Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm sorry if Canada is the sort of place with no upward mobility and where if you are born poor and female your only choice at an education is to have sex with strangers for money. That is not an impression I ever had of Canada.

I wasn't talking about Canada. Did you forget you wrote this?

Or how about treating girls and women well enough that they are able to get the education, training, and jobs that they need to make their own way in life and don’t have to spread their legs for random strangers 4-10 times a day.

Sorry, but you don't know what I have in my head. You don't read what I write or understand what I write or simply chose to make assertions about me that bear no relationship to reality.

Did you forget that you were telling us all that we don't care about people who are victims of human trafficking? And did you not notice yourself tell bilby he's not listening to you and is telling you what you are thinking, and then immediately in the very next paragraph tell bilby what he's thinking?

But you are right, I don't know what is in your head. At this point I'm not confident that you do either.

 

[bilby]

Or how about treating girls and women well enough that they are able to get the education, training, and jobs that they need to make their own way in life and don’t have to spread their legs for random strangers 4-10 times a day.

That's essentially already been done here. Prostitution still exists.

It's MUCH more expensive, and commensurately more lucrative for those who choose to do it. Most prostitutes in legal work in my state are far better educated than the average citizen. Lots of them are students - it's a very well paid job, and has much more flexible working hours than most opportunities available to students.

Your idea that not one woman would ever choose prostitution as a job in the absence of compulsion is demonstrably false. People will do anything if the pay is good enough. And no matter how unpleasant YOU might imagine any job to be, you will find some people who want to do it, who enjoy doing it, and who will not thank you for trying to save them from their freely made choices.

You are quite mistaken: I never asserted that no woman would ever chose prostitution willingly. My concern has been about the thousands and millions who do not choose prostitution willingly. Instead, you, as others in this thread, have decided that you know what I think and what my opinions are and so you have no reason to actually....pay attention to what I say.

That would be a rather sad piece of projection, if it were not followed by:

It pleases you all to believe the porn you watch that there are so many beautiful young women out there who just want to have fun with 3-10 different men 4 or 5 nights a week--although the woman you love (please note: I am not being specific to any individual here--I don't mean bilby's wife) and who loves you and to whom you are married is not willing or interested in having sex 20 times a week with you, for some odd reason. Only cranky uptight bitches would dare to suggest that there aren't dozens and hundreds and thousands of beautiful, intelligent, well educated young women willing to indulge whatever fantasies whichever random stranger is willing to pay for, despite the well known risks to health and safety. I mean, none of these women are not actually adult women, right? None of these women are lesbians who really don't care for dick--and even if they are lesbians, that's a turn on, right? They are all just so into sex that it doesn't matter if you are attractive to them, or nice to them, or recently showered, or anything other than willing to lay out whatever the fee for service is.

Which renders it a huge and mind-bogglingly un-selfaware piece of protection that I cannot even fathom.

Seriously, nothing I have ever posted here, said, nor done, justifies the bizarre assumptions you make about me in the above.

I'm not even insulted; it's just too completely wrong as to be beyond response.

Because that's how people work.

Clearly you have not got clue one how I work.

Whether your crazy fantasies are a reflection of anything real in others I cannot say for certain; but if you are that wrong about me, I am going to assume that your assessments of others are probably nonsense too.

 

[Toni]

You are quite mistaken: I never asserted that no woman would ever chose prostitution willingly. My concern has been about the thousands and millions who do not choose prostitution willingly. Instead, you, as others in this thread, have decided that you know what I think and what my opinions are and so you have no reason to actually....pay attention to what I say.

That would be a rather sad piece of projection, if it were not followed by:

It pleases you all to believe the porn you watch that there are so many beautiful young women out there who just want to have fun with 3-10 different men 4 or 5 nights a week--although the woman you love (please note: I am not being specific to any individual here--I don't mean bilby's wife) and who loves you and to whom you are married is not willing or interested in having sex 20 times a week with you, for some odd reason. Only cranky uptight bitches would dare to suggest that there aren't dozens and hundreds and thousands of beautiful, intelligent, well educated young women willing to indulge whatever fantasies whichever random stranger is willing to pay for, despite the well known risks to health and safety. I mean, none of these women are not actually adult women, right? None of these women are lesbians who really don't care for dick--and even if they are lesbians, that's a turn on, right? They are all just so into sex that it doesn't matter if you are attractive to them, or nice to them, or recently showered, or anything other than willing to lay out whatever the fee for service is.

