

That's not because nicotine is legal, though, is it?

Sure it is.

Making street drugs legal will not prevent people selling their bodies to feed their habit,

It would remove the financial duress that makes them sell their bodies rather than just their labor.

Why are you just talking about women, anyway? There are male prostitutes, too.

I picked the most appropriate noun.

[Truth To Power]

Sometimes you need to save people from themselves.

Save me from people who want to save me from myself...

[Pants-of-dog]

Reality can be changed.

Not the past.

Such as allowing the trafficking to continue unabated.

You are either making a strawman, and saying that I think trafficking should continue unabated, or you are making a false dichotomy and claiming that you either ship every one off to gulags or you do absolutely nothing.

Both of these are logical fallacies.

I am arguing that by making sex workers the leading and most significant group in setting sex work policy, you will probably get the most effective results.

It started off as a story. It's five pages long. Here's another one.

Do you have one that doesn't confuse legalisation and decriminalisation?

I'll laugh if after all of that you still want to ask the prostitutes 'what can we do for you to make things better?'

I am not going to pick apart an essay written by someone else that you copied and pasted. If you wish to make an argument, do so. Do not simply repeat an argument you found with Google.

This is correct. Who in their right mind signs up for sexual exploitation, and what does a pimp have to gain by giving a prostitute control over her own life? You're only interested in taking the pimp out of the equation, and you'll basically fail at that.

The fact that you see sex workers as less than human shows that you do not have the interests of sex workers in mind. Please spare me your false moral outrage.

[Noob]

Do you have one that doesn't confuse legalisation and decriminalisation?

They're basically the same things. What actually matters more is what particular aspect of prostitution is criminalised: the selling of sex or the solicitation of sex.

I am not going to pick apart an essay written by someone else that you copied and pasted. If you wish to make an argument, do so. Do not simply repeat an argument you found with Google.

You're amusing. You have thrown numerous definitions and articles in my face before without even so much as context. Does this represent a shift in your posting habits or a double standard?

• Germany legalised prostitution in 2002.
• Human trafficking has greatly increased since the legalisation of prostitution.
• These prostitutes have high levels of drug and alcohol dependency, and are often subject to violence.
• Making the lives of prostitutes 'better' does not solve the original problem of transnational traffickers.
• Germany is now a brothel and the sexual tourism industry is booming, yet the working conditions of prostitutes have not actually improved, and in many areas have declined.

The case study of Germany and the results of the legalisation of prostitution run contrary to the mantra that providing a safe environment for migrant prostitutes actually makes the lives of those prostitutes better, and it runs contrary to the mantra that legalisation/decriminalisation will provide a safe environment for prostitutes to prostitute themselves in.

If you require evidence as you usually do, please refer to the previously posted articles, and if openDemocracy doesn't meet your high standards for evidence, I'll laugh.

The fact that you see sex workers as less than human shows that you do not have the interests of sex workers in mind.

Prostitutes often have no choice than to do what they do - they are not able to consent. I do not agree that prostitutes need to exist in large numbers, nor do I agree that prostitution needs to be allowed to flourish. All humans are not equal.

Please spare me your false moral outrage.

My moral system is just as valid as yours is. There is however no outrage.

[Pants-of-dog]

They're basically the same things. What actually matters more is what particular aspect of prostitution is criminalised: the selling of sex or the solicitation of sex.

Now you are ignoring the information I already posted.

Here it is again:

http://www.bayswan.org/defining.html

Decriminalisation
Decriminalisation refers to the removal of all criminal laws relating to the operation of the sex industry. The decriminalisation model aims to support occupational health and safety and workplace issues through existing legal and workplace mechanisms.

Legalisation
Refers to the use of criminal laws to regulate or control the sex industry by determining the legal conditions under which the sex industry can operate. Legalisation can be highly regulatory or merely define the operation of the various sectors of the sex industry. It can vary between rigid controls under legalised state controlled systems to privatising the sex industry within a legally defined framework. It is often accompanied by strict criminal penalties for sex industry businesses that operate outside the legal framework.

Germany legalised prostitution in 2002.
Human trafficking has greatly increased since the legalisation of prostitution.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

These prostitutes have high levels of drug and alcohol dependency, and are often subject to violence.

This is common for sex workers. Are you assuming that decriminalisation somehow causes this?

Making the lives of prostitutes 'better' does not solve the original problem of transnational traffickers.

Making the lives of sex workers worse does not solve the original problem of transnational traffickers. Ignoring the issues brought up by sex workers does not do this either.

