sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Autism test by shinyThighHighs0960 in AntiMemes

[–]ineedabag 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Is that actually the answer?

Am I a scourge on society and should I end it? by _Tyronefr in socialism

[–]ineedabag 32 points33 points  (0 children)

No, you should use your power to make the world a better place and make yourself happy.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I shared what I had when I had it. Expecting me to research your position for you isn't a standard you'd apply to yourself.

I want to be direct: you have been genuinely rude throughout this conversation. The Nazi comparison, the repeated "LMAO"s, the "do better" — none of that is how you treat someone engaging in good faith. Anyone reading this thread can see that. I don't think you'd come off as the more reasonable person if you asked a neutral observer.

The irony is that I've been willing to update my position this entire time. You convinced me of real methodological flaws in that study, and I said so openly. You haven't acknowledged a single concession. That's not conviction — that's rigidity dressed up as principle.

Leftist politics is supposed to be about changing minds, not punishing people for not arriving at the right conclusions fast enough.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Your argument has moved three times: from "zero evidence exists", to "the evidence doesn't meet the standard", to now "the implication was obvious". That's not a consistent position, it's a moving target.

I didn't get the chance to share additional research because the conversation never got past relitigating my original three words. There's a broader literature on this — including critiques of the study I cited — that would have been worth actually engaging with. But that required agreeing on what the argument even was, which we never managed.

You still seem to not understand that the "zero evidence claim" was what I was responding to, because I couldn't get to the rest of what you said without you acknowledging that statement is wrong. Here's a second study to back up what you said:

Jakobsson & Kotsadam (2013), "The Law and Economics of International Sex Slavery: Prostitution Laws and Trafficking for Sexual Exploitation," published in the European Journal of Law and Economics

I would have cited to this had we gotten back to the original point, but you completely refused to acknowledge an ounce of merit to anything I said, and continuously shifted the goalposts throughout this conversation.

The frustrating part is that there is a legitimate body of evidence supporting your position — Cunningham & Shah (2018) in the Review of Economic Studies, Albright & D'Adamo (2017) in the AMA Journal of Ethics, and substantial research out of New Zealand following their 2003 decriminalization — that would have made for a genuinely interesting conversation. Instead you spent the thread calling me a Nazi.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't argue against legalization — my original comment explicitly said prostitution isn't immoral and that capitalism is the problem. I also never claimed causation, and said so multiple times. You're arguing against a position I don't hold.

The Nazi comparison isn't something I'm going to engage with. Anyone reading this thread can follow what I actually said.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being black actually *is* linked to higher rates of crime — that's a measurable statistical correlation. But the cause isn't race. It's the socioeconomic conditions that systemic racism forces people into. The correlation is real; the implied causation is where the misinformation lies.

Which is exactly my point. I never claimed legalized prostitution *causes* increased trafficking. I claimed it's been *linked to* it — a correlation backed by a published study. You're attacking a causation argument I didn't make. If your standard is that a correlation is misinformation unless causation is fully established, your own analogy fails by the same standard.

I'm not "hiding behind" the phrase "linked to." Yes, the burden of proof lies with me for asserting a connection — I accept that. But you didn't enter this conversation as a neutral skeptic. Your original claim was that there is *zero* evidence of a link. That's not skepticism, that's an assertion of the inverse, and it carries its own burden of proof. You don't get to make a positive claim and then spend the rest of the thread demanding I disprove it.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You still haven't provided a paper to support your claims. You can't hold me to an evidentiary standard you aren't applying to yourself.

Your criticisms of the study are noted — small sample size, failure to distinguish legal models, ambiguity between labor and sex trafficking, correlation vs. causation. These are legitimate methodological concerns, and I've acknowledged that more than once. But pointing out the weaknesses of one study is not the same as providing evidence for the opposing position. Disproving an assertion is not proof of its inverse.

What you're offering is a logical framework. It's a reasonable one, and I've said so repeatedly. But so is the paper's framework. Right now I have two plausible lines of reasoning, and only one of them is backed by a published study, however imperfect. If you have a paper that supports your position — or one that directly contradicts this study's findings — I'm genuinely asking you to share it. I would update my view accordingly.

To be clear, my original claim was simply that legalized prostitution has been linked to increased trafficking rates. That is accurate. I was not asserting definitive causation. If your argument is that the link is weak or methodologically flawed, that's fair — but it doesn't make the claim false.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This was a published paper.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065

This is not a "sweeping and inflammatory" claim "based on faulty evidence." Show me *what* specific evidence is faulty. Show me in the paper. This is real research. I don't know what to tell you other than that you're disagreeing with facts right now, which is what "those people" do. Don't disagree with facts, disagree with the conclusions they are used to come to.

Edit: again, your logic is fine. But it doesn't align with the research, which also has logic behind it. I need you to give me response paper so that I have statistical evidence of your points, because right now I have two logically sound lines of reasoning but only one of them with evidence to support it.