Which renders it a huge and mind-bogglingly un-selfaware piece of protection that I cannot even fathom.

Seriously, nothing I have ever posted here, said, nor done, justifies the bizarre assumptions you make about me in the above.

I'm not even insulted; it's just too completely wrong as to be beyond response.

Because that's how people work.

Clearly you have not got clue one how I work.

Whether your crazy fantasies are a reflection of anything real in others I cannot say for certain; but if you are that wrong about me, I am going to assume that your assessments of others are probably nonsense too.

What??????

Really?

Crazy?

Oh, yeah: I forgot. I'm a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

I wasn't talking about Canada. Did you forget you wrote this?

You clearly were not talking about the US.

 

[bilby]

That would be a rather sad piece of projection, if it were not followed by:Which renders it a huge and mind-bogglingly un-selfaware piece of protection that I cannot even fathom.

Seriously, nothing I have ever posted here, said, nor done, justifies the bizarre assumptions you make about me in the above.

I'm not even insulted; it's just too completely wrong as to be beyond response.

Because that's how people work.

Clearly you have not got clue one how I work.

Whether your crazy fantasies are a reflection of anything real in others I cannot say for certain; but if you are that wrong about me, I am going to assume that your assessments of others are probably nonsense too.

What??????

Really?

Crazy?

Oh, yeah: I forgot. I'm a woman.

Forgetting your gender could be considered crazy.

Believing that I am responding to your gender, and not to the content of your crazy rant which purports to be about me, but is completely mistaken in every significant way, certainly is.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

/mod

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What plane of existence are you on because it certainly is not this one. Workman's comp is inadequate in most cases when the employer does not fight it. I can just imagine the hoops a prostitute would have to go through in order to prove she/he contracted the disease through work.

Then fix workers comp.

Or how about treating girls and women well enough that they are able to get the education, training, and jobs that they need to make their own way in life and don’t have to spread their legs for random strangers 4-10 times a day.

You're assuming they have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution. Most of them don't. (Not singling them out--most men can't, either.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently you don't actually read what I write but I will try again:

I see no reason at all that law enforcement should not do their job and go after those who steal from, assault, rape and/or murder prostitutes or anyone else. Period.
I see no reason at all that anyone reporting such crimes is not taken seriously and their rights are not protected, whether or not they are a prostitute.

We all know that the health and safety concerns of prostitutes are not taken seriously now. They will not be taken seriously if prostitution were legalized everywhere. Why do I think this is so? Because the health and safety concerns of women in general are not taken seriously. A woman who reports a sexual assault is still scrutinized: what did she wear, how much did she drink, was she a virgin, had she had sex with the rapist willingly before, and so on.

Apparently you haven't understood what we are saying:

1) Making it legal makes it much easier for law enforcement to go after those who abuse prostitutes.

2) You expect a level of care higher than the system can deliver.

3) You assume there can be no false reporting of rape. That's not reality. The police would not be doing their job if they didn't consider that any report of a crime might be false.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It pleases you all to believe the porn you watch that there are so many beautiful young women out there who just want to have fun with 3-10 different men 4 or 5 nights a week--although the woman you love (please note: I am not being specific to any individual here--I don't mean bilby's wife) and who loves you and to whom you are married is not willing or interested in having sex 20 times a week with you, for some odd reason. Only cranky uptight bitches would dare to suggest that there aren't dozens and hundreds and thousands of beautiful, intelligent, well educated young women willing to indulge whatever fantasies whichever random stranger is willing to pay for, despite the well known risks to health and safety. I mean, none of these women are not actually adult women, right? None of these women are lesbians who really don't care for dick--and even if they are lesbians, that's a turn on, right? They are all just so into sex that it doesn't matter if you are attractive to them, or nice to them, or recently showered, or anything other than willing to lay out whatever the fee for service is.