Germany is now a brothel and the sexual tourism industry is booming, yet the working conditions of prostitutes have not actually improved, and in many areas have declined.

Maybe they should have decriminalised instead.

Prostitutes often have no choice than to do what they do - they are not able to consent. I do not agree that prostitutes need to exist in large numbers, nor do I agree that prostitution needs to be allowed to flourish.

Does the fact that they are unable to consent somehow make them unable to have meaningful opinions about their own life?

All humans are not equal.

Please stop bringing in your irrelevant ideology.

[Noob]

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Now you are ignoring the information I already posted.

Here it is again:

Legalisation makes criminal offences linked to exploitation difficult to prove and offenders often benefit from a suspended sentence. Legalisation of the sex industry also facilitates entry procedures and the work of traffickers (in terms of visas and work permits). Additionally, laws on prostitution and immigration within and between countries are not co-ordinated, offering poor protection to exploited women.[2] Data for 2008-10 for the 28 EU states, as well as Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey, show that trafficking cases increased by 18% while convictions of traffickers dropped by 13%, as a consequence of more lenient laws on procurement and brothel ownership.

Maybe they should have decriminalised instead.

Is legalisation itself a good thing, do you believe, if the intent is for the betterment of prostitutes? How do you envision decriminalisation of prostitution? How do you see decriminalisation and legalisation of prostitution as different from one another aside from the regulation aspect of them both?

Does the fact that they are unable to consent somehow make them unable to have meaningful opinions about their own life?

Not necessarily. Those opinions do not however need to be taken into account by policy makers.

Please stop bringing in your irrelevant ideology.

I will talk about whatever I like, whenever I like. That short sentence is relevant as it pertains to this discussion.

[Pants-of-dog]

Now you are ignoring the information I already posted.

Where did opendemocracy get this info from?

Does opendemocracy have any information on the effects of decriminalisation?

[size=115]

Why do you do use size tags?

Is legalisation itself a good thing, do you believe, if the intent is for the betterment of prostitutes? How do you envision decriminalisation of prostitution? How do you see decriminalisation and legalisation of prostitution as different from one another aside from the regulation aspect of them both?

Well, the obvious and most striking difference is that sex workers support decriminalisatin rather than legalisation.

Not necessarily.

Then the fact that they are unable to consent is irrelevant to whether or not sex workers have meaningful opinions about their own life.

Those opinions do not however need to be taken into account by policy makers.

They do if you actually want to make life better for sex workers. You do not, of course.

[Noob]

Where did opendemocracy get this info from?

Look to the citations and the links provided.

Does opendemocracy have any information on the effects of decriminalisation?

I searched for 'site:opendemocracy.net "decriminalisation"' and found this. [Link]

Why do you do use size tags?

Because I can. What are you, some sort of forum formatting Gestapo? Why do you not use quotation tags when quoting an article?

Who cares?

Well, the obvious and most striking difference is that sex workers support decriminalisatin rather than legalisation.

Not that I care, but how can you be sure of this?

Then the fact that they are unable to consent is irrelevant to whether or not sex workers have meaningful opinions about their own life.

I'm not seeing that connection. Most prostitutes are unable to give consent so far as people see it as a "worker's right" in that they are trapped in their situation and simply do not have a choice about what they do.

They do if you actually want to make life better for sex workers. You do not, of course.

I don't think that they need to be exterminated, if that's what you're thinking. They just need to be able to have the opportunity afforded to them to get themselves out of their unfortunate mess of a situation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Look to the citations and the links provided.

Are you unable to?

I searched for 'site:opendemocracy.net "decriminalisation"' and found this. [Link]

Thank you. That was an informative link.

Because I can. What are you, some sort of forum formatting Stasi? Why do you not use quotation tags when quoting an article?

Who cares?

I was just wondering.

Not that I care, but how can you be sure of this?

I am actually not sure about this. This is my impression from discussing it with sex-workers and reading sex worker advocacy literature. I may be completely incorrect. I should clarify that my main point is that sex workers are an absolutely essential group odf people to consult when crafting sex work law and policy, rather than arguing for any specific policy.

I'm not seeing that connection. Most prostitutes are unable to give consent so far as people see it as a "worker's right" in that they are trapped in their situation and simply do not have a choice about what they do.

Yes, I am not seeing any connection either.

The fact that a sex worker may or may not consent to being in that line of work has no connection with whether or not sex workers should be consulted when making policy. If there is any connection, it is that sex workers must be consulted because it would then provide an avenue for them to point out that they do not consent.

