• unoriginalsin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Afaraf
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Sure, but all you have is assumptions

    Isn’t that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, because you presented the study as supposed proof of more human trafficking.

      • unoriginalsin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        Afaraf
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        First, I didn’t present anything.

        Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.

        You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did. We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.