Because that's how people work.

You're making the mistake of thinking people only work at things they love to do. Most people aren't in jobs they love to do, especially if it's not skilled work. Few people are going to enjoy being a prostitute--but we routinely do things we don't enjoy in order to make money.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Work endangers workers. Period.

Anyway, the question is whether they are in greater danger if sex work is legal or illegal--and the evidence we has says legal is safer. There's a reason it's called the world's oldest profession, it's not going to simply go away because you wish it to be gone.

What evidence would that be, Loren?

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Work endangers workers. Period.

Anyway, the question is whether they are in greater danger if sex work is legal or illegal--and the evidence we has says legal is safer. There's a reason it's called the world's oldest profession, it's not going to simply go away because you wish it to be gone.

What evidence would that be, Loren?

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

Why compare to neighbors who may have other differences as opposed to before and after?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Work endangers workers. Period.

Anyway, the question is whether they are in greater danger if sex work is legal or illegal--and the evidence we has says legal is safer. There's a reason it's called the world's oldest profession, it's not going to simply go away because you wish it to be gone.

What evidence would that be, Loren?

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

Since puritans are opposed to prostitution simply because they are puritans and it is prostitution, evidence such as Rhode Island doesn't actually matter to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

Why compare to neighbors who may have other differences as opposed to before and after?

In a situation like this there's no such thing as perfect data. The Rhode Island data is the best we have--and nobody has come up with any other solid explanations other than the change to the law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

Why compare to neighbors who may have other differences as opposed to before and after?

In a situation like this there's no such thing as perfect data. The Rhode Island data is the best we have--and nobody has come up with any other solid explanations other than the change to the law.

You need controls to eliminate confounding variables. Just as an example, surrounding states have major urban areas like Boston, Hartford, Springfield, New Haven, Holyoke, Bridgeport etc. Rhode Island doesn't seem to compare. It isn't that data isn't perfect either. Science expects to have a before and after to check that change, not a comparison to different places. I don't understand why the before and after is not used. It almost seems like cherry picking.

ETA: here's an article on this which sounds different than Loren described it:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/decriminalizing-prostitution-linked-to-fewer-stds-and-rapes

Sounds better than how Loren described it.

Also, I had started out comparing std rates in RI versus MA and CT and saw higher rates in RI in 2012. I am not sure what's up with that.

 

[laughing dog]

Among other things, how about the example already mentioned?

Rhode Island inadvertently legalized indoor prostitution. Since this was an oops you can't say there was something special about the state. STD rates and female murder rates declined relative to their neighbors where the laws remained as they were.

Why compare to neighbors who may have other differences as opposed to before and after?

In a situation like this there's no such thing as perfect data.

A fascinating rebuttal from someone who argues there is data used to show discrimination is always imperfect, so that the claim must be discarded. For example, in this thread, people are discarding the claim that legalized prostitution increases human trafficking because the data is not perfect - even though it is the best data around at this point.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That you have done it badly is no excuse not to do it.

Everyone does it badly.

UHC is inherently a case of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

No, that would be the for profit insurance model the USA uses. You actually have a profit motive to deny care.

I have done car accident claims here in Canada where we fight insurance companies tooth and nail. I can't imagine having to do that even for basic medical care funding. I bet many of you just don't go to the hospital because of fear of bills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a situation like this there's no such thing as perfect data. The Rhode Island data is the best we have--and nobody has come up with any other solid explanations other than the change to the law.

You need controls to eliminate confounding variables. Just as an example, surrounding states have major urban areas like Boston, Hartford, Springfield, New Haven, Holyoke, Bridgeport etc. Rhode Island doesn't seem to compare. It isn't that data isn't perfect either. Science expects to have a before and after to check that change, not a comparison to different places. I don't understand why the before and after is not used. It almost seems like cherry picking.

ETA: here's an article on this which sounds different than Loren described it:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/decriminalizing-prostitution-linked-to-fewer-stds-and-rapes

Sounds better than how Loren described it.

Also, I had started out comparing std rates in RI versus MA and CT and saw higher rates in RI in 2012. I am not sure what's up with that.