I don't think that they need to be exterminated, if that's what you're thinking. They just need to be able to have the opportunity afforded to them to get themselves out of their unfortunate mess of a situation.

Right. So you should support those policies that make it easier for sex workers to leave sex work, or better yet, never get into it. Things like a strong social safety net, employment opportunities, skills training, access to medical care, and protection from the authorities who want to arrest you for prostitution.

[Noob]

In April 2013, Commissioner Cecilia Malmström presented the European Commission’s report on human trafficking, based on data for the period 2008-2010 for the 28 European Union member States as well as Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey. The report shows an alarming trend: cases of trafficking have increased by 18% while convictions of traffickers have fallen by 13% over the same period. Intra-EU trafficking represents the majority of the identified and presumed cases: 61% of victims of trafficking are EU citizens.

The Global Report of UNODC of December 2012 states that between 2007 and 2010, women constituted between 55 and 60 per cent of victims of trafficking in persons detected globally (12). The trafficking of children appears to have increased to 27 per cent, compared to 20 per cent in 2003–2006. The gender and age profile of victims at the global level are 59% women, 17% girls, 14% men and 10% boys. Worldwide, trafficking in persons for sexual exploitation is more frequent than trafficking for forced labour, although trafficking in persons for forced labour increased from 18% in the years 2003-2006 to 36% in the years 2007-2010.

Official statistics, basically.

I was just wondering.

It differentiates between regular forum user quotes and article quotes. It looks clearer.

I am actually not sure about this. This is my impression from discussing it with sex-workers and reading sex worker advocacy literature. I may be completely incorrect. I should clarify that my main point is that sex workers are an absolutely essential group odf people to consult when crafting sex work law and policy, rather than arguing for any specific policy.

Well, what percentage of prostitutes in Canada are migrants? I would expect it to be less than in Germany, where it's estimated 85% of those trafficked are Romanian and Bulgarian - and of these, I would suspect few actually speak German, and I haven't seen any evidence that German tuition is made available to them (which would be next to impossible given the presently high levels of migration into the country). So beside the fact that they are in a compromising situation, most cannot get their opinions across to government workers, and whilst they move to Germany willingly, they remain in the dark about how much of their earnings they will be allowed to keep, how long they will have to work and so on.

So it's important to differentiate between ordinary prostitutes and migrant prostitutes - it's clear that the latter group is generally at risk more than the other. Furthermore, the prostitutes themselves may not be entirely in-the-know, despite it being their profession, about what is the best direction and least harmful to them personally for the industry. It would probably make more sense to talk to brothel owners and pimps, actually, not that they would give an honest answer on anything pertaining to their trade that they make a living from. Similarly, prostitutes making a living from prostituting themselves their opinions will always be biased.

I maintain that they aren't a reliable source for this line of questioning and indeed many would prefer to retain their line of work instead of making the change out of it. It would essentially be an echo chamber of opinions. Furthermore, brothel owners could use their power to inform the opinions of their workers. And so the State needs to be forceful with regards to clamping down on prostitution rather than accommodating it, I think.

Right. So you should support those policies that make it easier for sex workers to leave sex work, or better yet, never get into it. Things like a strong social safety net, employment opportunities, skills training, access to medical care

Of course, and more.

protection from the authorities who want to arrest you for prostitution.

Arrest isn't necessarily a bad thing, and imprisonment by itself isn't going to solve the underlying problem. Perhaps some are beyond help but I'd say that the majority are disadvantaged (disproportionately young) women who would do well if put into a rehabilitation centre for any addictions they may have picked up and given a chance to pursue a different career path, and repatriated back to their country of origin if they have migrated.

[Pants-of-dog]

Official statistics, basically.

Those statistics do not show what caused the increase in trafficking.

It differentiates between regular forum user quotes and article quotes. It looks clearer.

My eyes must be getting old because I only noticed this difference after you pointed it out.

Well, what percentage of prostitutes in Canada are migrants? I would expect it to be less than in Germany, where it's estimated 85% of those trafficked are Romanian and Bulgarian - and of these, I would suspect few actually speak German, and I haven't seen any evidence that German tuition is made available to them (which would be next to impossible given the presently high levels of migration into the country). So beside the fact that they are in a compromising situation, most cannot get their opinions across to government workers, and whilst they move to Germany willingly, they remain in the dark about how much of their earnings they will be allowed to keep, how long they will have to work and so on.

Again, I am not supporting the German model.

So it's important to differentiate between ordinary prostitutes and migrant prostitutes - it's clear that the latter group is generally at risk more than the other.

Since trafficking is about people being migrated, then yes, migrants are more at risk of being trafficked. This has nothing to do with sex work.