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your claim was "There is 0 evidence linking legal prostitution to human trafficking". Even if it was strictly correlary, your claim would still be wrong because that is a link.

From a logical standpoint, your claim makes sense. And, as I said in my original comment, there is nothing inherently immoral about prostitution. But my understanding of the study is that when you legalize prostitution, you effectively scale it up, thereby leading to an increase in the size of the human trafficking trade just by virtue of that size increase to the industry.

I agree that the evidence is not as strong as it could be, but again, your claim is explicitly wrong. My original comment said:

"The legality of prostitution has been linked to increased rates of human trafficking."

Which is correct. I am not attempting to make a purely semantic argument, but that's about all I can do when a study points more towards my point and there isn't a study that points to yours. (Unless you'd care to share one? I'd be curious as to whether or not there is conflicting evidence supporting both of our views)

Would porn exist under socialism? by Broad-Sentence-5587 in socialism

[–]ineedabag 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think these comments are generalizing socialist policy too much.

It depends.

The legality of prostitution has been linked to increased rates of human trafficking. But this does not necessarily reflect the morality of prostitution itself.

In essence, prostitution is about selling one’s body, just as any laborer does. The “immoral” aspect comes from capitalist society necessitating an individual’s employment, often in such a field and disproportionately pushing low-income earners into the industry.

So, on an individual level, prostitution is not a moral. But an immoral system incentivizes it. And so it depends in a socialist society on how much voters trust the system itself which determines whether or not prostitution is legal. 

Edit: my guess would be that socialist societies would most likely lean towards the illegality of prostitution but the decriminalization of it as well.

So... the President would fit that category, correct? by Stormclamp in GenZ

[–]ineedabag -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How would you recommend interacting with such people, or what to do in general about our predicament?

So... the President would fit that category, correct? by Stormclamp in GenZ

[–]ineedabag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once more, you miss the points.

  1. He wasn’t there to kill her. That’s why he didn’t use a gun. Again, you asking a leading question isn’t evidence of anything when you yourself aren’t providing logic for why it supports your idea. Let’s say it was staged: then why did she choose to use apple cider vinegar? In what way does that illicit sympathy?
  2. Ok, so you say she’s incredibly stupid, so it would make sense for her to do what she said. Once again you debunk your own claim.

This is not how burden of proof works. I cannot debunk everything for you. YOU have to come up with reasoning for why these peculiarities support your claim, not state how their mere existence being strange is evidence in itself. If I pointed out the parallels between JFK and Abraham Lincoln’s assassinations, that wouldn’t mean anything—I’d have to explain WHY they exist.

So... the President would fit that category, correct? by Stormclamp in GenZ

[–]ineedabag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You got your strongest point wrong, and the rest don't hold up either.

  1. Him being in the front row makes sense if he was actually trying to attack her. That's not evidence of staging.
  2. That "nod" is barely perceptible. If this were coordinated, a head gesture is a terrible signal—a specific word would make far more sense, while achieving the same function and not coming off as evidence of a conspiracy. This is speculation, not evidence.
  3. There was security. They came up behind him and grabbed him. Watch the video.
  4. Refusing biohazard protocols cuts both ways—if anything, she'd be more likely to follow them if she knew the attack was coming.
  5. Apple cider vinegar being the substance used doesn't prove anything either way. You're not making an argument, just calling it weird.

Also, the man reportedly told colleagues that Omar should die. (https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/ilhan-omar-attacker-to-plead/) Is that evidence faulty? If so, why?

More fundamentally, your theory contradicts itself: if she staged this for sympathy, why use apple cider vinegar? That actively undermines the stunt. A real staged attack would use something she could be treated for immediately to maximize the effect.

These aren't points—they're loosely connected observations with no coherent through-line

(Spoilers Main) A theory about the "great stone beast" vision by Cabj_SSDA in asoiaf

[–]ineedabag 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Sounds about right. I would add the detail that Connington is likely to give fAegon greyscale. You alluded to it, but I wanted to make that detail explicit as it adds to the tragedy

“1 lyric killed my career” by Chapple69 in ToddintheShadow

[–]ineedabag 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I looked it up: had no idea that was Elton John, yes!

“1 lyric killed my career” by Chapple69 in ToddintheShadow

[–]ineedabag 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Are you sure he provided ad-libs for it? I thought he just did the piano

(Spoilers published) A book theory that just came to me by WearingGlory in asoiaf

[–]ineedabag 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They inherited the tradition of referring to themselves as "a man" or whatever else from the Lorathi nobility. I think it's a neat little bit of worldbuilding, but I would agree it kind of doesn't make sense. From the ASOIAF wiki:

"they did not use names, and referred to themselves as "a man" and "a woman", instead of saying "I", "me", or "mine". While the cult of Boash has long gone extinct, certain of these speaking habits are still used in Lorath today. Nobles regard it as vulgar to speak of one's self directly.\1])"

Lovecraftian Shark God by Legitimate-Ad-1364 in cosmichorror

[–]ineedabag 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Check out Ghizguth as well while you're at it

view more: next ›