I forgot about the decline in rapes. As for the lack of major urban areas--so what? The issue is how the numbers changed over time, not the absolute value of the numbers.

And it's not cherry picking--the thing is, numbers change over time anyway. Before and after numbers in social issues often end up capturing other patterns. Since you can't eliminate the other patterns you have to compare a changed group vs a control that doesn't have the change but is still subject to the other patterns. Hence comparing change in rates compared to neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -

That you have done it badly is no excuse not to do it.

Everyone does it badly.

UHC is inherently a case of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

No, that would be the for profit insurance model the USA uses. You actually have a profit motive to deny care.

I have done car accident claims here in Canada where we fight insurance companies tooth and nail. I can't imagine having to do that even for basic medical care funding. I bet many of you just don't go to the hospital because of fear of bills.

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

 

[bilby]

I forgot about the decline in rapes. As for the lack of major urban areas--so what? The issue is how the numbers changed over time, not the absolute value of the numbers.

And it's not cherry picking--the thing is, numbers change over time anyway. Before and after numbers in social issues often end up capturing other patterns. Since you can't eliminate the other patterns you have to compare a changed group vs a control that doesn't have the change but is still subject to the other patterns. Hence comparing change in rates compared to neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -

That you have done it badly is no excuse not to do it.

Everyone does it badly.

UHC is inherently a case of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

No, that would be the for profit insurance model the USA uses. You actually have a profit motive to deny care.

I have done car accident claims here in Canada where we fight insurance companies tooth and nail. I can't imagine having to do that even for basic medical care funding. I bet many of you just don't go to the hospital because of fear of bills.

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

You have that backwards.

In UHC the decision on what is proper care is made by medical professionals. These are not the people funding that care - the funding comes from government.

A system where the funding comes from an insurance company, and the insurance company also decides what is or is not covered might have the problem you describe. But that's not UHC.

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

You have that backwards.

In UHC the decision on what is proper care is made by medical professionals. These are not the people funding that care - the funding comes from government.

A system where the funding comes from an insurance company, and the insurance company also decides what is or is not covered might have the problem you describe. But that's not UHC.

He's also not including the fact that in most cases, new procedures, techniques, therapies (including drugs) are approved by CMS before they are approved by private insurance companies. So you are correct, he does have it backwards.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

You have that backwards.

In UHC the decision on what is proper care is made by medical professionals. These are not the people funding that care - the funding comes from government.

A system where the funding comes from an insurance company, and the insurance company also decides what is or is not covered might have the problem you describe. But that's not UHC.

No. The decision is made by the government, saying what is the standard of care. That standard of care is allowed to slip to keep costs down. For example, long wait lists to see specialists. We have some of that--but if the primary care doc suspects it's urgent they'll get you in anyway.

Another example, minor but an example of what's going on: Medicare has decided that hormone replacement is inappropriate for any woman over 65, period. Since they're the government they can simply refuse to pay for it with no consequences. Never mind women for which the minor risk is nothing compared to the quality of life issues. Never mind transsexuals. No private insurance company could get away with that sort of garbage.

 

[bilby]

The problem with UHC is you have the same people deciding what is proper care and funding that care. It's easier to cut the standards than do it right and there's no meaningful accountability.

You have that backwards.

In UHC the decision on what is proper care is made by medical professionals. These are not the people funding that care - the funding comes from government.

A system where the funding comes from an insurance company, and the insurance company also decides what is or is not covered might have the problem you describe. But that's not UHC.

No. The decision is made by the government, saying what is the standard of care. That standard of care is allowed to slip to keep costs down. For example, long wait lists to see specialists. We have some of that--but if the primary care doc suspects it's urgent they'll get you in anyway.

Your hypothetical UHC system is nothing like the actual UHC systems in place in real nations today. You are arguing against a straw man.

But even if you were not, you would be better served by having decisions made by an elected government who can be voted out of office if they don't act in the patients' best interests, rather than having an insurance company make those calls.

You need to stop contemplating your navel, and to start looking at reality, if you want anyone to take you seriously on this subject.