Furthermore, the prostitutes themselves may not be entirely in-the-know, despite it being their profession, about what is the best direction and least harmful to them personally for the industry.

It is far more likely that you may not be entirely in-the-know, because it has nothing to do with your profession, nor do you have any experience concerning what is the best direction and least harmful to them personally for the industry.

It would probably make more sense to talk to brothel owners and pimps, actually, not that they would give an honest answer on anything pertaining to their trade that they make a living from. Similarly, prostitutes making a living from prostituting themselves their opinions will always be biased.

Why would we consult the very people who are exploiting the sex workers instead of the sex workers?

You seem to want to make life worse in every possible way for sex workers. Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding your position?

I maintain that they aren't a reliable source for this line of questioning and indeed many would prefer to retain their line of work instead of making the change out of it. It would essentially be an echo chamber of opinions. Furthermore, brothel owners could use their power to inform the opinions of their workers. And so the State needs to be forceful with regards to clamping down on prostitution rather than accommodating it, I think.

So you think they should not e consulted because you think they will disagree with you. Wow. Great argument.

Arrest isn't necessarily a bad thing,

And now you have completely stopped using logic and reason in the debate.

and imprisonment by itself isn't going to solve the underlying problem. Perhaps some are beyond help but I'd say that the majority are disadvantaged (disproportionately young) women who would do well if put into a rehabilitation centre for any addictions they may have picked up and given a chance to pursue a different career path, and repatriated back to their country of origin if they have migrated.

Is this based on any evidence or logic, or do you like it simply because it aligns with your ideology where you get to tell everyone what to do and pretend they are better for it, even when they tell you otherwise?

[Noob]

Those statistics do not show what caused the increase in trafficking.

Yes. They show that trafficking has increased in Europe since the legalisation of prostitution in Germany. More relevant information can be found on pages 10, 50, and 83.

My eyes must be getting old because I only noticed this difference after you pointed it out.

You don't have to like it. I think it looks neat.

You seem to want to make life worse in every possible way for sex workers. Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding your position?

Indeed. I want to eradicate their profession.

And now you have completely stopped using logic and reason in the debate.

Please forgive me for attempting to more closely emulate your style of debate.

Is this based on any evidence or logic, or do you like it simply because it aligns with your ideology where you get to tell everyone what to do and pretend they are better for it, even when they tell you otherwise?

This is the 'Morals & Ethics' section. Do not be surprised if people disagree with you on the basis of ideology or morality.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes. They show that trafficking has increased in Europe since the legalisation of prostitution in Germany. More relevant information can be found on pages 10, 50, and 83.

Just because x happens after does not mean that y caused x.

You don't have to like it. I think it looks neat.

It doesn't affect me either way. Thank you for answering my question, though.

Indeed. I want to eradicate their profession.

Then why are you suggesting we talk to the pimps to make policy?

Please forgive me for attempting to more closely emulate your style of debate.

Let me know when I say something like "getting arrested is not that bad" as an argument.

This is the 'Morals & Ethics' section. Do not be surprised if people disagree with you on the basis of ideology or morality.

As long as it is clear that your criticism is not based on anything rational or empirical.

[Noob]

Just because x happens after does not mean that y caused x.

Yes, I know that. You asked for evidence and I provided it.

Germany legalised prostitution in 2002.
Human trafficking has greatly increased since the legalisation of prostitution.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

It does however mean that human trafficking hasn't decreased since the legalisation of prostitution in Germany, contrary to what many thought would be the case.

Then why are you suggesting we talk to the pimps to make policy?

I said that it would make more sense to talk to them, which isn't the same thing as suggesting that anybody get their opinion on things. Pimps can be executed.

Let me know when I say something like "getting arrested is not that bad" as an argument.

Clearly getting incarcerated is much better than getting caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation which you don't seem to think is all that bad given your simple interest in merely reforming the prostitution business according to the wishes of prostitutes.

As long as it is clear that your criticism is not based on anything rational or empirical.

And neither are your personal perceptions about what you believe that prostitutes want for themselves. When I wrote those two paragraphs in my response two posts ago, that was my way of saying 'your beliefs are invalid on multiple levels', because assuming that migrant prostitutes in Canada can't even speak English as they can't in speak German in Germany, their opinion is invisible.

Moreover, the prostitutes themselves have no power and will never be involved in the decision-making process. Looking at their opinions in isolation as you wish to do completely ignores the power relations in the prostitution business and it's why no significant change will come from the direction of people who hold similar beliefs as you with regards to prostitution.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I know that. You asked for evidence and I provided it.
...
It does however mean that human trafficking hasn't decreased since the legalisation of prostitution in Germany, contrary to what many thought would be the case.

As long as we agree that a causative link has not been shown.

I said that it would make more sense to talk to them, which isn't the same thing as suggesting that anybody get their opinion on things. Pimps can be executed.

Everyone can be executed.

Clearly getting incarcerated is much better than getting caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation which you don't seem to think is all that bad given your simple interest in merely reforming the prostitution business according to the wishes of prostitutes.

Once again, I am arguing that sex workers should be consulted when forming sex work policy. The claim that I am arguing that sex workers should get "caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation" is a strawman.

Also, the idea that sex workers can either get arrested or must live a life of drugs and exploitation is a false dilemma, another logical fallacy.

And neither are your personal perceptions about what you believe that prostitutes want for themselves. When I wrote those two paragraphs in my response two posts ago, that was my way of saying 'your beliefs are invalid on multiple levels', because assuming that migrant prostitutes in Canada can't even speak English as they can't in speak German in Germany, their opinion is invisible.

And my point is that they should not be invisible.

Moreover, the prostitutes themselves have no power and will never be involved in the decision-making process. Looking at their opinions in isolation as you wish to do completely ignores the power relations in the prostitution business and it's why no significant change will come from the direction of people who hold similar beliefs as you with regards to prostitution.

Why would I look at their opinions in isolation? That makes no sense.

[Noob]

As long as we agree that a causative link has not been shown.

Sure. That was never the intention.

Everyone can be executed.

Just the undesirables.

Once again, I am arguing that sex workers should be consulted when forming sex work policy. The claim that I am arguing that sex workers should get "caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation" is a strawman.

Then we agree to disagree with your idea that prostitutes should be consulted on their work. I am not claiming that you are arguing that prostitutes should get caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation - I am saying that that will be the result if you are only interested in soliciting the opinions of prostitutes.

Also, the idea that sex workers can either get arrested or must live a life of drugs and exploitation is a false dilemma, another logical fallacy.

It's a logical fallacy if you consider that the majority of prostitutes will ever be able live a life largely free of exploitation. I do not, and that sentiment is not invalidated by your mentioning of a 'logical fallacy'. Regardless, I didn't draw a link between the two.

Why would I look at their opinions in isolation? That makes no sense.

You haven't mentioned anything else in your view of what should be done to improve or mitigate of what you believe to be the negative aspects of prostitution, you've only mentioned that the opinions of prostitutes must be taken into account and your belief that they want decriminalisation of prostitution stems from their supposed opinion. When I invited you to explain the differences between legalisation and decriminalisation aside from the regulation aspect, you didn't do that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then we agree to disagree with your idea that prostitutes should be consulted on their work. I am not claiming that you are arguing that prostitutes should get caught up in a life of drugs and exploitation - I am saying that that will be the result if you are only interested in soliciting the opinions of prostitutes.

Why would I get only their opinion?

And I also have no idea why you think that would happen if we asked sex workers what they wanted.

It's a logical fallacy if you consider that the majority of prostitutes will ever be able live a life largely free of exploitation. I do not, and that sentiment is not invalidated by your mentioning of a 'logical fallacy'. Regardless, I didn't draw a link between the two.

Your inability to imagine more options than the two you described does not, in any way, mean that reality is as simple as you think.

You haven't mentioned anything else in your view of what should be done to improve or mitigate of what you believe to be the negative aspects of prostitution, you've only mentioned that the opinions of prostitutes must be taken into account and your belief that they want decriminalisation of prostitution stems from their supposed opinion. When I invited you to explain the differences between legalisation and decriminalisation aside from the regulation aspect, you didn't do that.

I invited you to read the links I provided.

[Noob]

Why would I get only their opinion?

You haven't mentioned anything else. Why don't you outline what else should be done to mitigate the negative effects of prostitution?

And I also have no idea why you think that would happen if we asked sex workers what they wanted.

I don't know why you believe that I'm trying to make all of these causative links. I am not - perhaps you are trying some new tricks and are trying to box me into one of these silly 'logical fallacy' paradigms in lieu of an actual argument.

Your inability to imagine more options than the two you described does not, in any way, mean that reality is as simple as you think.

I don't believe that my imagination on this issue is limited, nor do I believe that reality is simple. Thank you for your ad hominem fallacies.

I invited you to read the links I provided.

Is that some dodgy joke on your part? Because you haven't provided me with links except that one definition link.